[Senate Report 110-77]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 185
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-77

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


 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 1547]

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 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





                  June 5, 2007.--Ordered to be printed





        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008






                                                       Calendar No. 185
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-77

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



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 1547]

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 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





                  June 5, 2007.--Ordered to be printed


                                _______


                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 35-737                     WASHINGTON : 2007






                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                     (110th Congress, 1st 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                 JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              JOHN CORNYN, Texas
JIM WEBB, Virginia                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
                   Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
              Michael V. Kostiw, Republican Staff Director



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Purpose of the Bill..............................................     1
Committee overview and recommendations...........................     2
    Explanation of funding summary...............................    11
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.................    21
Title I--Procurement.............................................    21
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    21
        Explanation of tables....................................    21
        Rapid Acquisition Fund (sec. 105)........................    21
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................    23
        Multiyear procurement authority for M1A2 Abrams System 
          Enhancement Package upgrades (sec. 111)................    52
        Multiyear procurement authority for M2A3/M3A3 Bradley 
          fighting vehicle upgrades (sec. 112)...................    52
        Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 113).....................    52
        Consolidation of Joint Network Node program and 
          Warfighter Information Network--Tactical program into a 
          single Army tactical network program (sec. 114)........    53
    Budget Items--Army...........................................    55
        Armed reconnaissance helicopter..........................    55
        CH-47 Chinook helicopter.................................    56
        Enhanced electronic digital engine control unit..........    56
        Aircraft survivability equipment infrared countermeasures    57
        Aircrew integrated systems...............................    57
        Patriot Advanced Capability-3............................    58
        Stryker Vehicle..........................................    58
        Improved recovery vehicle................................    59
        System enhancement program: SEP M1A2.....................    59
        M240 medium machine gun..................................    59
        Arsenal support program initiative.......................    59
        Grenades.................................................    60
        Ammunition outloading test bed...........................    60
        Ammunition plant solvent recovery system.................    60
        Acid containment and storage system......................    60
        Single channel ground and airborne radio system family...    60
        Information systems......................................    62
        Installation information infrastructure modernization 
          program................................................    62
        Explosive ordnance disposal equipment....................    62
        Land warrior.............................................    62
        Recon and navigation system..............................    64
        Army combat training centers.............................    64
        Urban training technologies..............................    64
        Laser collective combat training system..................    65
        Call for fire trainer....................................    65
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................    65
        Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class 
          submarine program (sec. 131)...........................    94
    Budget Items--Navy...........................................    94
        H-46 modifications.......................................    94
        H-53 modifications.......................................    94
        P-3 modifications........................................    94
        Weapons industrial facilities............................    95
        Ship Self Defense System for carrier replacement program.    95
        Virginia class submarine advance procurement.............    95
        DDG-51 program completion costs..........................    96
        Littoral combat ship.....................................    97
        Outfitting and post-delivery.............................   100
        LCS modules..............................................   100
        SPQ-9B radar.............................................   100
        Sonobuoys................................................   100
        Weapons range support equipment..........................   101
        NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system.....................   101
        Submarine training device modifications..................   101
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................   101
        Limitation on retirement of C-130E/H tactical airlift 
          aircraft (sec. 141)....................................   117
        Limitation on retirement of KC-135E aerial refueling 
          aircraft (sec. 142)....................................   117
    Budget Items--Air Force......................................   117
        B-2 bomber...............................................   117
        B-52 bomber aircraft.....................................   118
        Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system...........   118
        C-135 global air traffic management......................   118
        Advanced targeting pod...................................   119
        Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile....................   119
        Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite..............   119
        Joint threat emitter.....................................   120
        Space-Based Infrared Satellite system mission control 
          station backup.........................................   120
        Self-deploying infrared streamer.........................   120
    Budget Items--Defense-wide...................................   129
        Defense Information Systems Network enhancement..........   129
        CV-22 procurement........................................   129
        M291 skin decontamination kit............................   129
        Collectively protected deployable medical system.........   129
        Automatic chemical agent detector and alarm..............   129
        Improved chemical agent monitor..........................   130
        Joint biological point detection system..................   130
    Items of Special Interest....................................   130
        C-5 Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program..........   130
        DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization 
          program................................................   131
        MQ-1C Predator/Warrior...................................   132
        Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle reporting 
          requirement............................................   133
        Navy harbor tugs.........................................   133
        LPD-17 amphibious transport dock.........................   134
        Procurement requests related to increasing the size of 
          the Army and the Marine Corps..........................   134
        Shipboard personal locator beacon........................   135
        Strike fighter gap.......................................   135
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............   137
    Explanation of tables........................................   137
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   139
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   139
        Advanced Sensor Applications Program (sec. 211)..........   139
        Active protection systems (sec. 212).....................   139
        Obligation and expenditure of funds for competitive 
          procurement of propulsion system for the Joint Strike 
          Fighter (sec. 213).....................................   139
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................   140
        Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, 
          construction, and deployment of missile defenses in 
          Europe (sec. 231)......................................   140
        Limitation on availability of funds for deployment of 
          missile defense interceptors in Alaska (sec. 232)......   143
        Budget and acquisition requirements for Missile Defense 
          Agency activities (sec. 233)...........................   143
        Participation of Director, Operational Test and 
          Evaluation, in missile defense test and evaluation 
          activities (sec. 234)..................................   144
        Extension of Comptroller General assessments of ballistic 
          missile defense programs (sec. 235)....................   144
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   145
        Modification of notice and wait requirement for 
          obligation of funds for the foreign comparative test 
          program (sec. 251).....................................   145
        Modification of cost sharing requirement for Technology 
          Transition Initiative (sec. 252).......................   145
        Strategic plan for the Manufacturing Technology Program 
          (sec. 253).............................................   145
    Modification of authorities on coordination of Defense 
      Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research with 
      similar Federal programs (sec. 254)........................   146
        Enhancement of defense nanotechnology research and 
          development program (sec. 255).........................   146
    Budget Items.................................................   148
        Army.....................................................   148
            Army basic research..................................   164
            University research initiatives......................   164
            Army university research centers.....................   164
            Army materials research..............................   165
            Electronics and space research.......................   165
            Materials for insensitive munitions..................   166
            Sniper detection systems.............................   166
            Army vehicle research................................   166
            Recoil mitigation technologies.......................   167
            Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization................   167
            Army electronics research............................   167
            Standoff explosives detection technologies...........   168
            Force protection materials research..................   168
            Unmanned air systems.................................   168
            Army medical research................................   168
            Guided airdrop systems...............................   169
            Army medical technologies............................   169
            Dengue infection research............................   170
            Lightweight cannon recoil technologies...............   170
            Combat vehicle armor technologies....................   170
            Unmanned ground vehicle initiative...................   171
            Combat vehicle energy and power technologies.........   171
            Combat vehicle reliability and readiness technologies   171
            Leadership training simulators.......................   172
            Fuel cells for military applications.................   172
            Counter rocket, artillery, and mortar radar 
              technologies.......................................   172
            Language translation technologies....................   172
            Radiation hardening initiative.......................   173
            Active protection systems development and integration   173
            Undersea chemical weapons assessment program.........   174
            Warfighter information network--tactical.............   174
            Future medical shelter systems.......................   174
            Nickel boron metal coating technology for crew served 
              weapons............................................   175
            Integrated broadcast service.........................   175
            Family of heavy tactical vehicles....................   175
            Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles......................   176
            Future combat systems................................   176
            Combat identification................................   177
            High energy laser systems test facility..............   178
            HIMARS modular launcher communications system........   178
            Combat vehicle improvement programs..................   178
            Helicopter autonomous landing system.................   179
            Joint tactical ground station........................   180
        Navy.....................................................   180
            Navy science and technology educational outreach.....   195
            Infrared materials research..........................   195
            Undersea perimeter security technologies.............   195
            Navy energy and power technologies...................   195
            Composites research for special operations craft.....   196
            Situational awareness processing technologies........   196
            Navy electronics research............................   196
            Undersea sensor arrays...............................   196
            Tactical unmanned air vehicles.......................   196
            Free electron laser research.........................   197
            Force protection advanced technology.................   197
            Ground sensor networks...............................   198
            Navy sensor arrays...................................   199
            Shipboard system component development...............   199
            Surface vessel torpedo tubes.........................   200
            Advanced submarine system development................   200
            Next generation shipboard monitoring.................   201
            Expeditionary fighting vehicle.......................   201
            Joint light tactical vehicle.........................   202
            Optical interconnect.................................   202
            Tactical aircraft direct infrared countermeasures 
              development........................................   203
            Conventional Trident modification....................   203
            Permanent magnet motor...............................   203
            Wireless encryption technology.......................   204
            Improved towed array handler.........................   204
            Combat information center conversion.................   204
            Submarine electronic chart updates...................   205
            Next generation Phalanx..............................   205
            NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system.................   205
            Navy medical research................................   206
            Joint Strike Fighter research and development........   206
            Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead.....   206
            Linear accelerator...................................   207
            Structural life tracking.............................   207
            Ultrasonic consolidation technology..................   207
            Anti-sniper infrared targeting system................   207
            Satellite communications (space).....................   207
            Internet protocol version 6..........................   208
            Navy manufacturing research..........................   208
            National Shipbuilding Research Program--Advanced 
              Shipbuilding Enterprise............................   208
        Air Force................................................   208
            Air Force basic research.............................   224
            Carbon fiber research................................   224
            Optical components for air vehicles..................   224
            Scramjet technologies................................   224
            Network centric collaboration technologies...........   225
            Air Force seismic research for nuclear test 
              monitoring.........................................   225
            Acoustic shields for rocket payloads.................   225
            Cyber attack mitigation..............................   225
            Aerospace metals research............................   225
            Deployable fuel cell processors......................   226
            Aerospace titanium research..........................   226
            Thin film amorphous solar arrays.....................   226
            High integrity global positioning system.............   226
            Optical interconnects for battlefield communications.   227
            Space control technology.............................   227
            Space radar technology study.........................   227
            Common aero vehicle..................................   228
            Operationally responsive space.......................   228
            Combat search and rescue replacement vehicle.........   228
            Rapid attack identification detection and reporting 
              system.............................................   229
            Space control test capability........................   229
            Space situation awareness systems....................   229
            Space fence..........................................   229
            Joint space intelligent decision support.............   230
            Space-Based Infrared Satellite System High GEO.......   230
            Alternate infrared satellite system..................   230
            Ballistic missile range safety technology............   231
            MQ-9 Reaper..........................................   231
            Predator trainer upgrade.............................   232
            Joint surveillance target attack radar system 
              research and development...........................   232
            Weather service research and development.............   233
            Classified program...................................   233
            Global Positioning System user equipment.............   233
            MQ-1 Predator signals intelligence direction finding.   233
            Network-centric collaborative targeting..............   234
            National Security Space Office.......................   234
            Space situational awareness operations...............   235
            C-130 deicing system.................................   235
            KC-135 tanker replacement............................   235
            Combat casualty management system....................   235
            Laser processing of materials........................   236
        Defense-wide.............................................   236
            Semiconductor focus center research program..........   254
            Superstructural particle evaluation..................   254
            Medical free electron laser..........................   254
            Chemical and biological infrared detector............   255
            Chemical and biological protective textile fabric....   255
            Verification and validation of chemical agent 
              persistence models.................................   255
            Blast mitigation and protection......................   255
            Comprehensive national incident management system....   256
            Advanced technologies for special operations.........   256
            Directly printed electronic components...............   257
            Semi-conducting metal oxide sensors..................   257
            Improved chemical, biological, and radiological 
              filters............................................   257
            Raman chemical identification system.................   257
            Biometrics technologies..............................   257
            Manufacturing technologies...........................   258
            Printed circuit board technologies...................   258
            Energy efficiency technologies.......................   258
            Unmanned air vehicle batteries.......................   259
            Water remediation research...........................   259
            High performance computing modeling and simulation...   259
            Small craft common operating picture technology......   260
            Active protection systems comparative testing........   260
            Joint warfare experimentation........................   260
            Range readiness analyses.............................   260
            Terminal High Altitude Area Defense..................   261
            Arrow missile defense program........................   262
            Short-range ballistic missile defense................   262
            Ground-based midcourse defense in Europe.............   262
            Airborne Laser.......................................   263
            Real-time non-specific viral agent detector..........   263
            Ballistic missile defense reductions.................   264
            Aegis ballistic missile defense......................   264
            Space tracking and surveillance system...............   264
            Space test-bed.......................................   265
            Surface-to-air missile threat simulators.............   265
            Prompt global strike.................................   265
            Information systems security program technology 
              development........................................   266
            Software assurance education and research............   267
            Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing research......   267
            Manufacturing processes to support surge requirements   268
    Items of Special Interest....................................   268
        Adaptive optics..........................................   268
        Advanced cruise missile threats..........................   268
        Analyses of the Air Force test and evaluation proposals..   269
        Director of Operational Test and Evaluation workforce 
          study..................................................   270
        Ground/air task-oriented radar...........................   270
        National Security Agency acquisition management..........   271
        Open Architecture........................................   272
Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................   275
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   275
        Explanation of tables....................................   275
    Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions.........................   307
        Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
          certain costs in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield 
          Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington (sec. 311)......   307
        Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
          certain costs in connection with the Arctic Surplus 
          Superfund Site, Fairbanks, Alaska (sec. 312)...........   307
        Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated 
          penalties in connection with Jackson Park Housing 
          Complex, Washington (sec. 313).........................   307
    Subtitle C--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   307
        Availability of funds in Defense Information Systems 
          Agency Working Capital Fund for technology upgrades to 
          Defense Information Systems Network (sec. 321).........   307
        Extension of temporary authority for contract performance 
          of security guard functions (sec. 322).................   307
        Report on incremental cost of early 2007 enhanced 
          deployment (sec. 323)..................................   308
        Individual body armor (sec. 324).........................   308
    Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   308
        Extension of authority for Army industrial facilities to 
          engage in cooperative activities with non-Army entities 
          (sec. 341).............................................   308
        Two-year extension of Arsenal Support Demonstration 
          Program (sec. 342).....................................   309
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   309
        Enhancement of corrosion control and prevention functions 
          within Department of Defense (sec. 351)................   309
        Reimbursement for National Guard support provided to 
          Federal agencies (sec. 352)............................   310
        Reauthorization of Aviation Insurance Program (sec. 353).   310
        Property accountability and disposition of unlawfully 
          obtained property of the Armed Forces (sec. 354).......   310
        Authority to impose reasonable conditions on the payment 
          of full replacement value for claims related to 
          personal property transported at Government expense 
          (sec. 355).............................................   311
        Authority for individuals to retain combat uniforms 
          issued in connection with contingency operations (sec. 
          356)...................................................   311
        Modification of requirements on Comptroller General 
          report on readiness of Army and Marine Corps ground 
          forces (sec. 357)......................................   311
    Budget Items--Army...........................................   312
        Extended cold weather clothing system....................   312
        Manufacturing engineering training outreach program......   312
        Live fire ranges modernization and improvements..........   312
    Budget Items--Navy...........................................   312
        Naval aircraft depot maintenance.........................   312
        Mk45 mod 5" gun depot overhaul................   313
        Environmental impact assessment, outlying landing field..   313
        Unobligated balances.....................................   313
        Excess cash balances.....................................   314
    Budget Items--Marine Corps...................................   314
        Extended cold weather clothing system....................   314
        Family of combat equipment support and services..........   314
        Rapid deployable shelters................................   315
        Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USMC...........   315
    Budget Items--Air Force......................................   315
        National Security Space Institute........................   315
        Mobile shear.............................................   315
        Transfer of funds from Air Force centralized asset 
          management program to Air Guard and Air Force Reserve..   315
    Budget Items--Defense-wide...................................   316
        Language training shortfalls.............................   316
        Defense Security Cooperation Agency......................   317
        Defense readiness reporting system and management tools..   317
        Readiness and environmental protection initiative........   318
        Strategic communication and integration..................   318
    Budget Items--Army Reserve...................................   319
        Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USAR...........   319
    Budget Items--Army National Guard............................   319
        Extended cold weather clothing system....................   319
        National Guard interoperability upgrades.................   319
        Integrated disaster and rapid data management systems....   319
        Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USARNG.........   319
        Operator driving simulator...............................   319
    Budget Items--Air National Guard.............................   320
        Controlled humidity protection...........................   320
        Weapons skills trainer...................................   320
    Budget Items--Transfer Accounts..............................   320
        Funding for formerly used defense sites..................   320
    Budget Items--Miscellaneous Appropriations...................   320
        Building partnership capacity for humanitarian assistance   320
    Items of Special Interest....................................   321
        Comptroller General report on depot work.................   321
        Department of Defense foreign language training..........   321
        Fee-for-service air refueling services...................   322
        Next generation enterprise network.......................   322
        Report on Department of Defense personnel access to the 
          internet...............................................   323
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................   325
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   325
        End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............   325
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   326
        End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............   326
        End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 
          the reserves (sec. 412)................................   326
        End strengths for military technicians (dual status) 
          (sec. 413).............................................   327
        Fiscal year 2008 limitation on number of non-dual status 
          technicians (sec. 414).................................   327
        Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
          active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   327
    Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations.................   327
        Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   327
Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   335
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   335
        Increase in authorized strengths for Army officers on 
          active duty in the grade of major to meet force 
          structure requirements (sec. 501)......................   335
        Increase in authorized strengths for Navy officers on 
          active duty in grades of lieutenant commander, 
          commander, and captain to meet force structure 
          requirements (sec. 502)................................   335
        Expansion of exclusion of military permanent professors 
          from strength limitations for officers below general 
          and flag grades (sec. 503).............................   335
        Mandatory retirement age for active-duty general and flag 
          officers continued on active duty (sec. 504)...........   335
        Authority for reduced mandatory service obligation for 
          initial appointments of officers in critically short 
          health professional specialties (sec. 505).............   336
        Increase in authorized number of permanent professors at 
          the United States Military Academy (sec. 506)..........   336
        Expansion of authority for reenlistment of officers in 
          their former enlisted grade (sec. 507).................   336
        Enhanced authority for reserve general and flag officers 
          to serve on active duty (sec. 508).....................   336
        Promotion of career military professors of the Navy (sec. 
          509)...................................................   337
    Subtitle B--Enlisted Personnel Policy........................   337
        Increase in authorized daily average of number of members 
          in pay grade E-9 (sec. 521)............................   337
    Subtitle C--Reserve Component Management.....................   337
        Revised designation, structure, and functions of the 
          Reserve Forces Policy Board (sec. 531).................   337
        Charter for the National Guard Bureau (sec. 532).........   337
        Appointment, grade, duties, and retirement of the Chief 
          of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 533)................   338
        Mandatory separation for years of service of Reserve 
          officers in the grade of lieutenant general or vice 
          admiral (sec. 534).....................................   338
        Increase in period of temporary Federal recognition as 
          officers of the National Guard from six to twelve 
          months (sec. 535)......................................   339
    Subtitle D--Education and Training...........................   339
        Grade and service credit of commissioned officers in 
          uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 551)........   339
        Expansion of number of academies supportable in any State 
          under STARBASE program (sec. 552)......................   339
        Repeal of post-2007-2008 academic year prohibition on 
          phased increase in cadet strength limit at the United 
          States Military Academy (sec. 553).....................   340
        Treatment of Southold, Mattituck, and Greenport High 
          Schools, Southold, New York, as single institutions for 
          purposes of maintaining a Junior Reserve Officers' 
          Training Corps unit (sec. 554).........................   340
    Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............   340
        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)...................................   340
        Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 
          562)...................................................   340
        Inclusion of dependents of non-Department of Defense 
          employees employed on Federal property in plan relating 
          to force structure changes, relocation of military 
          units, or base closures and realignments (sec. 563)....   341
        Authority for payment of private boarding school tuition 
          for military dependents in overseas areas not served by 
          Department of Defense dependents' schools (sec. 564)...   341
    Subtitle F--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters....   341
        Authority of judges of the United States Court of Appeals 
          for the Armed Forces to administer oaths (sec. 571)....   341
        Military legal assistance for Department of Defense 
          civilian employees in areas without access to non-
          military legal assistance (sec. 572)...................   341
        Modification of authorities on senior members of the 
          Judge Advocate Generals' corps (sec. 573)..............   342
    Subtitle G--Military Family Readiness........................   342
        Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council 
          (sec. 581).............................................   342
        Department of Defense policy and plans for military 
          family readiness (sec. 582)............................   342
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   343
        Enhancement of carryover of accumulated leave for members 
          of the Armed Forces (sec. 591).........................   343
        Uniform policy on performances by military bands (sec. 
          592)...................................................   344
        Waiver of time limitations on award of medals of honor to 
          certain members of the Army (sec. 593).................   344
    Items of Special Interest....................................   344
        Army company-grade officer retention.....................   344
        Comptroller General study of implementation by the 
          military departments of sexual assault policies and 
          mental health issues related to sexual assault.........   345
        Counter-remote controlled improvised explosive device 
          systems................................................   345
        Explosive ordnance disposal personnel....................   345
        Feasibility of expanding access to mental health 
          professionals in military units........................   346
        Implementation of clarifying changes to jurisdiction 
          under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.............   346
        Report on programs assessing feasibility of hotlines and 
          video surveillance in recruiting stations..............   347
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   349
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   349
        Fiscal year 2008 increase in military basic pay (sec. 
          601)...................................................   349
        Allowance for participation of Reserves in electronic 
          screening (sec. 602)...................................   349
        Midmonth payment of basic pay for contributions of 
          members participating in Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 603)   349
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   349
        Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities 
          for reserve forces (sec. 611)..........................   349
        Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities 
          for health care professionals (sec. 612)...............   350
        Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 
          nuclear officers (sec. 613)............................   350
        Extension of authorities relating to payment of other 
          bonuses and special pays (sec. 614)....................   350
        Increase in incentive special pay and multiyear retention 
          bonus for medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 
          615)...................................................   350
        Increase in dental officer additional special pay (sec. 
          616)...................................................   350
        Enhancement of hardship duty pay (sec. 617)..............   351
        Inclusion of service as off-cycle crewmember of multi-
          crewed ship in sea duty for career sea pay (sec. 618)..   351
        Modification of reenlistment bonus for members of the 
          Selected Reserve (sec. 619)............................   351
        Increase in years of commissioned service covered by 
          agreements for nuclear-qualified officers extending 
          periods of active duty (sec. 620)......................   351
        Authority to waive 25-year active duty limit for 
          retention bonus for critical military skills with 
          respect to certain members (sec. 621)..................   351
        Codification and improvement of authority to pay bonus to 
          encourage members of the Army to refer other persons 
          for enlistment in the Army (sec. 622)..................   351
        Authority to pay bonus to encourage Department of Defense 
          personnel to refer other persons for appointment as 
          officers to serve in health professions (sec. 623).....   352
        Accession bonus for participants in Armed Forces Health 
          Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 
          program (sec. 624).....................................   352
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   352
        Payment of expenses of travel to the United States for 
          obstetrical purposes of dependents located in very 
          remote locations outside the United States (sec. 641)..   352
        Payment of moving expenses for Junior Reserve Officers' 
          Training Corps instructors in hard-to-fill positions 
          (sec. 642).............................................   352
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits................   353
        Modification of scheme for payment of death gratuity 
          payable with respect to members of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 651).............................................   353
        Annuities for guardians or caretakers of dependent 
          children under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 652)........   353
        Expansion of combat-related special compensation 
          eligibility for chapter 61 military retirees (sec. 653)   354
        Clarification of application of retired pay multiplier 
          percentage to members of the uniformed services with 
          over 30 years of service (sec. 654)....................   354
        Commencement of receipt of non-regular service retired 
          pay by members of the Ready Reserve on active Federal 
          status or active duty for significant periods (sec. 
          655)...................................................   354
    Subtitle E--Education Benefits...............................   354
        Tuition assistance for off-duty training or education 
          (sec. 671).............................................   354
        Expansion of Selected Reserve education loan repayment 
          program (sec. 672).....................................   354
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   355
        Enhancement of authorities on income replacement payments 
          for Reserves experiencing extended and frequent 
          mobilization for active-duty service (sec. 681)........   355
        Overseas naturalization of military family members (sec. 
          682)...................................................   355
    Items of Special Interest....................................   355
        Implementation of limitations on terms of consumer credit 
          extended to service members and dependents.............   355
        Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity 
          Compensation recoupment procedures.....................   356
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................   359
        Inclusion of TRICARE retail pharmacy program in Federal 
          procurement of pharmaceuticals (sec. 701)..............   359
        Surveys on continued viability of TRICARE Standard and 
          TRICARE Extra (sec. 702)...............................   359
    Items of Special Interest....................................   360
        Comptroller General study of post-deployment health 
          reassessment...........................................   360
        Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 
          Joint Executive Council Strategic Plan and Joint 
          Incentive Fund.........................................   360
        Mental Health Advisory Team IV findings..................   361
        Reduction in Navy medical personnel and medical 
          efficiency wedge.......................................   362
        TRICARE program cost sharing increases...................   363
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and 
  Related Matters................................................   365
    Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
      Programs...................................................   365
        Substantial savings under multiyear contracts (sec. 801).   365
        Changes to Milestone B certifications (sec. 802).........   365
        Comptroller General report on Department of Defense 
          organization and structure for major defense 
          acquisition programs (sec. 803)........................   366
        Investment strategy for major defense acquisition 
          programs (sec. 804)....................................   366
        Report on implementation of recommendations on total 
          ownership cost for major weapon systems (sec. 805).....   367
    Subtitle B--Amendments Relating to General Contracting 
      Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations...................   367
        Enhanced competition requirements for task and delivery 
          order contracts (sec. 821).............................   367
        Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of 
          commercial items (sec. 822)............................   368
        Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of 
          commercial services (sec. 823).........................   368
        Modification of competition requirements for purchases 
          from Federal Prison Industries (sec. 824)..............   369
        Five-year extension of authority to carry out certain 
          prototype projects (sec. 825)..........................   369
        Multiyear procurement authority for electricity from 
          renewable energy sources (sec. 826)....................   369
    Subtitle C--Acquisition Policy and Management................   370
        Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 841)..........   370
        Management structure for the procurement of contract 
          services (sec. 842)....................................   370
        Specification of amounts requested for procurement of 
          contract services (sec. 843)...........................   370
        Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 
          Fund (sec. 844)........................................   370
        Inventories and reviews of contracts for services based 
          on cost or time of performance (sec. 845)..............   371
        Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the 
          Department of Defense by certain non-defense agencies 
          (sec. 846).............................................   372
    Subtitle D--Department of Defense Contractor Matters.........   372
        Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for 
          disclosure of certain information (sec. 861)...........   372
        Requirements for defense contractors relating to certain 
          former Department of Defense officials (sec. 862)......   372
        Report on contractor ethics programs of major defense 
          contractors (sec. 863).................................   373
        Report on Department of Defense contracting with 
          contractors or subcontractors employing members of the 
          Selected Reserve (sec. 864)............................   373
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   373
        Contractors performing private security functions in 
          areas of combat operations (sec. 871)..................   373
        Enhanced authority to acquire products and services 
          produced in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 872)............   374
        Defense Science Board review of Department of Defense 
          policies and procedures for the acquisition of 
          information technology (sec. 873)......................   374
        Enhancement and extension of acquisition authority for 
          the unified combatant command for joint warfighting 
          experimentation (sec. 874).............................   375
        Repeal of requirement for identification of essential 
          military items and military system essential item 
          breakout list (sec. 875)...............................   375
    Items of Special Interest....................................   375
        Exceptional circumstance waivers under the Truth in 
          Negotiations Act.......................................   375
        Guidance on award and incentive fees.....................   376
        Program manager empowerment and accountability...........   376
        Protection of strategic materials critical to national 
          security...............................................   377
        Regulations on excessive pass-through charges............   378
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   379
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   379
        Repeal of limitation on major Department of Defense 
          headquarters activities personnel (sec. 901)...........   379
        Chief management officers of the Department of Defense 
          (sec. 902).............................................   379
        Modification of background requirement of individuals 
          appointed as Under Secretary of Defense for 
          Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 903)......   380
        Department of Defense Board of Actuaries (sec. 904)......   380
        Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for 
          acquisition matters; principal military deputies (sec. 
          905)...................................................   380
        Flexible authority for number of Army Deputy Chiefs of 
          Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff (sec. 906).........   381
        Sense of Congress on term of office of the Director of 
          Operational Test and Evaluation (sec. 907).............   381
    Subtitle B--Space Matters....................................   381
        Space posture review (sec. 921)..........................   381
        Additional report on oversight of acquisition for defense 
          space programs (sec. 922)..............................   381
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   382
        Department of Defense consideration of effect of climate 
          change on Department facilities, capabilities, and 
          missions (sec. 931)....................................   382
        Board of Regents for the Uniformed Services University of 
          the Health Sciences (sec. 932).........................   382
        United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 933).......   382
        Western Hemisphere Center for Excellence in Human Rights 
          (sec. 934).............................................   382
        Inclusion of commanders of Western Hemisphere combatant 
          commands in Board of Visitors of Western Hemisphere 
          Institute for Security Cooperation (sec. 935)..........   383
        Comptroller General assessment of proposed reorganization 
          of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
          Policy (sec. 936)......................................   383
Title X--General Provisions......................................   387
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   387
        General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   387
        Authorization of additional emergency supplemental 
          appropriations for fiscal year 2007 (sec. 1002)........   387
        Modification of fiscal year 2007 general transfer 
          authority (sec. 1003)..................................   387
        United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets 
          in fiscal year 2008 (sec. 1004)........................   387
        Financial management transformation initiative for the 
          Defense Agencies (sec. 1005)...........................   388
        Repeal of requirement for two-year budget cycle for the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1006)......................   388
        Extension of period for transfer of funds to Foreign 
          Currency Fluctuations, Defense account (sec. 1007).....   388
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   389
        Expansion of Department of Defense authority to provide 
          support for counter-drug activities to certain 
          additional foreign governments (sec. 1011).............   389
    Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   389
        Enhancement of authority to pay rewards for assistance in 
          combating terrorism (sec. 1021)........................   389
        Repeal of modification of authorities relating to the use 
          of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies (sec. 
          1022)..................................................   390
        Procedures for Combatant Status Review Tribunals; 
          modification of military commission authorities (sec. 
          1023)..................................................   390
        Gift acceptance authority (sec. 1024)....................   391
        Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for 
          management of cultural resources (sec. 1025)...........   391
        Minimum annual purchase amounts for airlift from carriers 
          participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 
          1026)..................................................   391
        Provision of Air Force support and services to foreign 
          military and state aircraft (sec. 1027)................   391
        Participation in Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership 
          (sec. 1028)............................................   392
        Responsibility of the Air Force for fixed-wing support of 
          Army intra-theater logistics (sec. 1029)...............   393
        Prohibition on sale of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft 
          (sec. 1030)............................................   394
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   394
        Renewal of submittal of plans for prompt global strike 
          capability (sec. 1041).................................   394
        Report on threats to the United States from ungoverned 
          areas (sec. 1042)......................................   395
        Study on national security interagency system (sec. 1043)   395
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   395
        Revised nuclear posture review (sec. 1061)...............   395
        Termination of Commission on the Implementation of the 
          New Strategic Posture of the United States (sec. 1062).   396
        Communications with the Committees on Armed Services of 
          the Senate and the House of Representatives (sec. 1063)   396
        Repeal of standards for disqualification from issuance of 
          security clearances by the Department of Defense (sec. 
          1064)..................................................   396
        Advisory panel on Department of Defense capabilities for 
          support of civil authorities after certain incidents 
          (sec. 1065)............................................   397
        Sense of Congress on the Western Hemisphere Institute for 
          Security Cooperation (sec. 1066).......................   397
        Technical amendments to title 10, United States Code, 
          arising from enactment of the Intelligence Reform and 
          Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (sec. 1067)...........   397
        Establishment of National Foreign Language Coordination 
          Council (sec. 1068)....................................   398
        Qualifications for public aircraft status of aircraft 
          under contract with the Armed Forces (sec. 1069).......   398
    Items of Special Interest....................................   399
        Certification of no pecuniary interest...................   399
        Intelligence community operations........................   399
        Language and cultural awareness initiatives review.......   400
        Nuclear cruise missiles..................................   401
        Reporting and remediation of Anti-Deficiency Act 
          violations.............................................   401
        Ship disposal............................................   401
        Transparency of earmarks for additional funding..........   402
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters.............................   405
        Compensation for Federal wage system employees for 
          certain travel hours (sec. 1101).......................   405
        Retirement service credit for service as cadet or 
          midshipman at a military service academy (sec. 1102)...   405
        Continuation of life insurance coverage for Federal 
          employees called to active duty (sec. 1103)............   405
        Department of Defense National Security Personnel System 
          (sec. 1104)............................................   405
        Authority to waive limitation on premium pay for Federal 
          civilian employees working overseas under areas of 
          United States Central Command (sec. 1105)..............   405
        Authority for inclusion of certain Office of Defense 
          Research and Engineering positions in experimental 
          personnel program for scientific and technical 
          personnel (sec. 1106)..................................   406
    Items of Special Interest....................................   406
        Increase in authorized number of employees in the Defense 
          Intelligence Senior Executive Service..................   406
        Recruitment, hiring, and retention of Department of 
          Defense civilian medical personnel and faculty and 
          staff of the Uniformed Services University of the 
          Health Sciences........................................   407
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations...................   409
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   409
        Authority to equip and train foreign personnel to assist 
          in accounting for missing United States personnel (sec. 
          1201)..................................................   409
        Extension and enhancement of authority for security and 
          stabilization assistance (sec. 1202)...................   409
        Commanders' Emergency Response Program (sec. 1203).......   410
        Government Accountability Office report on Global Peace 
          Operations Initiative (sec. 1204)......................   411
    Subtitle B--Other Authorities and Limitations................   412
        Cooperative opportunities documents under cooperative 
          research and development agreements with NATO 
          organizations and other allied and friendly foreign 
          countries (sec. 1211)..................................   412
        Extension and expansion of temporary authority to use 
          acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend 
          military equipment for personnel protection and 
          survivability (sec. 1212)..............................   413
        Acceptance of funds from the Government of Palau for 
          costs of military Civic Action Teams (sec. 1213).......   413
        Extension of participation of the Department of Defense 
          in multinational military centers of excellence (sec. 
          1214)..................................................   414
        Limitation on assistance to the Government of Thailand 
          (sec. 1215)............................................   414
        Presidential report on policy objectives and United 
          States strategy regarding Iran (sec. 1216).............   414
        Limitation on availability of certain funds pending 
          implementation of requirements regarding North Korea 
          (sec. 1217)............................................   415
    Subtitle C--Reports..........................................   415
        Reports on United States policy and military operations 
          in Afghanistan (sec. 1231).............................   415
        Strategy for enhancing security in Afghanistan by 
          eliminating safe havens for violent extremists in 
          Pakistan (sec. 1232)...................................   416
        One-year extension of update on report on claims relating 
          to the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 1233)..   416
        Items of Special Interest................................   417
        Iraqi refugee crisis.....................................   417
        Joint Forces Command support to NATO International 
          Security Assistance Force..............................   417
        United States Africa Command.............................   418
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the 
  Former Soviet Union............................................   419
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 
          and funds (sec. 1301)..................................   419
        Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   419
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in 
          states outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303).....   420
        Modification of authority to use Cooperative Threat 
          Reduction funds outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 
          1304)..................................................   420
        Repeal of restrictions on assistance to states of the 
          former Soviet Union for cooperative threat reduction 
          (sec. 1305)............................................   421
        National Academy of Sciences study of prevention of 
          proliferation of biological weapons (sec. 1306)........   421
Title XIV--Other Authorizations..................................   423
        Summary and explanation of table.........................   423
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   426
        Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from 
          lower inflation (sec. 1407)............................   426
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   426
        Disposal of ferromanganese (sec. 1411)...................   426
        Disposal of chrome metal (sec. 1412).....................   426
        Modification of receipt objectives for previously 
          authorized disposals from the national defense 
          stockpile (sec. 1413)..................................   426
    Subtitle C--Civil Programs...................................   427
        Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421).................   427
    Subtitle D--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................   427
        Modification of termination requirement for Chemical 
          Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commissions (sec. 
          1431)..................................................   427
        Repeal of certain qualifications requirement for director 
          of chemical demilitarization management organization 
          (sec. 1432)............................................   427
        Sense of Congress on completion of destruction of United 
          States chemical weapons stockpile (sec. 1433)..........   428
    Budget Items.................................................   429
        LHA(R) research and development..........................   429
        Defense health program research..........................   430
        Funding for chemical weapons demilitarization............   430
        Counterdrug advanced concept technology demonstration....   430
        Project Athena...........................................   431
        Department of Defense Inspector General..................   431
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   432
        National Defense Sealift Fund report.....................   432
Title XV--Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.   433
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional War-Related 
      Appropriations.............................................   433
        Overview.................................................   433
        Explanation of tables....................................   434
        Army procurement (sec. 1501).............................   439
        Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1502)............   453
        Air Force procurement (sec. 1503)........................   467
        Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1504)..........   476
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1505)..   481
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 1506)....................   488
        Military personnel (sec. 1507)...........................   503
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1508).......................   506
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
          wide (sec. 1509).......................................   506
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1510)   506
        Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1511)....................   506
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512).............   506
        Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1513)............................   506
        Defense Working Capital Funds (sec. 1514)................   507
        National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1515)................   507
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1516)....................   507
    Subtitle B--General Provisions Relating to Authorizations....   507
        Purpose (sec. 1521)......................................   507
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1522).......   507
        Special transfer authority (sec. 1523)...................   507
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   507
        Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes 
          relating to Iraq (sec. 1531)...........................   507
        Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support 
          provided to United States military operations (sec. 
          1532)..................................................   507
        Logistical support for coalition forces supporting 
          operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1533).........   508
        Competition for procurement of small arms supplied to 
          Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1534).......................   508
        Budget Items.............................................   509
        105MM high explosive rocket-assisted artillery ammunition   509
        Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles.................   509
        Night vision advanced technology.........................   510
        Night vision devices.....................................   510
        Single Army Logistics Enterprise.........................   510
        UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters..................................   511
        Radio systems............................................   512
        Joint Strike Fighter.....................................   512
        C-130J aircraft..........................................   513
        CV-22 Osprey aircraft....................................   513
        F-15 modifications.......................................   514
        Joint surveillance target attack radar system 
          modifications..........................................   514
        Joint light tactical vehicle.............................   514
        F-16 research and development............................   515
        Military satellite communication terminals...............   515
        Operation and maintenance funding transfers..............   515
        Military personnel funding transfers.....................   515
        Joint improvised explosive device defeat office..........   516
        Blast injury research....................................   517
        Counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device 
          electronic warfare.....................................   517
        Counter remote-controlled improvised explosive device 
          systems................................................   518
        Directed energy for improvised explosive device defeat...   518
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.................   519
    Summary and explanation of funding tables....................   519
        Budget justification material for incrementally funded 
          and phased military construction projects..............   537
        Budget justification material for military construction..   537
        Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   537
Title XXI--Army..................................................   539
    Summary......................................................   539
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2101)...................................   540
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   540
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)   540
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........   540
        Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 
          Army projects for which funds were not appropriated 
          (sec. 2105)............................................   540
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2006 project (sec. 2106)..........................   543
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          projects (sec. 2107)...................................   543
        Technical amendments to the Military Construction 
          Authorization Act for 2007 (sec. 2108).................   543
        Ground lease, SOUTHCOM Headquarters Facility, Miami-
          Doral, Florida (sec. 2109).............................   543
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   543
        Army budget justification material for military 
          construction...........................................   543
Title XXII--Navy.................................................   545
    Summary......................................................   545
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2201)...................................   546
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   546
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   546
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   546
        Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 
          Navy projects for which funds were not appropriated 
          (sec. 2205)............................................   546
Title XXIII--Air Force...........................................   549
    Summary......................................................   549
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2301)...................................   549
        Family housing (sec. 2302)...............................   549
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)   549
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)...   549
        Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 
          Air Force projects for which funds were not 
          appropriated (sec. 2305)...............................   549
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2006 project (sec. 2306)..........................   552
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          projects (sec. 2307)...................................   552
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 
          projects (sec. 2308)...................................   552
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies.....................................   553
    Summary......................................................   553
        Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   553
        Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402).................   553
        Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 
          2403)..................................................   553
        Termination or modification of authority to carry out 
          certain fiscal year 2007 Defense Agencies projects 
          (sec. 2404)............................................   554
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          projects (sec. 2405)...................................   556
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
  Program........................................................   557
    Summary......................................................   557
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2501)...................................   557
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   557
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities..................   559
    Summary......................................................   559
        Authorized Army National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   559
        Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2602)...................................   559
        Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
          construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   559
        Authorized Air National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   559
        Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   559
        Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 
          2606)..................................................   560
        Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 
          Guard and Reserve projects for which funds were not 
          appropriated (sec. 2607)...............................   560
        Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2006 
          Air Force Reserve construction and acquisition projects 
          (sec. 2608)............................................   563
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          projects (sec. 2609)...................................   563
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 
          projects (sec. 2610)...................................   563
    Items of Special Interest....................................   563
        Planning and design, Army National Guard.................   563
Title XXVII--Base Realignment and Closure........................   565
    Summary and explanation of tables............................   565
        Authorization of appropriations for base closure and 
          realignment activities funded through Department of 
          Defense Base Closure Account 1990 (sec. 2701)..........   573
        Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded 
          through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 
          (sec. 2702)............................................   573
        Authorization of appropriations for base closure and 
          realignment activities funded through Department of 
          Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2703)..........   573
        Authorized cost and scope of work variations (sec. 2704).   573
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions...........   575
    Subtitle A--Effective Date and Expiration of Authorizations..   575
        Effective Date (sec. 2801)...............................   575
        Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 
          specified by law (sec. 2802)...........................   575
    Subtitle B--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   575
        General military construction transfer authority (sec. 
          2811)..................................................   575
        Modifications of authority to lease military family 
          housing (sec. 2812)....................................   576
        Increase in thresholds for unspecified minor military 
          construction projects (sec. 2813)......................   576
        Modification and extension of temporary, limited 
          authority to use operation and maintenance funds for 
          construction projects outside the United States (sec. 
          2814)..................................................   577
        Temporary authority to support revitalization of 
          Department of Defense laboratories through unspecified 
          minor military construction projects (sec. 2815).......   577
        Two-year extension of temporary program to use minor 
          military construction authority for construction of 
          child development centers (sec. 2816)..................   577
        Extension of authority to accept equalization payments 
          for facility exchanges (sec. 2817).....................   578
    Subtitle C--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   578
        Requirement to report transactions resulting in annual 
          costs of more than $750,000 (sec. 2831)................   578
        Modification of authority to lease non-excess property 
          (sec. 2832)............................................   578
        Enhanced flexibility to create or expand buffer zones 
          (sec. 2833)............................................   579
        Reports on Army and Marine Corps operational ranges (sec. 
          2834)..................................................   579
        Consolidation of real property provisions without 
          substantive change (sec. 2835).........................   580
    Subtitle D--Base Closure and Realignment.....................   580
        Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York, basing report (sec. 
          2841)..................................................   580
    Subtitle E--Land Conveyances.................................   580
        Land conveyance, Lynn Haven Fuel Depot, Lynn Haven, 
          Florida (sec. 2851)....................................   580
        Modification to land conveyance authority, Fort Bragg, 
          North Carolina (sec. 2852).............................   580
        Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, GSA property, 
          Springfield, Virginia (sec. 2853)......................   580
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   581
        Report on condition of schools under jurisdiction of 
          Department of Defense Education Activity (sec. 2861)...   581
        Repeal of requirement for study and report on impact to 
          military readiness of proposed land management changes 
          on public lands in Utah (sec. 2862)....................   581
        Additional project in Rhode Island (sec. 2863)...........   582
    Items of Special Interest....................................   582
        Host nation burdensharing................................   582
        Military investment strategy in facilities that support 
          training for military operations in urban terrain......   583
        Naval master jet basing..................................   584
        Temporary facilities.....................................   585
Title XXIX--War-Related Military Construction Authorizations.....   587
    Summary......................................................   587
        Authorized war-related Army construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2901).......................   590
        Authorizations of war-related military construction 
          appropriations, Army (sec. 2902).......................   590
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations 
  and Other Authorizations.......................................   591
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   591
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   591
        Overview.................................................   591
        National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   617
        Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................   622
        Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   623
        Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)...............   624
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   624
        Reliable Replacement Warhead program (sec. 3111).........   624
        Limitation on availability of funds for Fissile Materials 
          Disposition program (sec. 3112)........................   627
        Modification of limitations on availability of funds for 
          Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (sec. 3113)...   627
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   628
        Nuclear test readiness (sec. 3121).......................   628
        Sense of Congress on the nuclear nonproliferation policy 
          of the United States and the Reliable Replacement 
          Warhead program (sec. 3122)............................   628
        Report on status of environmental management initiatives 
          to accelerate the reduction of environmental risks and 
          challenges posed by the legacy of the Cold War (sec. 
          3123)..................................................   628
        Comptroller General report on Department of Energy 
          protective force management (sec. 3124)................   629
        Technical amendments (sec. 3125).........................   629
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.............   631
        Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   631
    Items Funded at the Request of Members.......................   632
    Legislative Requirements.....................................   651
        Departmental Recommendations.............................   651
        Committee Action.........................................   651
        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   651
        Regulatory Impact........................................   651
        Changes in Existing Law..................................   651





                                                       Calendar No. 185
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-77

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


AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 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

                                _______
                                

                  June 5, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1547]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 
2008 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 2008;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2008;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2008;
          (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 2008; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2008.

Committee overview and recommendations

    The United States armed forces are fighting wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, deployed in other places throughout the 
globe, or training at home for future deployment. Whether 
fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, delivering humanitarian 
assistance to the victims of natural disasters in Asia or 
Africa, training foreign national forces in the Philippines, or 
assisting State and federal agencies responding to emergencies 
at home, the men and women of our armed forces, both active and 
reserve, are serving honorably and courageously to promote and 
defend our national interests. They do so often at great 
personal risk and at significant sacrifice to themselves and 
their families.
    After more than 5 years of war, our military, particularly 
our ground forces, and their families are severely stressed. 
Equipment is wearing out faster than anticipated. In many cases 
a lack of personnel and equipment is hampering the readiness of 
non-deployed forces, both active and reserve. As a result, the 
Nation lacks the strategic depth it enjoyed before the wars 
began. This lack of depth increases our strategic risk to the 
point that, although we can defeat potential adversaries in 
various danger spots around the world, the time it would take 
to do so would be longer and the cost in casualties to our 
forces and resources would be higher.
    To date in this First Session of the 110th Congress, the 
Committee on Armed Services has conducted 41 hearings and 
numerous briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2008 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 2008. 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 service men and women with the 
        resources, training, technology, equipment (especially 
        force protection), and authorities they need to 
        participate in combat and stability operations, 
        particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
          (3) Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by starting 
        and, if possible, accelerating the restoration of the 
        readiness of the military services to conduct the full 
        range of their assigned missions.
          (4) Improve the efficiency of Department of Defense 
        (DOD) programs and activities, and apply the savings 
        toward high priority programs.
          (5) Improve the ability of the armed forces to meet 
        nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons 
        of mass destruction.
          (6) Promote the transformation of the armed forces to 
        meet the threats of the 21st Century.
          (7) Conduct aggressive oversight of the Department's 
        programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of 
        taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and 
        regulations.
    To improve compensation and quality of life for the men and 
women in uniform and to seek to ease the pressure on our over-
committed troops, the committee:
           Authorized an across the board pay raise of 
        3.5 percent, a half percent above the administration's 
        request, as well as a half percent above the average 
        increase in private sector pay raises as measured by 
        the increase in the employment cost index. This 
        additional boost in pay is in recognition of the strain 
        our military personnel and their families are under.
           Authorized an end strength of 524,000 for 
        the Army, 13,000 more than authorized last year, and 
        189,000 for the Marine Corps, 9,000 more than 
        authorized last year. Although the administration's 
        proposal divided this end strength between the base and 
        supplemental budget requests, the mark combines them in 
        the base budget.
           Authorized payment of combat-related special 
        compensation to service members who are medically 
        retired because of a combat-related disability. Under 
        current law, only those retired with 20 or more years 
        of service are eligible for this payment.
           Reduced below age 60 the age at which a 
        member of a reserve component may draw retirement pay 
        by 3 months for every aggregate 90 days' service on 
        active duty under certain mobilization authorities.
           Included a provision to help protect our 
        troops, uphold our values, and restore our image around 
        the world by providing a fair process for reviewing the 
        status of DOD detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This 
        provision would require that detainees receive legal 
        representation, provide for legal rulings to be made by 
        military judges, and prohibit the use of statements 
        that are obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment 
        of a detainee.
           Authorized the use of federal pricing for 
        pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE retail 
        program.
           Directed the DOD to study and develop a plan 
        to address the findings of the Army medical 
        department's fourth assessment of the mental health and 
        well-being of soldiers and marines in Iraq, including 
        findings that multiple deployments and lengthy 
        deployments lead to increased mental health and marital 
        problems and more frequent mistreatment of non-
        combatants.
           Rejected the administration's proposal to 
        give DOD broad authority to increase TRICARE program 
        cost sharing amounts for military retirees and their 
        dependents.
    The committee included provisions to better assist 
survivors of military personnel by:
           Modifying the death gratuity statute to 
        allow service members to designate in writing any 
        person as the beneficiary.
           Modifying the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) to 
        allow guardians or caretakers of dependent children to 
        receive SBP benefits.
    Particular emphasis was placed on addressing the needs of 
an Army stressed and stretched by over 5 years of war, but 
doing so in a way that also positions the Army to meet the 
challenges of the future.
    In a series of legislative and funding actions designed to 
achieve those objectives, the committee:
           Authorized multiyear procurement for Abrams 
        tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades.
           Fully funded the President's budget request 
        for the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS), added $90.0 
        million to restore fiscal year 2008 funding for the 
        Armed Robotic Vehicles deleted in the recent program 
        restructure, and added $25.0 million to accelerate 
        development of the FCS active protection system.
           Added $40.0 million for integration of an 
        active protection system on the Stryker vehicles.
           Added $80.0 million to restore fiscal year 
        2008 funding for the Land Warrior system, ensuring 
        sufficient quantities to field the remaining two 
        battalions of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team currently 
        equipped with the system in Iraq.
           Added $2.7 billion for items on the Army 
        Chief of Staff's unfunded requirements list, including 
        over $1.5 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
        (MRAP) vehicles, $775.1 million for reactive armor and 
        other Stryker requirements, $207.4 million for aviation 
        survivability equipment, $102.4 million for combat 
        training centers, and funding for explosive ordnance 
        disposal equipment, night vision devices, and machine 
        guns.
           Added funding for other major force 
        protection items, including $430.0 million for MRAP 
        vehicles for the Air Force, and fully funded the 
        President's budget request for $4.5 billion for the 
        Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Office (JIEDDO), 
        directing JIEDDO to invest at least $50.0 million in 
        blast injury research and over $150.0 million for the 
        procurement of improvised explosive device (IED) 
        jammers for the Army.
    The committee also put particular emphasis on support for 
marines and naval forces engaged in combat operations and on 
the continuing transformation of the Navy.
    The committee focused on force protection for Marine Corps 
ground forces and on execution of the shipbuilding budget. The 
committee was concerned with the amount of funding in the 
budget request devoted to shipbuilding, and took steps to 
protect the capability of the Navy to provide necessary global 
presence into the future. Specifically, the committee:
           Added almost $2.0 billion for MRAP vehicles. 
        This addition will support all known requirements of 
        the Navy and Marine Corps for these vehicles that 
        improve protection for our troops exposed to the IED 
        threat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
           Authorized construction for five warships 
        and provided multiyear procurement authority for fiscal 
        years 2009 to 2013 for Virginia class submarines.
           Added $470.0 million in advance procurement 
        funding for Virginia class submarines to support buying 
        an additional submarine in fiscal year 2010. There is 
        no requirement that the Navy allocate additional funds 
        to buy the second submarine in fiscal year 2010. If the 
        Navy chooses not to do that, the funds could be used to 
        support economic order quantity buys of material in 
        fiscal year 2008, which could yield additional savings 
        for the multiyear procurement and reduce pressure on 
        the outyear shipbuilding budget.
           Reduced $430.5 million in funding for the 
        Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, requiring that 
        future ships of the program be competitively awarded 
        with added measures to control cost. This reflects a 
        response to the more than doubling of the price of 
        these ships, schedule delays, and delays in 
        promulgating an acquisition strategy.
           Reduced title XV war-related funding by 
        $492.5 million for five CV-22 Special Operations 
        Command aircraft and $123.4 million for six UH-1Y / AH-
        1Z Marine Corps helicopters due to concerns about the 
        production cost growth and management processes at the 
        contractor plant that builds both of these aircraft. 
        Production in fiscal year 2008 for all V-22s would 
        still increase from 16 to 28 and H-1 production would 
        increase from 11 to 20 aircraft.
           Added $78.6 million to Navy and Marine Corps 
        research and development programs.
           Supported critical efforts to efficiently 
        and effectively modernize the force; including C-5 
        Galaxy strategic airlift aircraft Reliability 
        Enhancement Re-engining Program, Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) 
        class destroyer modernization, and Navy Open Systems 
        Architecture.
           Reduced the request for the Marine Corps 
        Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle by $100.0 million, since 
        the program has encountered serious technical problems 
        and cost growth, and will not be able to spend the 
        funds appropriated for the current fiscal year.
    The committee continued implementing the policy of focusing 
on the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of 
effective near-term missile defense capabilities, particularly 
to protect forward-deployed U.S. forces and allies against 
existing threats from short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles. Specifically, the committee:
           Approved the Army funding request for the 
        Patriot PAC-3 program, including the ``Pure Fleet'' 
        initiative, and added $75.0 million to procure 25 
        additional PAC-3 missiles.
           Authorized an addition of $75.0 million for 
        the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program to 
        increase the production rate of Standard Missile-3 (SM-
        3) interceptors, procure 15 additional SM-3 missiles, 
        and accelerate work on the Aegis BMD Signal Processor 
        and Open Architecture program.
           Approved an increase of $105.0 million for 
        the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system 
        to increase the missile production rate, begin the 
        upgrade of the evolved THAAD interceptor, and to 
        conduct an additional test.
           Added $25.0 million for co-production of the 
        Arrow missile, and added $10.0 million to study the 
        suitability of the THAAD missile to serve as a follow-
        on to Israel's Arrow system.
           Authorized an increase of $25.0 million for 
        accelerated joint development of a short-range 
        ballistic missile defense (SRBMD) system for Israel.
           Reduced the budget request of $310.4 million 
        for the proposed European missile defense deployment by 
        $85.0 million for site activation and construction 
        work, to reflect the schedule of negotiations with the 
        host nations, but authorized the remaining budget 
        request, with availability of funding for some 
        activities being subject to meeting certain conditions.
           Reduced funding for the Airborne Laser 
        program by $200.0 million.
           Reduced funding for BMD Special Programs by 
        $150.0 million, and for BMD Systems Core by $50.0 
        million.
           Reduced the budget request for the Space 
        Tracking and Surveillance System by $55.0 million for 
        premature development of follow-on satellites, and 
        authorized no funds for the proposed space test-bed.
           Included legislative provisions that would:
                   Extend by 5 years the requirement 
                for the Comptroller General to assess the 
                ballistic missile defense program annually.
                   Require the Department of Defense, 
                starting in fiscal year 2009, to submit the 
                budget request for the Missile Defense Agency 
                using regular budget categories (research and 
                development, procurement, operation and 
                maintenance, and military construction), and 
                make certain acquisition and oversight 
                improvements.
                   Require a certification from the 
                Secretary of Defense that the Block 2006 
                Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is 
                operationally effective before deploying more 
                than 40 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) at 
                Fort Greely, Alaska.
                   Ensure that the Director of 
                Operational Test and Evaluation has full access 
                to missile defense test and evaluation data.
    The committee supported improved national security space 
capabilities for satellite communications, missile warning, 
space situational awareness and surveillance, space control, 
and reduced space system vulnerability. Specifically, the 
committee:
           Added $125.0 million for advanced 
        procurement for a fourth Advanced Extremely High 
        Frequency (AEHF) communications satellite, and $10.0 
        million for Ultra High Frequency to reduce the risk of 
        communications gaps.
           Added $15.0 million for sensors for small 
        satellite efforts to provide operationally responsive 
        space support capability for the warfighter.
           Added $35.0 million for the Space-Based 
        Space Surveillance System to provide improved 
        situational awareness in space.
           Added $16.8 million for space situational 
        awareness operations, $9.8 million for the space fence, 
        $13.8 million to the Rapid Attack Identification 
        Detection and Reporting System (RAIDRS), and $50.0 
        million for space control technology to improve space 
        protection and awareness capabilities.
           Fully funded the Global Positioning System 
        (GPS) III program and the Transformational 
        Communications Satellite program.
           Provided an additional $100.0 million for 
        the Space-Based Infrared Satellite System (SBIRS) GEO-4 
        and $27.6 million for the SBIRS backup control station, 
        but no funding for the Alternative Infrared Satellite 
        System.
           Provided no funding for the Space Radar 
        program but provided additional funding for research 
        and development of space radar capabilities.
           Included provisions that would direct the 
        Secretary of Defense in the next administration to 
        conduct a space posture review, and direct the Director 
        of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to 
        participate in the National Security Space Office.
    The committee addressed strategic systems as follows:
           Refocused efforts to achieve a prompt global 
        strike capability into a single coordinated program.
           Added $19.0 million for modernization 
        efforts to sustain 76 B-52 aircraft.
           Directed the Secretary of Defense to submit 
        a report on the retirement schedule for remaining 
        nuclear cruise missiles.
           Included a provision that would direct the 
        Secretary of Defense in the next administration to 
        conduct a new nuclear posture review.
    The committee continues to support the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program and modernization of the Nation's nuclear 
weapons complex. The committee also supports efforts to enhance 
the security posture of the Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear 
sites, reduce deferred maintenance, and complete the 
environmental cleanup of Cold War legacy sites. Specifically, 
the committee:
           Consolidated funding for the Reliable 
        Replacement Warhead into one funding line, reduced the 
        total amount requested by $43.0 million, and limited 
        fiscal year 2008 program activities to phase 2A 
        activities only.
           Added $62.4 million to enhance security at 
        DOE nuclear sites.
           Added $36.8 million to reduce deferred 
        maintenance within the nuclear weapons complex.
           Added $10.0 million for nuclear weapons 
        incident response.
           Included provisions directing the 
        Comptroller General to review issues related to 
        security protection forces at DOE sites and to review a 
        report that would be prepared by the Secretary of 
        Energy on the future plans and cost of the 
        Environmental Management program.
    In the area of science and technology, the committee:
           Authorized an increase of over $450.0 
        million for defense science and technology (S&T) 
        programs, for a total authorization of $11.2 billion.
           Increased funding for development of 
        advanced technologies to support current operational 
        needs and develop new military capabilities to defeat 
        emerging threats, including:
                   Nearly $85.0 million for advanced 
                manufacturing research and processes to reduce 
                the production costs of weapons systems, to 
                improve the Department's ability to surge 
                production of critical items--such as body and 
                vehicle armor and to preserve the domestic 
                defense industrial base;
                   Over $70.0 million in research and 
                technologies to enhance the force protection of 
                deployed units, including advanced materials 
                for vehicle and body armor, active protection 
                systems that shoot down incoming rocket 
                propelled grenades, and sniper detection 
                systems;
                   Nearly $75.0 million for advanced 
                energy and power technologies, including 
                programs to develop fuel cells, hybrid engines, 
                and biofuels for military systems;
                   Nearly $65.0 million for defense 
                related research performed at our Nation's 
                universities, which develops next generation 
                military capabilities, while training 
                tomorrow's scientists and engineers; and
                   Nearly $50.0 million for research on 
                combat casualty care and military medical 
                technologies, including work to address blast 
                injuries and brain trauma.
           Authorized a provision that would expand the 
        nanotechnology research and development efforts of the 
        Department of Defense, to include enhanced efforts in 
        nanomanufacturing and the incorporation of 
        nanotechnologies into defense systems.
           Authorized a provision that would require 
        the development of a strategic plan for defense 
        manufacturing technology development to ensure that the 
        defense industrial base has the most advanced 
        manufacturing processes available to support the 
        production of defense systems at the lowest cost 
        possible, while being responsive to surge production 
        demands driven by military needs.
           Authorized a provision to revitalize defense 
        laboratories by providing more flexibility in funding 
        construction projects and other infrastructure 
        investment to ensure that these laboratories remain 
        world class technical institutions to support the 
        engineering and technical needs of operational forces.
    In the area of nonproliferation and cooperative threat 
reduction, the committee:
           Authorized an increase of $87.0 million to 
        the amount requested for DOE nonproliferation programs.
           Authorized an increase of $100.0 million for 
        the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program.
           Included provisions that would repeal all of 
        the required annual certifications and that would 
        expand the CTR program to countries outside of the 
        former Soviet Union.
    In the area of Special Operations Forces and programs, the 
committee:
           Authorized an additional $124.0 million to 
        meet unfunded requirements of the Special Operations 
        Command for MRAP vehicles.
           Directed the Comptroller General to review 
        the ongoing reorganization of the office of the Under 
        Secretary of Defense for Policy, especially as it 
        pertains to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
        Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity 
        Conflict.
           Added over $25.0 million in funding for the 
        Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to meet critical 
        language and cultural awareness training requirements, 
        and for various SOCOM science and technology programs.
    The committee also took the following steps to promote the 
development of the Department's language capabilities:
           Authorized the creation of a National 
        Foreign Language Coordination Council, to ensure that 
        the administration's current efforts to promote foreign 
        language competency will develop into an organized and 
        concerted effort to improve the Nation's foreign 
        language capabilities.
           Directed the Comptroller General to review 
        DOD programs to improve language and cultural 
        awareness.
    In the area of counterdrug activities, the committee:
           Authorized an increase of $22.5 million to 
        support DOD drug interdiction activities, primarily 
        those of the U.S. Southern Command.
           Authorized the Department to provide 
        counterdrug support to Mexico and the Dominican 
        Republic.
    In the area of chemical and biological defense and chemical 
demilitarization, the committee:
           Authorized an increase of nearly $70.0 
        million for enhancements to chemical and biological 
        defense programs, including:
                   $30.0 million for procurement of 
                chemical detection equipment for the Army 
                National Guard that can be used both for 
                overseas deployments and for domestic 
                consequence management missions; and
                   Nearly $20 million for research and 
                development projects to enhance the 
                Department's ability to detect and protect its 
                forces from chemical and biological warfare 
                agents.
           Included a provision stating the sense of 
        Congress that the United States should make every 
        effort to meet its legal obligation under the Chemical 
        Weapons Convention to destroy its entire stockpile of 
        chemical weapons by April 2012, or as soon as possible 
        thereafter, and that the DOD should budget sufficient 
        funds to allow the most expeditious destruction of the 
        chemical weapons stockpile, consistent with the legal 
        requirement to protect public health, safety, and the 
        environment.
           Authorized an increase of $36.0 million to 
        restore funds that were removed from the chemical 
        demilitarization program budget request. These funds 
        would help avoid further delays in destroying the U.S. 
        stockpile of chemical weapons, as required by law.
    In the area of homeland defense, the committee included a 
provision that would require an advisory panel to assess the 
capabilities of the Department to provide support to civil 
authorities for consequence management in the event of a 
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield 
explosive incident in the United States. The panel would report 
its findings and recommendations within 1 year from starting 
its duties.
    To address the readiness and management needs of the 
military, the committee supported the stated requirements of 
the military services for the next fiscal year, including the 
funds needed for the cost of normal operations, war-related 
operations, and the initial operating cost of increasing the 
size of our ground forces.
    The committee fully funded the Army and Marine Corps 
request for depot level maintenance. The committee also 
recommended $4.8 billion for the procurement of ammunition of 
all types to support the services' war fighting, training, and 
war reserve requirements.
    With regard to management and acquisition policy, the 
committee included a provision requiring, for the first time, 
that DOD have a Chief Management Officer. The Comptroller 
General has repeatedly stated that the Department needs to do 
this, to ensure that the Department's many high-risk areas get 
the top level management attention they deserve.
    In addition, the committee included a number of important 
acquisition reform provisions. These include:
           A provision that would provide the resources 
        that DOD needs to address the shortcomings in its 
        acquisition workforce.
           A series of provisions that would tighten 
        DOD management of contract services.
           A provision that would ensure that our 
        commanders on the battlefield have the authority that 
        they need to establish rules for armed contractors of 
        all Government agencies in an area of combat 
        operations.
           A provision establishing guidelines for DOD 
        to use in determining whether savings are 
        ``substantial'' for the purpose of justifying multiyear 
        contracts.
           A provision that would require that each of 
        the Assistant Secretaries for Acquisition in the 
        military departments be assisted by a three-star 
        military deputy who has significant acquisition 
        experience.
    The committee also proposed the investment of an additional 
$461.0 million above the budget request in infrastructure to 
repair, replace, and modernize our aging defense facilities and 
improve the quality of life and the productivity of our 
military. The committee has adhered to its traditional criteria 
for military construction projects in this markup.
    The committee continued its longstanding record of 
supporting the implementation of the base closure process 
without intervening or playing favorites in that process. There 
are no provisions that would attempt to overturn any Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions or move some people 
ahead of others in line for BRAC funding.
    The committee also took a number of other important 
actions, including:
           Establishing a requirement that the 
        President report to Congress on his long-term strategy 
        for engaging with Pakistan to eliminate safe havens for 
        the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other violent extremists in 
        Pakistan and to stop their cross-border movements into 
        Afghanistan. Reimbursements to Pakistan for support to 
        U.S. military operations would be restricted unless the 
        President certifies that Pakistan is making substantial 
        and sustained efforts to eliminate terrorist safe 
        havens on its territory.
           Extending and enhancing DOD's authority to 
        provide services or transfer funds to the Department of 
        State for police training and stabilization assistance.
           Extending and expanding DOD's authority to 
        lease or lend equipment for personnel protection and 
        survivability to allies and coalition partners 
        participating in combined military operations with U.S. 
        forces.
           Extending the participation of Department 
        personnel in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
        military centers of excellence.
           Directing the Comptroller General to assess 
        the implementation of the Global Peace Operations 
        Initiative, including whether it would have an impact 
        on participation in upcoming peace operations.
           Recognizing the significant changes in the 
        role and missions of the National Guard and reserve, 
        by:
                   Increasing the grade of the Chief of 
                the National Guard Bureau from lieutenant 
                general to general and expanding the duties of 
                and eligibility requirements for this position.
                   Requiring the Secretary of Defense, 
                in consultation with the Secretaries of the 
                Army and Air Force and the Chairman of the 
                Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prescribe the charter 
                for the National Guard Bureau.
                   Enhancing the authority for National 
                Guard and reserve general and flag officers to 
                serve on active duty.
                   Authorizing federal civilian 
                employees who are in the National Guard or 
                reserves to continue their coverage under the 
                Federal Employees Group Life Insurance for up 
                to 24 months when mobilized.
                   Repealing the existing authority of 
                the Department of Defense to establish a new 
                labor relations system under the National 
                Security Personnel System (NSPS). This would 
                guarantee the rights of DOD employees to union 
                representation in NSPS.
                   Consistent with the committee's 
                longstanding practice, the committee report 
                identifies all funding provided for programs, 
                projects, and activities that were not 
                requested in the President's budget. For the 
                first time, the report will also identify the 
                name of members requesting such funding. The 
                committee will also make this information 
                available to the general public in an 
                electronically searchable format at least 48 
                hours before consideration of the bill or 
                conference report.
    In making its recommendations, the committee realizes that 
much remains to be done, particularly in terms of restoring the 
readiness of the military services.

Explanation of funding summary

    The administration's budget request for the national 
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2008 was 
$505.4 billion for the base budget excluding the costs of 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus an additional $141.8 
billion in emergency defense funding requested for those 
operations and other costs, including some of the cost of the 
administration's proposal to increase the size of the Army and 
the Marine Corps. The combined total requested by the President 
for the national defense budget function was $647.2 billion. 
According to the estimating procedures used by the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount requested for the 
base budget was $507.0 billion, and the total amount requested, 
including the emergency war-related funding, was $648.8 
billion.
    The primary discrepancy between the administration and CBO 
estimates related to assumed savings in the Defense Health 
program (DHP) account. The funding summary table that follows 
uses the budget authority levels as calculated by CBO, both for 
the DHP and the bill as a whole.
    The following table summarizes both the direct 
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for 
fiscal year 2008 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 $648.8 billion in budget 
authority.
    The funding level recommended by the committee is within 
the combined budget authority levels of $507.0 billion for the 
national defense function (function 050) plus $145.2 billion 
for defense and nondefense expenses related to contingency 
operations in the new overseas deployments and other activities 
function (function 970) in the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. Con. Res. 21) adopted by the 
Senate and the House of Representatives on May 17, 2007. As 
permitted by the budget resolution, the committee bill assumes 
that additional appropriations for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan will be made available at the levels requested by 
the President.
    In order to clearly identify the cost of war, the committee 
bill reallocates funding that the committee believes is not 
directly related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in 
particular funding requested for paying, equipping, and 
providing facilities for additional Army and Marine Corps 
personnel, from the war-related emergency request portion of 
the bill into the base budget accounts. Such transfers are 
noted in the detailed tables in this report. Funding for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is contained in title XV 
(for personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, and 
other costs normally funded in division A of this Act) and 
title XXIX (for military construction projects in Iraq or 
Afghanistan) of this Act.
    In accordance with views and estimates of this committee to 
the Senate Committee on the Budget and with the conference 
report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (S. Con. Res. 21), the committee bill does not 
designate any of the funding authorized by this Act as 
emergency spending.



            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 2008 budget request for procurement 
programs, and indicate those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the 
past, 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.
Rapid Acquisition Fund (sec. 105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$100.0 million for the rapid acquisition fund.



                       Subtitle B--Army Programs



Multiyear procurement authority for M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement 
        Package upgrades (sec. 111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
authority to the Secretary of the Army to enter into a 
multiyear contract for the upgrade of Abrams tanks to the M1A2 
System Enhancement Package (SEP) versions.
    Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for 
the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria 
are met. One of these criteria is that the use of a multiyear 
contract must result in ``substantial savings'' compared to the 
anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual 
contracts.
    The Department estimates that the multiyear contract for 
the M1A2 Abrams SEP upgrades will result in savings of 
approximately $178.0 million, or a total of approximately 10 
percent, compared to the cost of five annual contracts. The 
committee considers these savings to be substantial and 
concludes that the multiyear proposal meets the statutory 
criteria.

Multiyear procurement authority for M2A3/M3A3 Bradley fighting vehicle 
        upgrades (sec. 112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
authority to the Secretary of the Army to enter into a 
multiyear contract for the upgrade of Bradley Fighting Vehicles 
and Bradley Fire Support Team Vehicles to the M2A3/M3A3/BFIST 
versions.
    Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for 
the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria 
are met. One of these criteria is that the use of a multiyear 
contract must result in ``substantial savings'' compared to the 
anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual 
contracts.
    The Department estimates that a multiyear contract for the 
Bradley upgrades over 4 fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 
2008 and ending in fiscal year 2011 will result in savings of 
approximately $131.0 million, or a total of approximately 5 
percent, compared to the cost of four annual contracts. Because 
the Department plans to purchase a procurement quantity of 525 
in the first year, the Department assumes that savings 
resulting from larger procurement quantities will be achieved 
in that year regardless of whether a multiyear contract is 
approved. However, the Department estimates that a multiyear 
contract will result in savings of $131.0 million, or a total 
of 10 percent, compared to the cost of annual contracts over 
the final 3 years of the contract. The committee considers 
these savings to be substantial and concludes that the 
multiyear proposal meets the statutory criteria.

Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would withhold 
all funding for the procurement of the Stryker Mobile Gun 
System (MGS) until 30 days after the date on which the 
Secretary of the Army certifies to Congress that the results of 
the initial operational test and evaluation indicate that the 
Stryker MGS is operationally effective, suitable, and 
survivable. The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation 
on MGS funding if the Secretary determines that further 
procurement of the Stryker MGS is in the national security 
interest of the United States, submits to the Congress, in 
writing , a notification of the waiver together with a 
discussion of the reasons for the waiver and the actions that 
will be taken to mitigate any deficiencies which cause the 
system to be deemed not operationally effective, suitable, and/
or survivable.
    In January 2007, the Army decided to deploy the Stryker MGS 
with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) that was deploying 
to Iraq as part of the ``surge'' of units called for by the 
revamped Baghdad security plan. This was done despite the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation'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. The Director 
expressed concern about the current reliability and operational 
effectiveness of the vehicle, with mean rounds between system 
aborts being well below the entrance criteria for entry into 
initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), and with 
significant ``fightability'' shortfalls, particularly with 
regard to the functioning of the two machine guns. More 
troubling are the unique survivability concerns expressed by 
the Director, with MGS crews at greater risk than crews in 
other Stryker configurations, the details of which are 
classified and cannot be discussed in this report.
    The committee is troubled by the Army's decision and shares 
the concerns expressed by the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation and believes that no more Stryker MGS's should be 
procured until adequate testing shows that the system is 
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable. The 
committee notes that the MGS IOT&E has been delayed from 
earlier this year to November 2007, because of the SBCT's early 
deployment to Iraq, and a full rate production decision is not 
expected until February 2008.

Consolidation of Joint Network Node program and Warfighter Information 
        Network--Tactical program into a single Army tactical network 
        program (sec. 114)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Army to consolidate the joint network node 
(JNN) and warfighter information network--tactical (WIN-T) 
programs into one Army tactical network program.
    The budget request included $312.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for JNN and fiscal year 2008 budget 
requested an additional $2.2 billion in war-related funding in 
OPA for JNN. The combined budget request for JNN totals over 
$2.5 billion. If approved, the Department of the Army would 
procure 10 JNN hubs, 175 JNNs, 557 battalion command post 
nodes, and would sustain all previous JNN units fielded.
    The JNN is a commercially-based Ku-band satellite system 
that supports the Army's tactical communications requirements 
for the exchange of voice, data, and video from theater to the 
battalion level. The JNN was designed to be operational within 
30 minutes of the time that the tactical operations center 
ceases movement and sets up in a static position. The Army 
began the JNN program as a quick-start initiative funded by 
emergency supplemental dollars in response to an urgent 
operational need statement from U.S. Central Command. The 
committee recognizes the importance of this capability in the 
theater today and notes that the urgent operational need has 
now been met. The committee notes that the budget request would 
complete the fielding of JNN to the rest of the Army.
    The committee is concerned that the Army did not comply 
with title 10 of the United States Code in its acquisition of 
Lots 1-9 of JNN by not adequately testing the JNN platform and 
its associated systems before it was produced and fielded. The 
committee is also concerned that the Army does not own, nor 
does it have access to, the technical data package for JNN.
    The committee directs the Department to perform an initial 
operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) and deliver to the 
congressional defense committees a low rate initial production 
report before a full rate production decision has been made by 
the Department. The committee is concerned that the Army's 
investment in JNN is not appropriately aligned with its 
knowledge of its shortcomings and an IOT&E will help the Army 
develop a better understanding of its investment and the 
additional investments necessary for the sustainment of JNN.
    In addition to the JNN request, the Army's fiscal year 2008 
baseline budget request included $222.3 million for the 
continued research and development of the WIN-T program.
    As envisioned, WIN-T will also support the Army's tactical 
communications, including video, data, imagery, and voice 
services, for commanders at all echelons at remote locations 
throughout the battle space. WIN-T is also expected to 
interface with the Joint Tactical Radio System, which extends 
to the individual warfighter platform level, and will be 
integral to the Army's modernization to the Future Combat 
Systems (FCS). The committee believes that the Army should move 
as quickly as possible to incorporate this capability into JNN.
    JNN and WIN-T are duplicate programs. However, WIN-T will 
meet the requirements of JNN, but with greater capability, 
providing on-the-move capabilities to Army commanders--a long-
standing requirement. It is estimated that the Army will 
require well over $2.0 billion to field JNN to all Army units.
    In September 2004, after competitively awarding two 
contracts for the Systems Development and Demonstration phase 
for the WIN-T communications system, the Army received approval 
to merge the winning contractors into a single team to 
accelerate WIN-T development. Since that time, and mostly due 
to affordability issues, the Army has restructured the WIN-T 
program, further delaying its fielding.
    According to the Army's February 2007 ``Report to Congress 
on the Bridge to Future Networks,'' the Army intends to replace 
JNN with WIN-T beginning in 2014. The committee is concerned 
that the Army cannot afford to field both JNN and WIN-T in such 
a short time period and that the training, logistical, and 
maintenance burdens for the rapid fielding of two highly 
complex communication networks in such a close time frame has 
not been sufficiently analyzed.
    The committee is also concerned about the Secretary of the 
Army's January 2007 notification to Congress of the WIN-T 
breach of the Nunn-McCurdy unit cost threshold which was a 
result of the Army's decision to expand WIN-T's capability and 
increase the scope of its fielding. The committee shares the 
concern of the Government Accountability Office that the WIN-T 
program has been operating without a bona fide acquisition 
program baseline for 18 months, and may not have a new approved 
acquisition program baseline until well after the June 2007 
Nunn-McCurdy certification.
    The committee believes that, should JNN and WIN-T remain as 
two programs on separate and parallel paths, the result may be 
two sub-optimal systems instead of a single, integrated, fully-
capable system as currently envisioned. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to consolidate 
these two programs into a single tactical network program which 
will provide a seamless transition from JNN to WIN-T as soon as 
possible, and at optimum cost.
    Further, the committee recommends transferring the $2.6 
billion in title XV, OPA for JNN to title I, OPA for JNN. 
Further, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 billion 
in OPA for JNN.

                           Budget Items--Army


Armed reconnaissance helicopter

    The budget request included $468.2 million in the base 
budget request for 37 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters (ARH), 
and $222.6 million in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget 
request for an additional 29 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters 
to replace OH-58D Kiowa Warrior combat losses.
    In April 2007, the Army issued a ``stop work notice'' to 
the contractor, giving the company 30 days to address cost and 
scheduling performance problems for the ARH program. The Army 
subsequently evaluated the contractor's response and proposal 
for executing the ARH program, and after a special meeting of 
the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council on May 18, 2007, 
decided that continuing with the current contractor enables ARH 
fielding sooner and at less cost than re-competing the program.
    The committee recommends a transfer of $131.0 million from 
title I, Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the Armed 
Reconnaissance Helicopter, including $31.0 million to APA for 
OH-58D cockpit display system software upgrades and mast 
mounted sight circuit cards, and $100.0 million to PE 64220A to 
fund remaining research and development requirements for ARH.
    The committee also recommends a reduction of $38.6 million 
in title XV, APA for ARH, and a transfer of $184.0 million--
including $86.0 million to Operations and Maintenence, Army 
(OMA) for the recapitalization of UH-60A Blackhawk helicopters, 
$38.0 million to APA for the upgrade of UH-60A helicopters to 
UH-60L models, and $60.0 million to APA for common missile 
warning systems for fixed wing aircraft.
    The committee recognizes the long standing Army requirement 
for an ARH and commends the Army for taking a critical look at 
the program as currently structured and executed. The committee 
urges the Army to continue rigorous oversight of the 
contractor's performance and expects frequent consultation with 
the congressional defense committees on the results of that 
oversight. The committee encourages the Army to submit a 
comprehensive reprogramming that will adequately fund the 
required restructuring of the ARH program.

CH-47 Chinook helicopter

    The budget request included $157.9 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for six new build CH-47 helicopters and 
$577.3 million in PE 23744A for CH-47 cargo helicopter 
modifications. These amounts assumed savings for procurement 
and modifications under a 5-year multiyear contract authority 
requested by the Department of Defense.
    Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for 
the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria 
are met. One of these criteria is that the use of a multiyear 
contract must result in ``substantial savings'' compared to the 
anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual 
contracts.
    The Department estimates that the multiyear contract will 
result in savings of approximately 3.8 percent for the new 
build CH-47 helicopters and 4.3 percent for the modifications. 
The committee does not consider these savings to be substantial 
and concludes that the statutory standard for approval of a 
multiyear contract has not been met. The committee encourages 
the Department to resubmit its proposal for a multiyear 
contract in the future, if it determines that more substantial 
savings can be achieved.
    To meet the cost of an annual contract in fiscal year 2008, 
the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in APA, a 
total of $163.9 million, for CH-47 helicopters; and an increase 
of $16.0 million in APA, a total of $593.3 million, for CH-47 
cargo helicopter modifications.

Enhanced electronic digital engine control unit

    The budget request included $13.0 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter 
modifications, but no funding for the Enhanced Electronic 
Digital Engine Control Unit (EDECU).
    The common EDECU will standardize engine controls among all 
Army helicopter platforms flying GE-T700-701C and GE-T700-701D 
engines, and provide increased processing capability and memory 
beyond the capacity of the legacy Digital Engine Control Unit 
(DECU). The EDECU provides single channel engine supervisory 
control for engine governing, over-speed protection, 
temperature limiting protection, and integral auto relight 
capability.
    The EDECU is a common engine control unit designed for 
interchangeable support for UH-60L/M and Apache AH-64D Block 
II/III aircraft equipped with T700-GE-701C or -701D engines. 
The EDECU has greater reliability, serviceability, and a lower 
unit cost than its legacy predecessor system, the DECU. The 
EDECU hardware will be common for all platforms, and will be 
introduced directly to production or fielded through depot 
level replacement.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for 
the EDECU, for a total of $16.0 million.

Aircraft survivability equipment infrared countermeasures

    The budget request included $365.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for Advanced Threat Infrared 
Countermeasure (ATIRCM)/Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) 
installation kits (A-Kits) and mission kits (B-Kits) to provide 
an integrated warning and countermeasure system for aircraft 
survivability against infrared guided missile systems. The 
committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army identified 
additional funds for this aircraft survivability equipment 
among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $207.4 million in APA, 
for a total of $572.9 million.

Aircrew integrated systems

    The base budget request included $42.7 million for aircrew 
integrated systems, including $2.2 million for an encrypted 
Aircraft Wireless Intercom System (AWIS), but no funding for a 
non-encrypted version. The budget request also contained no 
funding for the Air Warrior Generation 3 Primary Survival Gear 
Carrier (PSGC).
    The AWIS is a cordless, voice-activated crew 
intercommunications system integrated with the aircraft 
communications system. The system provides a wireless 
communication capability between crew members in flight and 
during ground service operations, allows medical personnel 
freedom of both hands to perform onboard medical procedures 
while communicating with the flight crew, and eliminates the 
operational hazards and operational restrictions inherent to 
the existing tethered system. Currently there is no integrated 
or qualified communication system between the crew flying 
medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) aircraft and the medic on the 
ground preparing a patient for transport or suspended beneath 
the hovering aircraft over hazardous terrain during critical 
rescue hoist operations. Hand and arm signals are currently 
used as the means for communication.
    The committee notes that the Army MEDEVAC community has 
requested the immediate fielding of an unencrypted AWIS based 
upon Hurricane Katrina relief experience. Funding appropriated 
in fiscal year 2007 was sufficient to procure only 60 AWIS of 
the 363 required for the Army's UH-60 MEDEVAC aircraft.
    The Air Warrior Generation 3 PSGC is a modular, integrated, 
rapidly reconfigurable combat aircrew ensemble that saves lives 
and maximizes Army aircrew member mission performance. The PSGC 
incorporates first aid, survival, signaling, and communications 
equipment with body armor, microclimate cooling, and an 
integrated extraction capability.
    The Generation 3 PSGC incorporates numerous system and 
safety improvements based upon combat lessons learned, 
including the Universal Camouflage pattern, and will result in 
a significant signature reduction for a downed aircrew member 
in a desert environment.
    The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in 
Aircraft Procurement, Army to procure non-encrypted AWIS for 
the remaining 303 MEDEVAC aircraft, and $2.0 million to replace 
over 3,500 previously-fielded Generation 1 PSGCs with the 
improved Generation 3, for a total $49.7 million.

Patriot Advanced Capability-3

    The budget request included $472.9 million in Missile 
Procurement, Army (MPA) for procurement of 108 Patriot 
Advanced-Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles. The committee 
recommends an increase of $75.0 million in MPA to procure an 
additional 25 PAC-3 missiles.
    The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff included 
in the Army's fiscal year 2008 unfunded priorities list an 
initiative to upgrade three Patriot PAC-2 battalions to the 
most modern and capable PAC-3 configuration. This PAC-3 ``Pure 
Fleet'' initiative was the number three priority for the Army, 
for $452.2 million. This upgrade will increase significantly 
the capability of Patriot battalions to defend against longer-
range and more complex missile threats currently facing 
forward-deployed U.S. forces, allies, and friends.
    Since the submission of the original budget request, the 
Army clarified its plans for funding the PAC-3 Pure Fleet 
initiative, and prepared a fiscal year 2007 reprogramming 
proposal for $212.0 million to begin the initiative. 
Additionally, it has budgeted $208.0 million in its fiscal year 
2008 ``Grow the Army'' budget plan to complete the initiative. 
Furthermore, the Grow the Army plan includes funding to add two 
additional PAC-3 battalions to the force structure to meet the 
requirements of regional combatant commanders. This plan, with 
the Pure Fleet initiative, would bring the Patriot force to a 
total of 15 PAC-3 battalions, which represents a significant 
increase in capability from today's force. The committee 
supports this proposed funding for the PAC-3 system.
    The committee notes that the PAC-3 system is in high demand 
by regional combatant commanders, and that U.S. forces do not 
have a sufficient inventory of PAC-3 missiles to meet the 
requirements of U.S. military operational plans. The committee 
commends the Army for taking steps to fund the PAC-3 Pure Fleet 
initiative, and urges the Army to plan and budget for increased 
PAC-3 missile inventory in the future to meet the needs of 
regional combatant commands.
    Section 223 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
named the Patriot PAC-3 system as one of the effective, near-
term missile defense systems that the Department of Defense 
shall make a missile defense priority. Patriot is the only 
combat-tested and combat-proven missile defense system in the 
U.S. arsenal.

Stryker Vehicle

    The base budget request included $1.0 billion and the 
fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request included $402.8 
million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for 
Stryker vehicles.
    The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army 
identified additional funds for Stryker among his unfunded 
priorities for fiscal year 2008, including add-on armor, 
ballistic shields, remote weapons stations, medical evacuation 
vehicles, and additional Stryker vehicles for depot repair 
cycle floats.
    The committee recommends an increase of $658.1 million in 
the base budget, and an increase of $117.0 million in the war-
related budget to replace projected Stryker battle losses.

Improved recovery vehicle

    The budget request included $36.8 million in Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for the M88A2 Heavy Equipment 
Recovery Combat Utility Lift and Evacuation System (HERCULES). 
The HERCULES is the only single-recovery vehicle capable of 
performing recovery, evacuation, and limited repair of the 
Abrams tank. Without improvements incorporated in the M88A2 
HERCULES, units must use two recovery vehicles to perform the 
spectrum of recovery missions. The committee notes that the 
Chief of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for the 
HERCULES among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.9 
million, a total of $61.7 million for the M88A2 HERCULES.

System enhancement program: SEP M1A2

    The budget request included $52.9 million in Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) to upgrade M1A2 Abrams tanks to 
the System Enhancement Package (SEP) configuration. The fiscal 
year 2007 main supplemental budget request included $325.0 
million for the same purpose. The committee understands that 
all of the remaining M1A2 Abrams tanks will be upgraded to the 
SEP configuration with the fiscal year 2007 funding. Therefore, 
the committee recommends no funding for upgrading M1A2 Abrams 
tanks to the SEP configuration in fiscal year 2008.

M240 medium machine gun

    The base budget request included $37.1 million for the M240 
medium machine gun and the fiscal year 2008 war-related request 
included $42.7 million for the same. The committee notes that 
the Chief of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for 
the M240 among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.4 
million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, a total of 
$56.5 million for M240 medium machine guns in the base budget.

Arsenal support program initiative

    The budget request included no funding in Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for the Arsenal Support Program 
Initiative (ASPI).
    The military arsenals serve a compelling national security 
need by providing rapid manufacturing capabilities for 
specialized and unique defense manufacturing requirements. The 
arsenals, however, suffer from underutilization which has 
affected overhead rates, making it increasingly difficult for 
them to compete with private industry and maintain a base of 
skilled workers.
    The ASPI was established in 2001 to address that problem. 
The program integrates commercial activity in the arsenals to 
reduce the Army's cost of ownership and modernize the 
facilities, while maintaining their core competencies in 
support of national defense requirements. The program 
establishes broad economic goals, maintains the viability of 
the Army manufacturing arsenals, and encourages the sharing of 
manufacturing facilities and unique capabilities on a ``pay as 
you go'' basis for non-governmental entities performing 
commercial work at Army manufacturing arsenals.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for 
the ASPI.

Grenades

    The budget request included $13.9 million in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army for yellow and green smoke grenades. The 
committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million in PAA for 
the procurement of additional yellow and green smoke grenades.

Ammunition outloading test bed

    The budget request included $11.8 million in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA) for ammunition-peculiar equipment, but 
did not include funds necessary to complete an automated 
ammunition outloading test bed. The test bed combines state of 
the art Gantry robotic equipment with conveyor systems allowing 
ammunition plant personnel to outload ammunition directly from 
trucks to shipping containers. The benefits of the automated 
outloading capability include increased capacity and increased 
personnel safety. The Army acknowledges that its current 
outloading capability is less than half that required to meet 
readiness goals. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PAA to complete an automated ammunition outloading 
test bed.

Ammunition plant solvent recovery system

    The budget request included $143.7 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial 
facilities, but included no funds for a centralized solvent 
recovery system. The Army uses ether and alcohol as the primary 
solvents in the manufacture of propellants. A study last year 
indicated that 5 million pounds of solvents were used for 
production at one ammunition plant. Of that level, only 1.2 
million pounds were recovered by the current system. The 
committee understands that a modern system will significantly 
increase the amount of solvent recovered, resulting in reduced 
environmental risks and lower costs of propellent production. 
The committee recommends an increase of $7.2 million in PAA for 
an ammunition plant solvent recovery system.

Acid containment and storage system

    The budget request included $143.7 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial 
facilities, but included no funds for the modernization and 
upgrade of acid containment and storage systems. The committee 
understands that a modern system will reduce maintenance costs 
and increase safety. The committee recommends an increase of 
$13.2 million in PAA for an ammunition plant acid storage and 
containment system.

Single channel ground and airborne radio system family

    The base budget request included $137.1 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for single channel ground and airborne 
radio system (SINCGARS) hardware units. The fiscal year 2008 
war-related budget request included $1.4 billion in OPA for the 
SINCGARS hardware units. SINCGARS provides the primary means of 
command and control for combat, combat support, and combat 
service support units in the Army.
    From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007, the Army 
received $2.0 billion to acquire approximately 210,000 SINCGARS 
hardware units. In the fiscal year 2007 supplemental budget, 
the Army requested an additional $532.5 million for 31,425 
hardware units. The combined fiscal year 2008 budget request 
would permit the Army to procure an additional approximately 
107,000 units of SINCGARS radios. According to the Army, the 
combined budget request is intended to address modular force 
structure increases, the need to equip National Guard units, 
and support an effort to provide SINCGARS communications in all 
combat service and combat service support tactical wheeled 
vehicles.
    The SINCGARS program is currently in the third year of a 5-
year base contract with 2 option years. The largest discount is 
available for orders of 10,000 or more hardware units. The 
Secretary of the Army recently directed the SINCGARS program 
office to determine if a new competition for SINCGARS radios is 
warranted, given the increased demand and requirement for 
radios. Given that the government owns the technical data 
package, additional discounts may be available if a second 
contractor can be established. Currently, the Army is 
conducting a market assessment to ascertain if there are any 
potential vendors interested in and capable of meeting the 
Army's SINCGARS requirements. In the event that there will not 
be a new competition for SINCGARS, the Army could still seek 
additional quantity discounts through a renegotiation with the 
current contractor.
    It is the committee's understanding that the Army plans to 
make a contract award in June 2008, to acquire the over 100,000 
SINCGARS hardware units. The SINCGARS units funded with fiscal 
year 2008 dollars are expected to be delivered beginning in May 
2009, and continue at a monthly delivery rate of 4,000 to 6,600 
units through October 2010. Based on the contractor's 
production rates, the Government Accountability Office has 
determined that the Army does not need to acquire all of the 
radios it is requesting in the fiscal year 2008 war-related 
budget request given supplier lead times and delivery 
schedules.
    The committee is also reluctant to approve the Army's full 
SINCGARS budget request in light of program uncertainties 
related to the Army's requirements for SINCGARS radios. 
Currently, there are Army and Office of Secretary of Defense 
force structure and communications studies underway that may 
impact requirements for SINCGARS radios. Both studies are 
scheduled for completion in the summer of 2007. The committee 
expects these studies will address the Army's acquisition of 
commercial off-the-shelf radios and the prospects for joint 
tactical radio systems future production and fielding.
    Therefore, the committee recommends transferring the $1.4 
billion in title XV, OPA for SINCGARS family to title I, OPA 
for SINCGARS family. Further, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $375.0 million in OPA for SINCGARS hardware units.

Information systems

    The budget request included $156.2 million in Other 
Procurement, Army for information systems, a 700 percent 
increase over the amount requested in fiscal year 2007. 
According to Army budget justification materials, $81.4 million 
of the increase in the base budget is for Grow the Army 
initiative requirements at locations such as Forts Carson, 
Leonard Wood, and Lee. The Army again requested the same amount 
in its justification materials for Grow the Army, duplicating 
the request of $81.4 million for information systems. While the 
committee endorses the Army's need to increase force structure, 
some of the requested funding to support the increase in troop 
strength is unjustified. The committee recommends a decrease of 
$81.4 million in information systems, leaving only the initial 
base budget request of $156.2 million.

Installation information infrastructure modernization program

    The budget request included $217.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Installation Information 
Infrastructure Modernization program (I3MP). I3MP encompasses 
the modernization and upgrade of the telecommunications/
information infrastructure on Army installations in the 
continental United States, Europe, and Pacific theaters, and 
the management of the Army Enterprise Systems. At the 
installation level, I3MP delivers a secure, interoperable 
network that is capable of passing large data packages at high 
speeds to a user's desktop. 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 $1.7 million for hardware 
enhancements to the Defense Information System Network, 
especially to increase network geographic diversity and 
alternative data pathways.

Explosive ordnance disposal equipment

    The budget request included $33.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) 
equipment. Explosive ordnance disposal personnel are in 
constant contact with the most dangerous threats to coalition 
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need adequate equipment 
for operations and training. The committee notes that the Chief 
of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for EOD 
equipment among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 
million in OPA for EOD equipment.

Land warrior

    Many analysts believe that the most prevalent threats the 
Nation will confront over the next 2 decades will be similar to 
those it currently faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee 
understands that the Army must be organized, trained, and 
equipped to respond to all threats at any level on the spectrum 
of conflict. However, the most likely missions the Army will be 
called upon to conduct will be counterinsurgency and stability 
and support operations. These missions are infantry-intensive. 
The Army itself has recognized this and has increased the 
number of infantry in the modular brigade combat teams (BCTs), 
and plans to do the same in the Future Combat Systems BCTs.
    Given that the Army will depend more on infantry, not less, 
the committee is troubled that the Army has not requested 
funding for procurement of the Land Warrior system after 10 
years of development at a cost of $2.0 billion. The committee 
has no clear understanding as to how the Army intends to take 
advantage of the technologies already developed and ready to 
field that will give the infantry advantages it needs on the 
battlefield today.
    Land Warrior, under its latest configuration, gives the 
infantry small unit leaders a suite of capabilities that 
enhance situational awareness and command and control. It 
includes an advanced combat helmet with an optical display 
attachment, a modified M-4 rifle, digital imaging equipment, a 
12-hour lithium-ion battery, a voice and data radio, a Global 
Positioning System, a computer subsystem, a multifunction 
laser, and a control card for identity management.
    The committee is aware that over the years Land Warrior 
suffered not only from management, cost, performance, and 
schedule problems, but also with requirements growth and the 
challenges associated with so many information technology and 
software-based systems. However, the Department of Defense 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) recently 
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 has not completed its 
Initial Operational Test.
    Although Land Warrior still has two technological issues to 
address, the committee understands that DOT&E has indicated 
that the system's test items could deploy with the 4th 
Battalion, 9th Infantry, that the battalion is eager to take 
the system to Iraq, and that the Army has approved the plan.
    The committee notes that funding to support Land Warrior 
items of equipment in Iraq was originally on the Chief of Staff 
of the Army's unfunded requirements list, but understands that 
the Army has now identified sources of funding for that 
purpose.
    The committee also understands that the Army intends to 
take the Land Warrior program to a Milestone C acquisition 
decision to begin low rate initial production (LRIP), but does 
not intend to actually fund LRIP.
    The committee believes that such a decision may be short-
sighted, especially in light of the Army's recognition of the 
centrality of the infantryman to the likely missions the Army 
will face over the next decades. The committee urges the Army 
to review its decision to terminate the Land Warrior program. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an addition of $30.4 
million in PE 64827A, and $49.5 million in Other Procurement, 
Army, to continue development of the Land Warrior program, and 
to procure LRIP items of equipment to field to the remaining 
two battalions of the Stryker brigade combat team currently 
equipped with Land Warrior.

Recon and navigation system

    The budget request included $2.3 billion in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for other support equipment, but 
included no funds for the Recon and Navigation System (RNAV). 
This navigation system supports the mission requirements of 
Army special operations divers. The committee recommends an 
increase of $4.5 million in Other Procurement, Army for RNAV.

Army combat training centers

    The budget request included $16.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) to support improvements at the Army's 
premier training ranges: the National Training Center (NTC), 
the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), and the Joint 
Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC). The committee notes that 
the Army's force generation and rotation training strategies 
have strained the time available for units to conduct their 
normal mission rehearsal exercises at either the NTC, JRTC, or 
JMRC.
    The Army currently plans to invest modestly over the next 3 
years and up to $176.7 million through the future-years defense 
plan to upgrade and modernize the combat training centers. The 
committee is concerned that this investment profile is 
inadequate to meet the mid-term demands of operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and the Army's plans to increase its end 
strength. The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the 
Army identified additional funds for the combat training 
centers among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $102.4 
million in OPA for the combat training centers.

Urban training technologies

    The budget request included $94.9 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for training range instrumentation and 
modernization. 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 $24.8 million 
in OPA to accelerate the procurement of these training systems 
and for the instrumentation of a regional urban operations 
training center.
    The committee understands that the Army's Force Generation 
model (ARFORGEN) depends heavily on increasing the readiness of 
reserve units prior to mobilization. To accomplish this, in 
part, the Army plans to consolidate equipment at regional 
training facilities where units rotate through weapons and 
maneuver qualification then return to their home stations.
    The committee is concerned that the Army has not developed 
a comprehensive modernization plan for local and regional 
training installations, such as Camp Atterbury, Fort Pickett, 
Camp Blanding, Camp Shelby, Fort McCoy, and many others 
necessary to support its reserve component ARFORGEN concept. 
The committee directs the Army to provide the defense 
committees with its regional training facilities modernization 
plan--including identification of installations, projected 
training demand, facilities modernization requirements, 
priorities, costs, and schedules, by January 31, 2008.

Laser collective combat training system

    The budget request included $201.4 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) but did not include funds for the Laser 
Collective Combat Training System (LCCATS). This is a laser-
based marksmanship training system currently in use by National 
Guard units for urban operations, reflexive fire training, 
close quarters marksmanship, and small unit maneuver drills. 
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the 
laser collective combat training system for the procurement and 
fielding of 250 additional systems.

Call for fire trainer

    The budget request included $4.1 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Call For Fire Trainer (CFFT), 
but included no funds for the conclusion of the Joint Fires and 
Effects Trainer System (JFETS) demonstration project. JFETS is 
a next generation, virtual reality call for fire training 
simulation. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in OPA to complete this demonstration project.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs




Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarine program 
        (sec. 131)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract to 
purchase Virginia class submarines, subject to the Secretary's 
providing a certification that all of the criteria in section 
2306b of title 10, United States Code, have been met.
    Navy officials have said that contracting for the next set 
of Virginia class submarines under a multiyear contract would 
allow the Federal Government to achieve roughly 13 percent 
savings when compared to acquiring the same submarines using 
annual contracts.

                           Budget Items--Navy


H-46 modifications

    The budget request included $22.1 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN, line 29) for modifications of H-46 
helicopters, but included no funding to upgrade H-46 
communications equipment. The H-46 helicopter was initially 
designed for a service life of 10,000 hours, but that life has 
been extended twice, and is now expected to reach more than 
15,000 hours before the MV-22 will replace all of them. 
Extending this venerable platform has caused the Marine Corps 
to experience critical obsolescence and sustainment issues. The 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the 
procurement of H-46 communications upgrades.

H-53 modifications

    The budget request included $48.1 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN, line 31) for modifications of H-53 
helicopters, of which $2.3 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, and have procured kits for 
nearly half of the fleet of 148 helicopters. 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 
committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million for the 
procurement of additional IMDS systems.

P-3 modifications

    The budget request included $262.6 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN, line 35) for modifications of P-3 
aircraft, but included no funding for the procurement of 
integrated tactical picture (ITP) systems until fiscal year 
2009. The P-3 aircraft is the workhorse of the U.S. Navy, 
providing a wide array of missions from conducting anti-
submarine warfare to identifying and validating targets on the 
ground or on the ocean's surface, to participating in 
humanitarian relief operations. The P-3 aircraft host a wide 
variety of sensors, from video to radars, to antennas and 
communications, but lack the ability to fuse these inputs into 
one complete tactical picture. Because of this need, the Navy 
developed an ITP system (the automatic fusion of data), but 
deferred procurement funding for ITP until the fiscal year 2009 
budget. The committee recommends an increase of $8.9 million 
for the procurement of ITP systems for P-3 aircraft.

Weapons industrial facilities

    The budget request included $3.7 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.

Ship Self Defense System for carrier replacement program

    The budget request included $2,879.2 million in 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 1) for the Carrier 
Replacement program. Within the budget for the CVN-78, the 
committee notes that the unit cost for the Ship Self Defense 
System (SSDS) is 150 percent greater than the similar system 
procured for the fiscal year 2007 amphibious assault ship, 
LHA(R). The committee has placed significant emphasis on the 
importance of the Navy's managing shipbuilding costs in other 
sections of this report on costs from the shipbuilding prime 
contractors. Given the high proportion of ship costs that 
accrue from sources other than the prime contractors, the 
committee believes that it is equally important for the Navy to 
manage the cost for Government-furnished equipment.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in 
SCN for the SSDS for CVN-78.

Virginia class submarine advance procurement

    The budget request included $702.7 million for advance 
procurement for the Virginia class submarine program. However, 
the budget request included no funding for economic order 
quantity (EOQ) procurement of long lead material in conjunction 
with the fiscal year 2009 multiyear procurement request. The 
Navy has reported that roughly 13 percent savings will be 
achieved through the multiyear procurement for the seven 
Virginia class submarines programmed in fiscal years 2009 
through 2013. Further, as reported by the Navy and testified by 
the Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of the Navy to the 
Subcommittee on Seapower, additional advance procurement for 
economic order quantity purchases of long lead material would 
increase multiyear savings, help stabilize the Nation's 
critical submarine industrial base, provide greater opportunity 
to achieve program schedule reductions, and provide for an 
efficient transition to build two submarines per year. The Navy 
estimates that approximately 14 percent savings can be achieved 
on an additional $470.0 million investment in advance 
procurement.
    The Navy has identified the requirement for a fleet of 313 
ships, including 48 attack submarines. However, the Navy 
projects that attack submarine levels will fall as low as 40 
boats, and remain below the 48-boat requirement for more than a 
decade.
    The Navy is now claiming that it will be able to mitigate 
this shortage in forces using three techniques:
          (1) building the new Virginia class submarines faster 
        by reducing the time between the start of construction 
        to delivery from the current level of 86 months for the 
        last boat to deliver to a level of 60 months;
          (2) extending the life of some boats currently in the 
        fleet from 3 to 24 months; and
          (3) increasing the length of deployments.
    By using a combination of these measures, the Navy claims 
that it will be able to maintain no fewer than 42 boats in the 
force and will be able to maintain the current level of 
commitments to the combatant commanders (roughly 10 boats 
continuously on deployment).
    The committee commends the Navy for exploring alternatives 
for maintaining the current levels of commitment to the 
combatant commanders. However, these potential actions are not 
without some risk.
    Reducing the construction start-to-delivery time would 
certainly speed the arrival of new construction boats in the 
fleet. However, the committee understands that on the whole 
SSN-688 class consisting of 62 boats, the contractors were only 
able to deliver three boats with a start-to-delivery interval 
of 60 months or less. The maximum building time was 86 months 
and the average for all 62 boats was 72 months.
    In addition, extending the length of deployments would help 
produce more deployed days for meeting requirements, but the 
committee wonders about the price that this could exact. The 
Navy's previous attempts to extend times on deployment (and 
reduce the amount of time spent at home) have resulted in 
retention problems. In fact, submarine sailors already spend 
much more time deployed on average than the rest of the Navy.
    But even if one assumes that these measures are successful, 
current deployments are not sufficient to meet all of the 
priority national requirements and less than 60 percent of the 
combatant commanders' overall requirements.
    The committee believes that it is essential for the Navy to 
increase attack submarine production rates as soon as 
practicable in order to minimize the risk to our national 
security posture posed by the long-term shortfall to the attack 
submarine force. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $470.0 million for Virginia class advance 
procurement, which would support building two submarines in 
fiscal year 2010.

DDG-51 program completion costs

    The budget request included $78.1 million in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 13) for DDG-51 program 
completion and production shutdown costs. This request is in 
addition to approximately $500 million that has been previously 
appropriated for these activities. The committee understands 
the necessity to properly fund these activities in order to 
support the efficient and effective delivery of remaining ships 
in the program, and to transition special tooling and program 
material for in-service support. The committee notes that the 
full scope of the program closeout effort continues to be 
defined as shipbuilders and vendors plan to transition from 
DDG-51 production to DDG-1000 production. Previous 
appropriations provide sufficient funding to support program 
completion activities through fiscal year 2008, while the Navy 
completes its determination of the scope of requirements for 
closing out the DDG-51 program. The committee expects the Navy 
to refine estimates for program completion based on the ongoing 
determination of requirements, and to include remaining funding 
requirements in the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in SCN 
for DDG-51 program completion.

Littoral combat ship

    The budget request included $910.5 million in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 15) for the construction of 
three 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 a mission needs to 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 the middle of 2008. The LCS-1 contractor 
team had barely started on their second ship (LCS-3) when the 
program ran into major cost problems earlier this 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. These negotiations 
occurred during this past spring. When the stop work order was 
nearly ready to expire, the Navy announced that it and the LCS-
1 contractor team were unable to reach an agreement and that 
the Navy was terminating the contract for LCS-3 for the 
convenience of the Government. It is too early to precisely 
estimate the termination costs, but the Navy has reported that 
significant funds for LCS-3 are on hold pending completion of 
the termination negotiations.
    The second contractor team has a contract to build two LCS 
vessels of another design (LCS-2 and LCS-4). The Navy awarded 
this contract later, so LCS-2 is roughly 1 year behind the LCS-
1. Unfortunately, it appears that this team is experiencing 
similar cost problems. The Navy has not issued the same 
ultimatum to this contractor team, but has claimed that the 
Navy will do so if the cost of LCS-2 continues to grow toward 
the Navy's estimate. Meanwhile, the Navy is proceeding with the 
start of construction on LCS-4, although it is not clear that 
the root causes for early cost growth on LCS-2 have been 
addressed.
    The committee is disappointed that the cost of the lead 
ship has more than doubled and the delivery schedule has 
slipped several times.
    The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for 
exercising oversight and for trying to bring cost and schedule 
discipline to this troubled program. The committee is also 
interested in supporting the Secretary's efforts to improve the 
Navy's acquisition process. Reviewing this LCS situation will 
undoubtedly result in a new set of ``lessons learned'' that the 
acquisition community will dutifully try to implement. However, 
the committee has previously expressed concerns about the LCS 
concept and the LCS acquisition strategy. The LCS situation may 
be more a case of ``lessons lost.'' Long ago, we knew that we 
should not rush to sign a construction contract before we have 
solidified requirements. We also knew that the contractors will 
respond to incentives, and that if the incentives are focused 
on maintaining schedules and not on controlling cost, cost 
growth on a cost-plus contract should surprise no one. After 
the fact, everyone appears ready to agree that the original 
ship construction schedule for the lead ship was overly 
aggressive.
    The Navy has said that the capability that this vessel will 
bring to the fleet is of the utmost urgency for responding to 
asymmetric threats. The committee believes that if the Navy 
really believed that the threat were that urgent, it might have 
taken more near-term steps to address it. For example, the Navy 
might not have cancelled the remote minehunting system (RMS) 
capability on a number of the DDG-51 class destroyers, ships 
that will be available to the combatant commanders much sooner 
than LCS. The Navy might also have taken this modular 
capability slated for the LCS and packaged those modules to 
deploy sooner on ships of opportunity. Rather, the Navy is 
waiting on a shipbuilding program to deliver that capability 
(in a useful quantity) at some future date.
    The Navy now proposes to use the funds requested in fiscal 
year 2008 to award contracts for two LCS vessels, rather than 
the three originally envisioned. Given the uncertainty about 
what is happening with the earlier ships in the program and 
uncertainties about the options for an acquisition strategy 
that will remain available to the Navy next year, the Navy does 
not intend to award these two contracts until late in fiscal 
year 2008.
    In summary:
          (1) a high degree of cost uncertainty will continue 
        to overshadow the LCS program until the two lead ships 
        execute test and trials, starting late in 2007.
          (2) the Navy's current estimate is that the 
        approximately $1.6 billion appropriated for the first 
        six ships will be required to complete the three ships 
        currently under contract, with significant additional 
        funding being held for termination of a fourth ship.
          (3) if the Navy's estimates are correct, or low, then 
        the Navy will be engaging in fixed price negotiations 
        with the second prime contractor for LCS-2 and LCS-4 
        late in 2007, with the distinct possibility that LCS-4 
        would be terminated.
          (4) if the Navy's estimates are high, then sufficient 
        funding from within previous appropriations should be 
        available for a newly procured LCS.
          (5) the Navy has yet to formulate its acquisition 
        strategy for the LCS program, however, the challenges 
        inherent to fair competition between two dissimilar 
        ship designs have become significantly more complex in 
        light of the recent termination of LCS-3 (or potential 
        termination of LCS-4).
          (6) the Navy has announced a delay for conducting a 
        program downselect decision until 2010, at which time 
        it also plans to revise the LCS combat system, which 
        raises concerns regarding the infrastructure and life 
        cycle support costs for the three or four ships of the 
        LCS variant not selected for ``full rate production.''
          (7) program delays have pushed the next notional 
        contract award until late in fiscal year 2008.
          (8) termination negotiations for LCS-3 will likely be 
        proceeding at the same time the prime contractor is 
        being solicited for a proposal to build another LCS 
        ship, in which case the material procured for LCS-3 
        would likely revert back to the contractor for this new 
        procurement. The net effect is that the current LCS-3 
        obligations that are fenced for termination costs would 
        sufficiently cover the contractor's fiscal year 2008 
        obligations for a newly procured LCS.
    The committee recommends $480.0 million for LCS in fiscal 
year 2008, a decrease of $430.5 million. We cannot relive the 
early days of the LCS program and remember ``lessons learned,'' 
but we have the opportunity to take positive steps now to right 
the program. Before awarding contracts for additional ships in 
the LCS program, we need to maintain focus on delivering the 
most capability possible for the $1.6 billion invested thus far 
for six ships. This would require that we impose accountability 
for the quality of program estimates; halt further changes to 
program requirements; and ensure that the contracts provide 
effective incentives for cost performance.
    The Secretary of the Navy has advised the committee that 
the Navy's estimates appear to be quite conservative based on 
contractor performance over the past quarter, as measured 
against recently revised baselines. Although further risk is 
acknowledged, the Navy has expressed confidence that the 
program will be able to improve on the Navy's worst case 
estimates and avoid further termination action. If the Navy and 
industry are successful in managing costs going forward, this 
should allow four ships to be delivered within previously 
appropriated funds.
    The committee notes that the LCS-1 contractor was awarded a 
lead ship contract that targeted a significantly lower price 
and a significantly more aggressive schedule for starting 
construction. The risks inherent in this aggressive schedule 
were exacerbated by changes to Navy requirements. These factors 
may have contributed to the decision to terminate LCS-3--an 
outcome referred to as ``winner-loses.'' The resultant 
imbalance between the two competing shipbuilders jeopardizes 
the Navy's ultimate goal for a competitive downselect in 2010, 
followed by full and open competition for the winning LCS 
variant.
    Therefore, the committee directs that funds authorized for 
a fiscal year 2008 LCS ship may only be used when combined with 
LCS SCN funds appropriated in prior years, to solicit, on a 
competitive basis, bids for two fixed price LCS ship 
construction contracts, one for each of the two competing LCS 
variants. The Secretary of the Navy may waive this requirement 
only if: he determines that there is only one acceptable LCS 
variant, based on completion of acceptance trials on the two 
LCS variants; and he notifies the congressional defense 
committees 30 days before releasing a solicitation based on 
that waiver determination.
    The committee believes that the history of the LCS 
acquisition strategy has been one of documenting decisions, 
rather than guiding and informing decisions. Therefore, the 
Secretary of Defense is directed to submit a report on the 
approved acquisition strategy for the LCS program at least 90 
days prior to issuing any solicitation or requests for 
proposal, but no later than December 1, 2008.

Outfitting and post-delivery

    The budget request included $419.8 million in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 23) for outfitting and post-
delivery funding. Outfitting and post-delivery is a centrally-
managed account for all ship programs funded in the SCN 
account. Outfitting and post-delivery requests are made 
annually based on projected vessel delivery schedules. The Navy 
has requested funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget request 
for post-delivery purposes in advance of execution requirements 
because ship delivery schedules across multiple programs have 
been delayed.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $40.0 million in SCN 
for outfitting and post-delivery.

LCS modules

    The budget request included $80.3 million for assembling 
and outfitting Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) mission modules. The 
Navy intends the LCS to be a relatively smaller vessel that 
carries modular payloads. The Navy concept is that, using these 
mission modules, an LCS might be configured to operate as an 
anti-submarine vessel on one day. On the next day, the Navy 
might change the whole mission payload and operate the LCS in 
an anti-surface warfare mode.
    As described elsewhere in this report, the LCS program has 
run into serious problems. The committee sees no particular 
reason to acquire mission modules at the pace planned by the 
Navy, since there have been significant delays in the ship 
program. The committee recommends a decrease of $65.0 million 
for LCS modules.

SPQ-9B radar

    The budget request included $14.5 million for procurement 
of SPQ-9B radar equipment. The SPQ-9B radar provides surface 
ships with a gunfire control radar that also enhances ship 
self-
defense capabilities. The Navy plans to buy another SPQ-9B in 
fiscal year 2010. The committee believes that the Navy could 
achieve more efficient production by combining the procurement 
of the two buys. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $6.0 million to procure an additional SPQ-9B radar.

Sonobuoys

    The budget request included $67.4 million in Other 
Procurement, Navy (OPN, line 88) for sonobuoy procurement. The 
Navy's current sonobuoy inventory and planned procurement for 
fiscal year 2008 fall short of the Navy's Non-Nuclear Ordnance 
Requirement (NNOR), which was established to support the 
National Military Strategy plus annual training requirements.
    Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) continues to be a core mission 
of the United States Navy. Our naval force could face modern, 
highly capable submarines operating in littoral waters where 
acoustic conditions are poor and sonobuoy expenditures could 
greatly exceed projections.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 
sonobuoy procurement to improve training and readiness.

Weapons range support equipment

    The budget request included $58.2 million in Other 
Procurement, Navy (OPN, line 89) for the procurement of 
equipment to implement the Navy fleet training range 
instrumentation training plan, but included no funding for the 
continued procurement of the multi-spectral threat emitter 
system (MTES).
    The proliferation of lethal surface-to-air missiles and 
anti-aircraft artillery presents a clear threat to the 
warfighter. Threat emitters replicate the electronic signatures 
of these threats on training ranges. Additional funding would 
permit the Navy to expand usage of MTES capabilities to other 
fleet training ranges. The committee recommends an increase of 
$8.0 million for the procurement of two MTES.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

    The budget request included $42.4 million for anti-ship 
missile decoy systems, including $25.5 million for procuring 55 
new NULKA decoys. Procuring additional NULKA decoys would 
ensure that fleet installations remain on a reasonable 
schedule, would keep production rates above the minimum 
sustaining level, and would achieve more reasonable unit 
production costs. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million for the NULKA procurement program to purchase 
additional decoys.

Submarine training device modifications

    The budget request included $32.1 million to procure 
submarine training device modifications. The Navy has critical 
training requirements to support submarines in the fleet and 
has been using performance support systems (PSS) that would 
enhance training quality opportunities. The committee 
understands that the Navy could expand the development of the 
oxygen generator and air purification PSS capabilities to be 
used to support onboard qualifications, operation, and 
maintenance activities for the submarines. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to expand the 
use of performance support systems in conducting submarine 
training.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs




Limitation on retirement of C-130E/H tactical airlift aircraft (sec. 
        141)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any C-130E/H 
tactical airlift aircraft in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee believes it would be premature to retire C-
130 aircraft until an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has 
conducted an assessment of the C-130E/H fleet of aircraft and 
the results of the Intra-theater Lift Capability Study (ITLCS) 
and the Force Mix Study identify the right mix and number of 
intra-theater airlift assets, and the results of the assessment 
and the ITLCS and Force Mix studies have been provided to the 
congressional defense committees.

Limitation on retirement of KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft (sec. 
        142)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any KC-135E 
aircraft during fiscal year 2008 unless the Air Force provides 
the congressional defense committees with a request to retire 
KC-135E aircraft during fiscal year 2008 in accordance with 
established procedures similar to those used for prior approval 
reprogramming requests. The Air Force's number one acquisition 
priority is to replace its aged KC-135E fleet of aircraft with 
a new tanker, the KC-X. Two contractor teams have submitted 
offers responding to the KC-X request for proposals. The Air 
Force is currently reviewing those offers.
    The committee notes that multiple studies have been 
conducted, both by the Air Force and independent groups, on 
service life and viability of the KC-135 fleet. These include: 
(1) ``Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 Assessment 
Report,'' September 2005; (2) ``Defense Science Board Task 
Force Report on Aerial Refueling Requirements,'' May 2004; (3) 
``The Tanker Requirement Study 2005''; (4) ``KC-135 Economic 
Service Life Study (ESLS)''; and (5) ``CNA Summary Analysis of 
the Material Condition of the KC-135 Aerial Refueling Fleet,'' 
August 2004.
    The committee remains concerned, however, that as 
recommended in the ``Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 
Assessment Report,'' the Air Force has still not done 
destructive testing on a KC-135E aircraft. In addition, the Air 
Force has a history of retiring aircraft before fielding a 
replacement, creating its own shortfall in capabilities. The 
committee expects that the retirement of KC-135E aircraft 
should be informed by the progress made on the KC-X acquisition 
strategy and the outcome of the destructive testing.

                        Budget Items--Air Force


B-2 bomber

    The budget request included $316.1 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the B-2 bomber, of which 
$270.6 million was for radar modernization. The budget request 
also included $244.0 million for the B-2 bomber in PE 64240F. 
The fiscal year 2008 budget requested $45.8 million in war-
related funding for APAF line 23 for the B-2, of which an 
additional $10.0 million was for B-2 radar modernization. The 
radar modernization program has experienced a number of 
problems and is in the process of being restructured. To 
address the requirements of the restructured program the 
committee recommends a decrease of $38.0 million in APAF and an 
increase of $38.0 million in PE 64240F for the restructured B-2 
bomber radar modernization program. The committee recommends a 
further decrease of $10.0 million in APAF line 23 due to the 
delay in the radar program and an additional $14.1 million 
reduction in the fiscal year 2008 budget request for war-
related funding, which is excess to the restructured program.

B-52 bomber aircraft

    The budget request included $18.1 million for the B-52 
bomber in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) line 25 for 
aircraft modernization, but no funds for the electronic 
countermeasure improvement (ECMI) program and avionics midlife 
improvement (AMI) program. The committee recommends an 
additional $19.0 million to ensure that AMI and ECMI 
capabilities are available for all 76 B-52 bomber aircraft. The 
committee urges the Air Force to include full funding in the 
fiscal year 2009 budget request to support 76 modernized bomber 
aircraft with 44 combat coded aircraft.

Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system

    The budget request included $73.7 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 47) 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 terrorists 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) AC-130 and MC-130 aircraft, is 
included on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded 
priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 
million to accelerate LAIRCM upgrades for the SOCOM C-130 
aircraft.

C-135 global air traffic management

    The budget request included $118.6 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 49) for modifications to the 
C-135 and KC-135 aircraft, including $103.3 million for the 
procurement of Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) 
modifications. The GATM modification includes avionics 
upgrades, wiring interfaces, and associated preparation 
activities for added communications, navigation, and 
surveillance equipment needed for operations in oceanic 
airspace where there are reduced spacing requirements between 
aircraft. To accelerate this program, the committee recommends 
an increase of $9.0 million for procurement of additional KC-
135 GATM modifications.

Advanced targeting pod

    The budget request included $683.1 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 78) for miscellaneous 
production charges, including $105.4 million for the 
procurement of advanced targeting pods (ATPs). Advanced 
targeting pods provide targeting capability for use with 
precision guided munitions on fighter, bomber, and attack 
aircraft. The LITENING ATP is currently in use by both the 
active and reserve components of the Air Force. The Air Force 
Chief of Staff included $22.0 million for additional ATPs in 
his unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an 
increase of $49.5 million for the procurement of 33 additional 
LITENING ATPs.

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile

    The budget request included $201.1 million in Missile 
Procurement, Air Force (MPAF, line 2) for the Joint Air-to-
Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The committee notes that the 
JASSM program has recently suffered a series of four 
unsuccessful flight tests, covering the first four production 
lots. In addition, the Air Force notified Congress in April 
that the JASSM program had suffered a Nunn-McCurdy breach due 
to cost growth. Press reports quote the Assistant Secretary of 
the Air Force for Acquisition as saying the program is 
currently under review and termination is one possible course 
of action.
    The committee recognizes that JASSM was designed to meet a 
needed capability. However, increasing production from 163 
missiles in fiscal year 2007 to 210 missiles in fiscal year 
2008 appears unwarranted given the program's current 
difficulties.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in 
MPAF for the JASSM.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite

    The budget request included $0.7 million in Missile 
Procurement, Air Force for the Advanced Extremely High 
Frequency (AEHF) satellite. The committee recommends an 
increase of $125.0 million for advanced procurement for the 
fourth AEHF satellite.
    The AEHF is a satellite that provides secure, survivable 
anti-jam, anti-scintillation communications for tactical and 
strategic users. It will provide low, medium, and high data 
rate capability to all military services and defense agencies. 
It is the successor satellite system to the Milstar system, but 
provides 10 times more capacity. The first AEHF launch is on 
schedule for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008, with follow 
launches in 2009 and 2010.
    In 2002, the Air Force decided that new technology, 
particularly laser communications, would provide greater 
communications capability and established the Transformational 
Satellite Communications system (TSAT) as a successor to AEHF. 
Originally the first TSAT was going to replace the fourth AEHF 
satellite and launch in 2012. As a result of schedule, 
technical, and other issues the TSAT program has been delayed 
with a first launch now scheduled for the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2016. The fourth AEHF was to have launched in 2011.
    With the slip in TSAT there is a gap in projected 
communications capability that is worrisome. General 
Cartwright, Commander of United States Strategic Command 
testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that 
``the constellation of satellites is critical to us. We cannot 
afford a gap in that capability.'' The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended a fourth AEHF as a 
way to mitigate the risk of the communications gap.
    The committee notes that in the AEHF program, as in several 
other space modernization programs, early termination of one 
program in favor of a new, technically complex replacement 
program could increase the risk that gaps in capability might 
arise when there are delays in the new program. While the 
committee fully supports the TSAT program and the significant 
improvements in capabilities that it provides, including 
communications on the move, the committee believes that it is 
prudent to procure a fourth AEHF to mitigate the risk of 
subsequent delays in TSAT, which would result in increasingly 
significant communications gaps.
    The committee also directs the Air Force to fund TSAT fully 
to minimize any further gaps resulting from future TSAT program 
delays. Delays will surely occur for a variety of reasons that 
are unknown at this time and the Air Force should avoid 
deliberate programmatic delays. The committee is not aware of 
any satellite program that launched on the schedule and budget 
in place 8 years prior to the first launch.

Joint threat emitter

    The budget request included $9.5 million in Other 
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF, line 28) for the joint threat 
emitter (JTE) program. This Air Force program provides a state-
of-the-art surface-to-air missile (SAM) threat simulation 
incorporating commercial technology into a modular architecture 
to maximize diverse capabilities and configurations for joint 
aircrew training. A transportable, single reprogrammable unit 
provides multiple (up to three) threat presentations, realistic 
aircraft tracking simulation, and video feedback debrief 
functions. JTE is designed to reduce range operations and 
maintenance requirements up to 80 percent as compared to 
previous systems. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 
million for JTE procurement to allow the Air Force to deploy 
JTE systems at additional training sites.

Space-Based Infrared Satellite system mission control station backup

    The budget request included $4.0 million in Other 
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) line 36 for Space-Based Infrared 
Satellite (SBIRS) system ground control mobile and fixed site 
communications and electronics upgrades. The committee 
recommends an additional $27.6 million for the SBIRS backup 
mission control ground station. This additional funding is 
needed to provide the backup ground station with capabilities 
compatible with both the legacy missile warning satellites and 
both SBIRS elements. This item is listed on the Air Force Space 
Command unfunded priority list.

Self-deploying infrared streamer

    The budget request included no funding in Other 
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) for personal safety and rescue 
equipment items less than $5.0 million. The self-deploying 
infrared streamer (SDIRS) system aids in the rescue of downed 
aircrew at sea. The SDIRS system is attached to an ejection 
seat and automatically deploys and activates upon submergence 
in the water, making the wearer highly visible to search and 
rescue teams using the naked eye during daylight and night 
vision equipment during hours of darkness. The SDIRS 
installation requires only minimal modification to the existing 
system without affecting other components of the pilot's 
survival kit.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for 
procurement of the self-deploying infrared streamer.



                       Budget Items--Defense-wide


Defense Information Systems Network enhancement

    The budget request included $48.9 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), line 18 for Defense Information System 
Network related procurement. 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 $14.0 million for 
enhancements to the Defense Information System Network, 
especially to increase network geographic diversity and 
alternative data pathways.

CV-22 procurement

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $238.6 million 
in Procurement Defense-wide (PDW) for Special Operations 
Command aviation programs for the CV-22 Special Operations 
Forces modifications. The Navy has been slow to obligate funds 
for the aircraft. Therefore, $8.7 million will not be required 
in fiscal year 2008 to fund procurement for the modifications.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $8.7 million in PDW 
for Special Operations Command aviation programs for the CV-22 
Special Operations Forces modifications.

M291 skin decontamination kit

    The budget request included $28.6 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological decontamination 
equipment, of which $13.0 million is to procure M291 Skin 
Decontamination Kits (SDK) for high threat areas. The committee 
recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PDW to procure 
additional M291 SDKs. The committee notes that decontamination 
capabilities are not sufficiently robust, and the additional 
funding would help to increase the primary personal 
decontamination system for U.S. forces, pending approval by the 
Food and Drug Administration of the follow-on skin 
decontamination system.

Collectively protected deployable medical system

    The budget request included $38.9 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for procurement of collective protection 
equipment to protect U.S. forces from chemical and biological 
warfare agents. Of this amount, $3.5 million is for procurement 
of collectively protected field hospitals, including the Army's 
Collectively Protected Deployable Medical system (CP DEPMEDS). 
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for 
procurement of an additional Army CP DEPMEDS unit. These 
systems fill a collective protection capability requirement to 
sustain medical operations in a chemical and biological 
contaminated environment for 72 hours.

Automatic chemical agent detector and alarm

    The budget request included $211.3 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for contamination avoidance equipment to 
support the procurement of chemical and biological detection, 
warning and reporting, and reconnaissance systems, such as the 
M-22 Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm (ACADA). The 
committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PDW to 
meet procurement shortfalls in fielding ACADA systems. The 
committee notes that a number of Army National Guard units are 
deployed in support of military operations, but do not have 
adequate chemical agent detection and warning equipment. These 
units must have the best available equipment for defense 
against chemical warfare threats. Additional ACADA procurement 
will provide this needed equipment.

Improved chemical agent monitor

    The budget request included $211.3 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological contamination 
avoidance equipment, but included no funding for the Improved 
Chemical Agent Monitor (ICAM). The committee recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million in PDW for procurement of additional 
ICAM units, to increase the Army National Guard's chemical 
contamination avoidance capabilities.
    The ICAM is a hand-held, soldier operated, post-attack 
device that provides a means of quickly detecting the presence 
of chemical agent contamination on personnel and equipment. The 
committee notes that Army National Guard units do not all 
possess the capability to rapidly and effectively detect the 
presence of chemical agents. These units must have the best 
available force protection equipment to detect the presence of 
chemical threats.

Joint biological point detection system

    The budget request included $211.3 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological contamination 
avoidance equipment, including $77.8 million for the Joint 
Biological Point Detection system (JBPDS). The JBPDS provides 
continuous, rapid, and fully automated collection, detection, 
and identification of biological warfare agents. It is 
configured for a variety of service operating platforms and 
environments. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in PDW for procurement of additional JBPDS units, which 
are high-demand, low-density systems.

                       Items of Special Interest


C-5 Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program

    The 2005 Mobility Capability Study (MCS), submitted with 
the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request, determined 
that the Department of Defense requires 292 to 383 large 
aircraft to meet the strategic airlift requirements of the 
National Military Strategy (NMS). The quantity and mix of 
aircraft planned for the strategic airlift fleet reflects: (i) 
the Department's tolerance for risk associated with 
accomplishing the strategic airlift mission; (ii) the 
Department's plan to augment organic airlift assets with 
commercial assets to meet peak airlift demands; and (iii) the 
Department's determination of the mix and utilization of large 
aircraft that would most affordably accomplish the anticipated 
strategic lift missions.
    The MCS concluded that a strategic airlift force of 112 
modernized C-5 aircraft plus 180 C-17 aircraft would meet the 
NMS requirements with acceptable risk. The 2006 MCS update, 
submitted with the fiscal year 2008 President's budget request, 
further verified that the current program plan for 301 
strategic airlift aircraft (111 modernized C-5 aircraft plus 
190 C-17 aircraft) would meet the NMS requirements with 
acceptable risk.
    The modernization plan for C-5 aircraft includes the 
Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program (RERP), which 
intends to increase reliability significantly and reduce 
operating costs for the C-5 fleet. The Air Force's plan to 
modernize all 111 remaining C-5 aircraft reflects the unique 
capability and critical capacity contributed by the C-5 fleet 
to the airlift mission, and the affordability of modernizing C-
5 aircraft as compared to procuring new replacement aircraft. 
The contractor team has completed the RERP modification on one 
C-5A and two C-5B aircraft. The Air Force plan is to complete 
operational testing on these three aircraft in fiscal year 
2009. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request included 
$253.3 million in procurement funding for the first lot of low 
rate initial production RERP aircraft. The program of record 
would complete the final C-5 RERP in 2021.
    The committee is aware that the Department is reviewing C-5 
RERP cost performance to determine whether it will incur a 
Nunn-McCurdy breach. Since C-5 RERP is a critical element of 
all force planning scenarios under consideration, inability by 
the Department to control C-5 RERP cost increases the risk 
associated with the U.S. Transportation Command's ability to 
meet U.S. objectives in a national emergency. The committee is 
concerned by the apparent cost growth on the program and the 
implications of this cost growth to airlift capability. The Air 
Force's reaction to these potential cost increases appears to 
be focused on revisiting the `business case' for whether to 
modernize C-5A aircraft or replace them. It is not clear to the 
committee whether the Department has formulated an effective 
strategy for restoring affordability to the critical program.
    In view of these concerns, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report on C-5 RERP 
within 30 days of enactment of this Act. The report shall: 
provide a current assessment of C-5 RERP qualification testing; 
estimate projected in-service performance of C-5 aircraft with 
the RERP modification; and outline the current estimated 
program costs, the causes for cost growth, and the Air Force's 
strategy to employ lessons learned with the developmental RERP 
aircraft to reduce cost risk for RERP production.

DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization program

    The Secretary of the Navy's fiscal year 2007 report to 
Congress on the long-range plan for construction of naval 
vessels identified the requirement to operate the 62-ship DDG-
51 class for a full 35-year service life in order to meet the 
Navy's surface combatant force structure requirements. The DDG-
51 modernization program, which upgrades the DDG-51 class with 
key technologies for improved warfighting capability and 
reduced operating and support cost, is essential to achieving 
this 35-year expected service life. The Navy plans to 
accomplish the modernization at the approximate mid-life point 
for each ship, commencing with USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) in 
2010. As currently programmed, the 62-ship modernization effort 
would span approximately 20 years at a cost in excess of $5.0 
billion.
    The magnitude of this investment, coupled with the 
criticality of the modernization effort to surface combatant 
mission effectiveness, warrants a thorough understanding of how 
the Navy is balancing requirements for system performance, 
affordability, schedule, competition, quality of life, 
industrial base factors (including consideration of the 
building yards, other private yards, and the Navy shipyards), 
risk, and other priorities in its procurement of the DDG-51 
modernization program. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees, with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, 
outlining the alternative acquisition strategies under 
consideration for the DDG-51 modernization program. The report 
shall address the specific factors identified above, the 
priorities assigned to these factors, and the methodology the 
Navy is using to optimize the DDG-51 modernization program in 
accordance with its established priorities.

MQ-1C Predator/Warrior

    The budget request included $45.6 million for development 
and $118.5 million for procurement of an extended range/multi-
purpose (ERMP) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). This vehicle is a 
variant of the Air Force MQ-1 Predator A, with 50 percent 
greater payload and other improvements, such as an automatic 
takeoff and landing system and a heavy fuel engine. The Air 
Force has designated the air vehicle as the MQ-1C, and the Army 
has named it Warrior. The budget request also included $278.0 
million in procurement for the MQ-1 Predator for the Air Force.
    The Air Force has expressed interest in procuring the Army 
MQ-1C. The committee directs that the Air Force attempt to 
change over to MQ-1C production on the existing Predator A 
production line in fiscal year 2008, if possible. As noted 
elsewhere in this Report, the MQ-1C's additional payload will 
allow the Air Force to field better signals intelligence 
payloads.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has proposed that it 
be designated as the executive agent for medium- and high-
altitude UAVs. The Air Force asserts that an executive agency 
would provide efficiencies in acquisition and airspace control, 
and ensure interoperability and responsiveness to the joint 
theater commander. The concern of the Army at this juncture is 
assuredness of support to ground forces.
    The committee does not believe that a service must build 
and operate its own systems in order to ensure that it is 
adequately supported. Indeed, the mutual dependencies of each 
of the specialized military services are clear and numerous. At 
the same time, the committee is not naive about how hard it can 
be at times for one service to gain adequate and timely support 
from the others.
    The committee agrees that the Air Force has raised a 
legitimate issue for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
and the Secretary of Defense. However, the committee wants to 
ensure that all pertinent aspects of the issue are considered. 
For example, the Air Force emphasizes the benefits of tight 
integration into the Joint Force Air Component Command (JFAC) 
structure, but the Army stresses tight coupling into the major 
elements of its ground and helicopter forces. Another example 
is the cost savings that the Army will achieve by using 
enlisted personnel instead of rated-pilot officers to fly the 
MQ-1Cs. It also appears that the Army may have gained a 
significantly better Predator than the one the Air Force 
planned to continue buying, through a competition that might 
never have occurred under an executive agency.
    The committee expects a careful study of the issue of 
executive agency for UAVs, including different levels of 
comprehensiveness. In the meantime, the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the 
Army should strive to achieve as much commonality, 
interoperability, and flexibility as possible between UAV 
acquisitions.

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle reporting requirement

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
60 days after enactment of this Act, and every 60 days 
thereafter until the termination of Operation Iraqi Freedom 
(OIF), setting forth the respective military services' 
requirements for all armored tactical and support vehicles, 
such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle, and 
the extent to which those requirements have been met. This 
report shall be submitted as part of the Up-armored High 
Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) reporting 
requirement included in the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
Tsunami Relief for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 109-13).
    The committee supports the urgency with which the 
Department of Defense plans to produce and field the MRAP 
vehicle. However, there is concern about how the demands of 
this new production program in addition to the current 
production of HMMWVs and other tactical and support armored 
vehicles, will impact the availability of raw materials such as 
suitable steel. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
to provide the congressional defense committees not later than 
January 31, 2008, and annually thereafter until the termination 
of OIF, an assessment of the Department's ability to acquire 
suitable steel to meet its armored vehicle production 
requirement.

Navy harbor tugs

    Since the mid-1980s, the Navy has been decommissioning its 
aging harbor tug (YTB) fleet at its bases around the world and 
replacing the YTBs with time-charter contracts with commercial 
tug boat companies. Competition among tug boat operators for 
these contracts has been intense. The Military Sealift Command 
(MSC) has employed contract tug services though the use of 
performance specifications, commercial procurement practices, 
and communication with the harbor craft industry to ensure our 
solicitations and contracts did not impose unnecessary 
administrative burdens. By requiring commercial firms to 
provide fully operational tugs, including logistics, 
maintenance, and management/crewing support, the Navy has been 
able to reassign military personnel previously operating these 
Navy tugs.
    The Navy's transition from organic to commercial tug 
services holds the promise of achieving additional savings. The 
committee encourages the Navy to review the potential for 
shifting to commercial tug services in areas where the Navy is 
still operating YTBs.

LPD-17 amphibious transport dock

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 included funding 
for the ninth ship of the USS San Antonio (LPD-17) class 
amphibious ship program. The Secretary of the Navy's 2007 
report to Congress on the long-range plan for construction of 
naval vessels calls for a ``below threshold'' expeditionary 
warfare force. Specifically, the plan would reduce 
expeditionary force size, including a reduction in the LPD-17 
class from a total of 12 to 9 ships. 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, and 2007, Marine Corps leadership stated that a class of 
10 LPD-17 ships was required to meet Marine Corps forcible 
entry requirements, with acceptable risk. The Chief of Naval 
Operations has identified procurement of a tenth LPD-17 ship in 
2008 as the Navy's top unfunded priority.
    The committee is aware that construction for a tenth LPD-17 
ship would not commence until fiscal year 2009, but delaying 
procurement beyond 2009 would cause significant cost growth and 
jeopardize industrial base stability by introducing production 
breaks in the program. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report not later than 
November 1, 2007, that outlines the funding required for a 
``smart buy'' of LPD-26, maintaining continuous, uninterrupted 
production at critical vendors' and shipbuilders' facilities.

Procurement requests related to increasing the size of the Army and the 
        Marine Corps

    The fiscal year 2008 budget submitted by the President in 
February included ``placeholder'' line items totaling $4.1 
billion in the Army procurement budget and an additional $2.3 
billion in the Navy and Marine Corps procurement accounts. 
These amounts were set aside for increased equipment 
procurement to support the proposal in the fiscal year 2008 
budget to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. 
On April 3, 2007, the Army submitted a proposed program, 
project, and activity level allocation of the $4.1 billion in 
Army funds, together with justification material to support 
that proposal. Later in April the Marine Corps made a similar 
unofficial request and provided justification material to 
support that request. Although neither of these requests were 
submitted by the administration as budget amendments, the 
committee has reviewed them and incorporated these proposed 
allocations in this legislation where warranted. Reductions in 
the ``placeholder'' line items, and increases proposed by the 
services in their detailed proposals to allocate those funds, 
are reflected in the Army procurement tables and the tables 
relating to Procurement, Marine Corps and Procurement of 
Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps in this report. All such 
reallocations are designated in the table as relating to ``Grow 
the Force'' (GTF).

Shipboard personal locator beacon

    In response to the Naval Safety Center's recommendation to 
improve safety for sailors operating topside while underway, 
the committee has supported increases to the President's budget 
request in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the procurement of 
man overboard indicator systems for the fleet. The technology 
incorporated in such personal locator beacons may potentially 
provide applications for improved response to damage control, 
security alert, or other shipboard actions requiring 
accountability for personnel location and movement. The 
committee is aware that the Navy is developing state-of-the-art 
damage control information management systems for coordination 
of shipboard response to casualties. Personal locator beacon 
technology could be integrated with this development effort to 
provide an automated personnel tracking and monitoring 
capability for improved casualty response. The committee 
believes that such capability is an intrinsic requirement of 
the Navy's overarching effort to reduce shipboard manning.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with 
the fiscal year 2009 President's budget request that provides 
the Navy's assessment of: (i) the feasibility of developing an 
automated personnel location and monitoring system; (ii) the 
benefits such a system would provide to shipboard operations 
and safety; (iii) an estimate of the cost to develop and 
integrate such capability; and (iv) an estimate of the 
potential reduction to manpower costs or workload provided by 
such capability.

Strike fighter gap

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has not adequately studied the potential risks associated 
with shortages in U.S. strike fighter aircraft over the next 
decade. Last year, Navy witnesses testified before the 
committee about a potential gap in strike fighters that might 
develop toward the end of the next decade, and could reach as 
high as 50 aircraft. While the uncertainties of the service 
life of the current F-18s and the production schedules for the 
future F-35 were mentioned then, the potential gap now under 
discussion could be as high as 220 Navy aircraft by the middle 
of the next decade. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
recently released a study entitled ``Tactical Aircraft: DOD 
Needs a Joint Integrated Investment Strategy,'' that reached 
several interesting conclusions. The report concluded that DOD 
does not have a single, integrated investment plan for 
recapitalizing and modernizing its tactical air forces, and 
without a joint, integrated investment strategy, it is 
difficult to evaluate the efficacy and severity of capability 
gaps or, alternatively, areas of redundancy. The GAO report 
additionally asserts, ``[l]ooking forward over the next 20 
years, the Department's collective tactical aircraft 
recapitalization plans are likely not affordable as currently 
planned.''
    Under the Department's current plans, the DOD would spend, 
on average, about $13 billion annually through 2020 developing 
and purchasing tactical combat aircraft. Over the long-term, 
that demand for funding will coincide with increases needed to 
execute other major Air Force and Navy acquisitions, including 
space systems, cargo aircraft, and surface combatants. In the 
near-term, it will coincide with the funding needed to 
``reset'' and replace equipment worn out and lost during 
operations conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    To better understand the challenges DOD faces as it 
modernizes its fleets of tactical combat aircraft, the 
committee directs the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to 
conduct a study of alternative approaches to structuring and 
investing in our Nation's tactical air forces. The CBO analysis 
should include alternatives that address shortfalls in the size 
and composition of tactical aircraft forces relative to the 
services' current and past stated requirements. CBO should also 
develop other alternatives that, while not necessarily 
satisfying all current requirements, could require less funding 
to execute than the Department's current plans. Such options 
should include, but not be limited to, the potential for 
unmanned air systems to bridge part of the looming gap in 
strike fighter capability. CBO should provide the committee 
with a briefing describing interim results by April 2008, and a 
final report no later than October 2008.
         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 2008 budget request for 
research, development, test, and evaluation programs, and 
indicate those programs for which the committee either 
increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past, 
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

Advanced Sensor Applications Program (sec. 211)
    Section 211 would require that $20.0 million in funds 
authorized and appropriated for the Foreign Material 
Acquisition and Exploitation program and for activities of the 
Office of Special Technology in the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence shall be allocated to the 
Advanced Sensor Applications program (ASAP). Section 211 also 
would require that the ASAP program be promptly transferred to 
the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and executed by the Navy's 
Program Executive Officer for Aviation. Additional information 
is contained in the classified annex to this report.
Active protection systems (sec. 212)
    The committee recommends a provision to accelerate the 
development and evaluation of active protection systems (APS), 
enabling accelerated deployment if APS is determined to be the 
most effective counter to current and emerging direct- and top-
attack threats. The committee notes that these systems have the 
potential to deal with the threat of anti-tank guided 
munitions, rocket propelled grenades, kinetic energy rounds, 
and other emerging and proliferating threats. The committee is 
aware that the Department of Defense has undertaken and is 
currently investing in a number of research and development 
programs for APS. The committee notes that the recent 
independent assessment of APS, as required by section 234 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), made a number of specific 
recommendations that would serve to enhance the Department's 
efforts to deploy these systems.
    The committee's recommended provision includes a number of 
these recommendations, including a requirement for a 
comparative live fire test of appropriate active protection 
systems; an assessment of current and developing foreign and 
domestic active protection systems to assess technologies and 
analyze the operational impact on military forces of the 
deployment of APS and countermeasures to those systems; and a 
number of funding increases to accelerate the fielding of the 
systems to United States forces. These funding increases are 
described elsewhere in this report.
Obligation and expenditure of funds for competitive procurement of 
        propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter (sec. 213)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to obligate sufficient annual amounts to 
develop and procure a competitive propulsion system for the 
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, in order to conduct a 
competitive propulsion source selection, from funds 
appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations or 
otherwise made available for research, development, test, and 
evaluation, and procurement for the JSF program. The committee 
notes that current plans for the competitive JSF propulsion 
system would complete the development of the competitive 
propulsion system so that a competition for the JSF propulsion 
system would occur in fiscal year 2012 with the sixth lot of 
low-rate initial production.
    The budget request contained $1.7 billion in PE 64800N, and 
$1.8 billion in PE 64800F for development of the JSF, but 
contained no funds for development of a competitive JSF 
propulsion system.
    The competitive JSF propulsion system program is developing 
the F136 engine, which would provide a competitive alternative 
to the current baseline F135 engine. Section 211 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) required that, by March 15, 2007, the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Defense 
Cost Analysis Improvement Group, the Comptroller General, and a 
federally funded research and development center, each provide 
an independent life cycle cost analysis of the JSF propulsion 
system, which would include a competitive engine program. The 
committee has been briefed on the results of these reviews and 
believes those results were, in the aggregate, inconclusive on 
whether there would be a financial benefit to the Department of 
Defense in continuing to develop a competitive propulsion 
system for the JSF program.
    However, the committee notes that all studies identified 
significant non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive 
program that should be considered in deciding between the 
alternatives. These factors include: better engine performance; 
improved contractor responsiveness; a more robust industrial 
base; increased engine reliability; and improved operational 
readiness. The committee believes that the potential benefits 
from the non-financial factors favor continuing the JSF 
competitive propulsion system program. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $480.0 million for this purpose, 
including $240.0 million in PE 64800N, and $240.0 million in PE 
64800F.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, and 
          deployment of missile defenses in Europe (sec. 231)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of 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 a long-range missile defense system in Europe 
until two conditions have been met: (1) the governments of the 
countries in which major components of the missile defense 
system (including interceptors and associated radars) are 
proposed to be deployed have each given final approval to any 
missile defense agreements negotiated between such governments 
and the United States concerning the proposed deployment of 
such components in their countries; and (2) 45 days have 
elapsed following the receipt by Congress of a report required 
by the provision.
    The provision would also limit funds for the acquisition 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 working in an operationally effective manner.
    The provision would also require a federally funded 
research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct an 
independent assessment of options for missile defense of 
Europe. The assessment would consider the ballistic missile 
threat to Europe, particularly from Iran, including short-
range, medium-range, intermediate-range, and long-range 
missiles, and would consider a number of related issues, 
technologies, and factors. The FFRDC would be required to 
provide the results of its assessment, including any findings 
and recommendations, in an unclassified report not later than 
180 days after the enactment of this Act.
    The provision makes clear that it would not limit 
continuing obligation and expenditure of funds for missile 
defense, including for research and development and for other 
activities not otherwise limited by the provision. This would 
include site surveys, studies, analysis, and planning and 
design for the proposed missile defense deployment in Europe.
    The administration requested $310.4 million in the budget 
request for planning, design, development, construction and 
deployment activities for 10 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) 
to be deployed in Poland, and a large X-band radar to be 
deployed in the Czech Republic. The committee believes that 
construction and deployment activities are premature for the 
reasons explained below.
    The two-stage interceptor proposed for deployment in Europe 
has not yet been developed or tested, and is not currently 
planned to be flight-tested until 2010. It could be several 
years before it is known if the interceptor will work in an 
operationally effective manner.
    The United States is just beginning to negotiate with the 
Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic on detailed 
agreements for the proposed deployments in their nations. These 
negotiations may not be concluded before the end of this year, 
and then would have to be ratified by the parliaments in each 
nation. The Missile Defense Agency has estimated that such 
ratification would not take place before 2009. Construction and 
deployment would not begin before such ratification.
    The budget request seeks funds to deploy up to 10 GBIs at a 
third deployment site, either in Europe or at Fort Greely, 
Alaska. The budget request anticipates the possibility of not 
deploying the interceptors in Europe, and both deployment 
options are under consideration.
    The proposed European deployment would not defend all of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) European 
territory. Additional missile defense systems, such as those 
described below, would be needed to provide coverage of all 
NATO European territory against all ranges of Iranian ballistic 
missiles. NATO, which has not yet decided to pursue missile 
defense of its territory, has not endorsed or rejected the 
proposed deployment.
    The proposed deployment is intended to counter a potential 
future threat to the United States or Europe from Iranian long-
range or intermediate-range ballistic missiles armed with 
nuclear warheads. There is uncertainty about whether Iran will 
have such long-range missiles, or nuclear warheads that could 
work on such missiles, by 2015.
    However, there is no doubt that Iran currently has the 
largest inventory of short-range and medium-range ballistic 
missiles in the Middle East, and is working to increase their 
number, range, and capability. It is also clear that forward-
deployed U.S. forces and some NATO allies are currently within 
range of those missiles, and that the United States does not 
have adequate regional missile defense capability in place 
today to protect our forward-deployed forces.
    There are a number of near-term missile defense options to 
provide such defenses against short-range and medium-range 
missiles (and future intermediate-range missiles), including 
the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 
(BMD) system and its Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor, and 
the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.
    General James Cartwright, the Commander of U.S. Strategic 
Command, who has operational responsibility for global 
integrated missile defense, testified to the committee that his 
missile defense focus this year is to expand ``beyond long-
range intercontinental ballistic missiles to start to address 
those that hold at threat our forward deployed forces, or 
allies and our friends. Those are more in the short and medium-
range ballistic missiles, things that Patriot, Standard 
Missile-2 and [Standard Missile]-3 will be able to address, and 
THAAD as it comes on.'' All such options should be considered 
as Congress makes decisions on what missile defense 
capabilities are appropriate for Europe.
    The current Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system 
deployed in the United States already has the range to provide 
defense of the United States against a potential future long-
range missile threat from Iran.
    Russia has expressed strong concerns about the proposed 
deployment, and it will take time to work through these issues 
in a manner that ensures improved security, rather than reduced 
security in Europe. The administration is planning high-level 
talks with the Russian Government starting in the fall of 2007.
    The proposed European missile defense deployments would 
cost an estimated $4.0 billion through fiscal year 2013, all of 
which the United States would be expected to pay.
    Given these considerations, the committee believes that it 
is premature to authorize the appropriation of funds for 
construction or deployment of the proposed system without 
conditions. The committee notes that fiscal year 2008 research, 
development, test and evaluation funds authorized and 
appropriated for this proposed deployment would remain 
available for two years, during which time negotiations and 
development activities could move forward.
    As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee 
recommends a reduction of $85.0 million proposed for site 
activation and construction activities for the proposed 
European GMD deployment.

Limitation on availability of funds for deployment of missile defense 
        interceptors in Alaska (sec. 232)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act 
from being obligated for the deployment of more than 40 Ground-
based Interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, until the Secretary 
of Defense certifies to Congress, after receiving the views of 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, that the Block 
2006 Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the 
Ballistic Missile Defense system (BMDS) has demonstrated, 
through operationally realistic end-to-end flight testing, that 
it has a high probability of working in an operationally 
effective manner.
    The committee notes that section 234 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) required the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
to provide to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress an 
assessment of the operational capability of each block of the 
BMDS, starting with the 2006 block, at the completion of test 
and evaluation for each block. This assessment will be 
available well before any additional interceptors would be 
ready to deploy in Alaska. If the Department of Defense decides 
it wants to deploy additional interceptors at Fort Greely 
beyond the 40 already planned, it would have to certify that 
the Block 2006 GMD system is operationally effective. If the 
system is not operationally effective, then it would not make 
sense to deploy more interceptors.

Budget and acquisition requirements for Missile Defense Agency 
        activities (sec. 233)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to submit its annual budget 
request, starting in fiscal year 2009, using all of the major 
categories of funding: research, development, test and 
evaluation (RDT&E); procurement; operation and maintenance; and 
military construction. The provision would also establish 
acquisition objectives for MDA to improve transparency, 
accountability, and oversight of its budget and programs. To 
accomplish these objectives, the provision would establish a 
number of specific acquisition improvements, including 
acquisition baselines for cost, schedule, and performance for 
those missile defense elements that have either entered the 
equivalent of the System Development and Demonstration phase of 
acquisition, or are being produced and fielded for operational 
use.
    The extraordinary flexibility granted to the MDA to use 
exclusively RDT&E funds for all its activities, including such 
non-RDT&E activities as procurement, operation and maintenance, 
and military construction, was sought and granted in order to 
permit MDA to implement the President's December 2002 decision 
to deploy an initial missile defense system for the United 
States within 2 years, and without any of the normal 
acquisition or testing rules that apply to all other major 
defense acquisition programs. Now that the system has been 
developed and deployed, the rationale for this extraordinary 
flexibility, and the resultant lack of accountability, has 
expired.
    As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 
March 2007, the extraordinary acquisition flexibility granted 
to the MDA has resulted in a lack of accountability, 
transparency, and oversight, such that it is not possible for 
GAO to determine the cost of a 2-year block of work performed 
on the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, nor to determine 
the unit cost for such a fundamental item as the Ground-Based 
Interceptor (GBI) of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 
element.
    After studying the MDA acquisition program and process, GAO 
concluded that there were a number of improvements that MDA 
should make. GAO recommended several steps designed to improve 
accountability, transparency, and oversight of the BMD program, 
including that MDA should use procurement funding for missile 
defense elements that are in the equivalent of the System 
Development and Demonstration phase, or are being fielded for 
operational use. GAO also recommended that MDA should establish 
acquisition baselines for cost, schedule, and performance for 
these elements, and that it should provide unit cost data, and 
other information that would help improve accountability. The 
committee agrees with the GAO recommendations and believes that 
MDA should make significant progress in accomplishing these 
objectives.

Participation of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, in missile 
        defense test and evaluation activities (sec. 234)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
authorities for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
to have the same access to information concerning ballistic 
missile defense test and evaluation activities that exists for 
test and evaluation information for all other major defense 
acquisition programs under section 139 of title 10, United 
States Code.
    The committee commends the Missile Defense Agency and the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation for establishing a 
constructive and cooperative relationship. This provision is 
intended to ensure that this important and necessary 
cooperation continues in the future.

Extension of Comptroller General assessments of ballistic missile 
        defense programs (sec. 235)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 5 
years the period during which the General Accountability Office 
(GAO) would continue to assess and report to Congress annually 
on the progress of the Missile Defense Agency to meet its 
annual goals for cost, schedule, testing, and performance of 
the ballistic missile defense system.
    The committee has found the previous GAO annual assessments 
and reports to be valuable sources of oversight and insight 
into the ballistic missile defense program. This provision 
would ensure that such valuable assessments would continue for 
the period of the current future-years defense program.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


Modification of notice and wait requirement for obligation of funds for 
        the foreign comparative test program (sec. 251)

    The committee recommends a provision that would enhance the 
efficiency of the Foreign Comparative Test program by modifying 
the congressional reporting requirement associated with the 
program, so that obligation of funds can occur after Congress 
reviews the program's intended action for 7 days. The committee 
understands that Congress has never utilized its current 
statutorily mandated 30 day review period to change a Foreign 
Comparative Test funding recommendation. This proposed change 
to the statute will expedite the execution of the Foreign 
Comparative Testing program, allowing contracting officers to 
enter into negotiations with potential vendors earlier and 
funds to be obligated and expended more quickly.

Modification of cost sharing requirement for Technology Transition 
        Initiative (sec. 252)

    The committee recommends a provision that would give the 
Department of Defense more flexibility in its execution of the 
Technology Transition Initiative, but would remove restrictions 
on the types of cost sharing arrangements allowed between a 
service or agency and the initiative manager in funding 
technology transition projects. The committee notes that this 
program, originally established by the committee in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314) has successfully transitioned a number of 
technologies from the Department's science and technology 
programs into fielded systems.
    The committee notes that the Department has expressed 
concern that the current statute requires the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense through the initiative manager to provide 
no less than 50 percent of funds towards a transition project, 
with the balance coming from the sponsoring service or agency. 
This has restricted the number of projects that the program 
could support and on occasion prevented the sponsoring service 
or agency from contributing more funding to the projects. The 
committee's recommended proposal would allow the initiative 
manager complete flexibility in determining the appropriate 
cost sharing arrangement for each technology transition 
initiative project.

Strategic plan for the Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 253)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and publish a biennial 
strategic plan for the manufacturing technology program. The 
committee notes that advanced manufacturing technologies are 
the key to a vital defense industrial base, as well as a 
support for United States economic competitiveness. The 
manufacturing technology program has traditionally been the 
activity through which the Department of Defense has pursued 
defense-related manufacturing technologies that serve to 
improve the performance and reduce the life cycle costs of 
defense systems. The committee commends the Department for 
attempting to expand the scope and reach of the program, 
through the creation of the Joint Defense Manufacturing 
Technology Panel, the utilization of manufacturing readiness 
assessments as metrics on acquisition programs, and the 
establishment of a manufacturing science and technology 
initiative.
    The committee notes that the 2006 Defense Science Board 
Task Force on the Manufacturing Technology Program recommended 
that the Department ``must not only publish a strategic plan, 
but also ensure its implementation with periodic reviews of the 
plan's execution.'' The committee provision would implement the 
DSB's recommendation. The committee encourages the Secretary to 
consider the other strategic planning recommendations of the 
DSB task force described in their report.

Modification of authorities on coordination of Defense Experimental 
        Program to Stimulate Competitive Research with similar Federal 
        programs (sec. 254)

    The committee recommends a provision that would give the 
Department of Defense more flexibility in its execution of the 
Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(DEPSCoR) program. The provision would enable the Department to 
award merit-based grants and other support under the program's 
authority directly to entities in participating DEPSCoR states, 
or by using the existing mechanism of awarding contracts 
through state planning committees.
    The committee notes that the DEPSCoR program funds defense-
related research in eligible states where educational 
institutions historically performed less well in full and open 
competitions, with the intent of enabling them to become more 
successful in merit-based competitions. The committee notes 
that the Department plans to terminate its support for the 
program in fiscal year 2010, due to an inability to identify 
any DEPSCoR award ``which led to any application used by, or 
supportive of, the warfighter,'' due to resource constraints on 
science and technology programs and due to the need to provide 
more resources for the activities of the National Defense 
Education Program (NDEP). The Department has indicated that it 
intends to work with researchers in DEPSCoR states through 
NDEP.
    The committee believes that the flexibility provided by 
this provision will enable the Department to better utilize 
DEPSCoR funding to support warfighter needs, including 
potentially supporting educational activities, while still 
preserving the important role of state planning committees to 
coordinate activities with other similar federal programs and 
state-based efforts where appropriate.

Enhancement of defense nanotechnology research and development program 
        (sec. 255)

    The committee recommends a provision to assist in the 
acceleration of the development, integration, and fielding of 
appropriate nanotechnology-based capabilities in defense 
systems. This recommendation is consistent with a series of 
actions taken by Congress over the past few years to highlight 
the importance that the growing nanotechnology research area 
can help both our national security and global competitiveness. 
Previously, with the intent to ensure that the United States 
had global superiority in nanotechnology necessary for meeting 
national security requirements, the committee established the 
defense nanotechnology research program in section 246 of the 
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003 (Public Law 107-314), which this provision updates and 
enhances. Later, Congress also passed the 21st Century 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-
153) to coordinate Federal Government investments and 
activities related to nanotechnology.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
invested roughly $2.0 billion in nanotechnology research and 
development since fiscal year 2000. These investments have been 
in areas such as advanced sensors, structural materials, and 
electronic systems based on the unique properties enabled by 
nanotechnology. The Department has also established a number of 
nanotechnology-focused research centers, including the 
Institute for Nanoscience at the Naval Research Laboratory and 
the Army's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies. These 
investments are developing technologies that will soon be 
integrated into deployed systems, and enable advanced 
capabilities that will enhance our forces' battlefield 
superiority.
    The committee believes that nanotechnology is at the stage 
where the Department needs to focus more on transitioning 
technologies to demonstrate the return of the significant 
research investment made thus far. Therefore, the committee's 
provision directs the Department to focus more closely on the 
manufacturing of nanotechnologies and ensuring the vitality of 
the nanotechnology industrial base, since these are key to 
adoption of new technologies in defense systems. The committee 
notes that the Department should conduct state-of-the art 
research on nanomanufacturing involving collaborations between 
academic institutions, Department of Defense laboratories, and 
industry partners, as well as working through the Department's 
manufacturing technology programs. Further, the committee notes 
that there would be significant value in collaborating with 
National Science Foundation centers working on 
nanomanufacturing and working toward a national 
nanomanufacturing enterprise that encourages extensive 
industrial collaboration, in order to maintain United States 
global leadership.
    The committee's recommended provision also strengthens the 
connection between Department nanotechnology efforts and the 
Government-wide National Nanotechnology Initiative, by 
requiring participation in coordination activities, as well as 
in participation in and support of the mandatory external 
reviews of the program. The committee also recognizes the need 
for metrics and goals to ensure that the Department's 
nanotechnology program is well structured and successfully 
developing needed defense technologies. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a review by the Government Accountability 
Office of the overall Department nanotechnology program.
    Finally, the committee is concerned that the United States 
may be losing its lead in the development of defense 
nanotechnologies to international competitors and partners. 
Therefore, the committee's recommended provision strengthens 
the monitoring and assessment of international nanotechnology 
research and development capabilities in areas of interest to 
the Department of Defense.

                              Budget Items


                                  Army




Army basic research

    The budget request included $137.7 million in PE 61102A for 
defense research sciences. The committee notes that the 
National Research Council's 2005 ``Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm'' report highlighted the important role that basic 
research funding plays in areas like global competitiveness and 
national security. The report noted that with respect to basic 
research funding `` . . . the Department of Defense research 
picture is particularly troubling in this regard.'' It went on 
to note that the Department of Defense funds 40 percent of the 
engineering research performed at universities, including more 
than half of all research in electrical and mechanical 
engineering and 17 percent of basic research in mathematics and 
computer science.
    The committee supports increasing investments in basic 
research typically performed at universities to develop next 
generation military operational capabilities. The committee 
recommends increases of: $2.0 million for research on the 
development of vaccines to combat respiratory infections; $1.0 
million for research on organic semiconductor materials for use 
in military flexible electronics; and $1.5 million for research 
on nanomaterials that can speed the de-icing of Army rotary 
wing vehicles.

University research initiatives

    The budget request included $64.8 million in PE 61103A for 
Army university research initiatives. The committee notes that 
this is down by approximately 20 percent in constant dollars 
from the fiscal year 2004 request, when the program was 
originally transferred to the services from the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD). The committee notes that all of the 
service university research initiatives programs are below the 
original fiscal year 2004 request in constant dollars, despite 
OSD assurances to Congress that the programs would at least 
keep pace with inflation.
    To continue to preserve the Department of Defense efforts 
to support the valuable defense research undertaken at 
universities, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 
million in PE 61103A for Army university research initiatives, 
an increase of $9.0 million in PE 61103N for Navy university 
research initiatives, and an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
61103F for Air Force university research initiatives.

Army university research centers

    The budget request included $84.0 million in PE 61104A for 
university and industry research centers. The committee notes 
that basic research investments by the Army serve the dual 
purpose of developing next generation military capabilities 
through the exploration of fundamental scientific issues, as 
well as training the next generation of scientists, engineers, 
and technology entrepreneurs at our nation's academic 
institutions. The committee also notes that the National 
Research Council's committee on Department of Defense Basic 
Research recommended that the Department ``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.'' In support of that recommendation, the committee 
recommends a number of increases to the Army basic research 
program.
    The committee recommends increases of: $1.5 million for 
information assurance research; $2.5 million for 
nanotechnology-based biosensors to detect biological threats; 
$3.0 million for military automotive research; $2.0 million for 
research on wireless optical communications systems; $1.4 
million for research on training and simulation in urban 
terrain; $2.0 million for military network security research; 
$1.5 million for research on soldier health monitoring systems; 
$300,000 for nanocomposite transparent armor materials 
research; $2.0 million for research on nanotechnologies for 
advanced lightweight armor systems; and $2.0 million for 
research on the low temperature performance of Army vehicles.

Army materials research

    The budget request included $18.6 million in PE 62105A for 
applied research on materials technologies. The committee notes 
that the development of modular protective systems for future 
force assets and the development of vehicle armor technology 
are two of the official Army Technology Objectives (ATO). This 
includes the development of ``advanced composite materials with 
properties tailorable for blast and ballistic protection . . . 
'' Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 
million for the development of composite armor materials for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles and an additional $3.0 
million for research on advanced composite materials for Army 
air and ground vehicles. The Army's soldier protection 
technologies ATO focuses on the development of innovative 
materials for improved individual armor systems. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for development 
of armor for soldier torso and extremity protection, and an 
additional $4.0 million for the development of lightweight 
armor systems designed to reduce casualties due to improvised 
explosive device blast effects.
    The committee notes that the interagency National 
Nanotechnology Initiative has identified nanomanufacturing as 
one of its program component areas of emphasis. The Director of 
Defense Research and Engineering, in a May 2006 report to 
Congress entitled ``Defense Nanotechnology Research and 
Development,'' indicated that increased support of 
nanomanufacturing was recommended ``in order to facilitate 
transitioning and the sustained supply of research results for 
defense technologies.'' Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $2.0 million for the development of advanced 
nanomanufacturing capabilities for sensors and other defense 
needs.

Electronics and space research

    The budget request included $39.8 million in PE 62120A for 
applied research on sensors and electronic survivability. The 
committee notes that the National Research Council's report 
``Materials Research to meet 21st Century Defense Needs'' 
highlights the need for continued defense research on 
electronic microsystems. The report listed fabrication of 
microsystems for displays as a high priority research area for 
the Department of Defense. Consistent with this analysis, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research 
on advanced microelectronics manufacturing for Army display 
applications.
    The committee understands the Department of Defense's need 
to track hundreds of moving targets in space or terrestrial 
environments, including space debris or chemical and biological 
agents. The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for 
research on integrated remote sensing technologies.
    The committee established the Joint Program Office for 
Operationally Responsive Space in the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) with the responsibility to pursue innovative approaches to 
the development of operationally responsive space capabilities. 
In coordination with the efforts of that office, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for operationally 
responsive space research efforts.

Materials for insensitive munitions

    The budget request included $53.0 million in PE 62303A for 
applied research on missile technology. The Army's Insensitive 
Munitions Technology Objective seeks to develop energetic 
materials and system-level innovations to maintain and improve 
munitions safety at lower weight and cost. The committee also 
notes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense has initiated 
new research efforts specifically aimed at improving 
capabilities in insensitive munitions. In support of these 
efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million 
for the development of advanced materials for munitions 
protection in missile systems.

Sniper detection systems

    The budget request included $16.7 million in PE 62308A for 
advanced concepts and simulation technologies. The committee 
notes that urgent operational needs statements have called for 
the development of sniper detection systems for potential use 
in urban environments. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $4.0 million for the development of wearable sniper 
detection systems to aid in localizing sniper fire and mortar 
launches.

Army vehicle research

    The budget request included $53.3 million in PE 62601A for 
applied research on combat vehicles and automotive technology. 
The committee notes that research in this area will lead to: 
enhanced survivability for Army ground vehicles, including 
against improvised explosive devices and other threats; 
improved energy efficiency for vehicles--resulting in extended 
ranges and combat capability, as well as life cycle cost 
savings; and the development of more capable unmanned systems 
to extend the reach and capabilities of Army forces, while 
reducing the risks to soldiers.
    The committee notes that the Army is developing a fuel cell 
strategy that is exploring the use of fuel cells in vehicles in 
tactical and support missions. In coordination with that 
effort, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
for the development of hydrogen fuel cells for medium and heavy 
Army vehicles. Consistent with the efforts of the Department of 
Defense's Energy and Power Technology Initiative to examine the 
utility of alternative fuels for military platforms, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research 
on alternative military fuels.
    The Army's Vehicle Armor Technology Objective is developing 
a comprehensive solution to threats to Future Combat Systems 
ground vehicles. In coordination with these efforts, as well as 
similar efforts in the Army's small business innovative 
research program, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million for nanotechnology research to develop transparent 
armor for Army vehicles.

Recoil mitigation technologies

    The budget request included $7.0 million in PE 62623A for 
the joint service small arms program. The committee notes that 
the research goal of this program is to develop ``new 
technologies for improved accuracy and greater lethality . . . 
while reducing the weight of the Soldier's weapon.'' To support 
these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million for research on recoil mitigation technologies which 
reduce small arms weight while maintaining and improving 
weapons lethality.

Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization

    The budget request included $40.5 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 and the Armed Robotic Vehicle. To support these 
efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
to develop remotely controlled unmanned systems with lethal and 
non-lethal capabilities.

Army electronics research

    The budget request included $43.4 million in PE 62705A for 
applied research on electronics and electronic devices. The 
committee notes that all of the services are developing needs 
for higher frequency and high power systems, as well as systems 
that operate at higher temperatures. These systems will require 
the development of semiconductor materials that operate 
efficiently at these power levels and temperature ranges. 
Accordingly, the wide-bandgap technology development Defense 
Technology Objective includes specific technical challenges for 
the development of new semiconductor materials and devices to 
meet military missions. In support of these efforts, the 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research 
on high frequency, high power electronic and optoelectronic 
devices.
    The Army's effort to reduce the load on soldiers includes a 
desire to develop smaller, lightweight battery technologies to 
power radios, computers, and other man-portable equipment. The 
Mounted/Dismounted Soldier Power Army Technology Objective 
addresses these challenges through the development of novel 
power technologies. In support of those efforts, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of 
high capacity portable battery technologies.

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. The National Research Council's 2004 report 
entitled ``Existing and Potential Standoff Explosives Detection 
Techniques'' recommended that ``research into both new sensor 
types and new systems of real-time integration and decision 
making is needed.'' Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $5.0 million in PE 62712A for the development of 
standoff explosives detection technologies.

Force protection materials research

    The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 62786A for 
applied research on warfighter technologies. The committee 
notes that the Army is developing requirements documents that 
call for the development of advanced modular force protection 
systems for base camps, which are coming under attack from 
mortars and improvised explosive devices in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The committee also notes that the Army's Modular 
Protective Systems for Future Force Assets Technology Objective 
is seeking to develop advanced composite materials with 
properties tailorable for blast and ballistic protection. To 
support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of 
$5.0 million for research on advanced materials for enhanced 
ballistic protection of assets.

Unmanned air systems

    The budget request included $53.9 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology. The committee is supportive of 
efforts to explore the use of unmanned systems in a variety of 
roles and missions on the battlefield, as was indicated in the 
requirements of section 941 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 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.
    In section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) the 
committee also established the goal that by 2010, one-third of 
all operational deep strike force aircraft will be unmanned. 
Further, the committee notes that the Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
Roadmap calls for development of weapons optimized for concept 
of employment from unmanned systems. In order to support this 
goal, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for 
development of advanced munitions for unmanned air systems.

Army medical research

    The budget request included $76.5 million in PE 62787A for 
applied research on medical technologies. The committee notes 
that research in this area contributes significantly to the 
successful treatment of battlefield injuries. The committee 
recommends a number of increases in this account to address a 
variety of medical issues resulting from current operations. 
The committee recommends increases of $1.0 million for advanced 
battlefield head injury diagnostic tools; $2.0 million for 
biomechanics research to address head, neck, and chest 
injuries; $1.5 million for bioengineering research to support 
combat casualty care missions; and $2.0 million for the 
development of advanced wound dressings.

Guided airdrop systems

    The budget request included $47.1 million in PE 63001A for 
advanced warfighter technologies. The committee notes that the 
82nd Airborne Division recently submitted an operational needs 
statement for guided airdrop systems. The committee also notes 
that the Army and United States Joint Forces Command are 
investing in the Joint Precision Airdrop System to meet urgent 
needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. In support of those efforts, the 
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on 
guided airdrop systems.

Army medical technologies

    The budget request included $53.3 million in PE 63002A for 
advanced medical technologies. The committee recognizes the 
critical need to advance military medical technologies to 
address battlefield injuries. The committee has taken a number 
of steps to advance those efforts, including the establishment 
of a Department of Defense-wide 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 $2.0 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 blunt trauma injuries, and an increase of $2.0 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 $3.0 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 $3.0 million for research on novel 
tissue regeneration techniques to treat battlefield injuries. 
In addition, to support advances in military capabilities to 
treat battlefield injuries, the committee recommends an 
additional $2.0 million for the development of advanced 
technologies to support telesurgery applications in battlefield 
environments.

Dengue infection research

    The budget request included $53.3 million in PE 63002A for 
advanced medical technology. The committee notes that dengue 
viruses have proven highly debilitating to U.S. military 
personnel in a number of past operational deployments, and that 
the military has long pursued a vaccine against all four types 
of dengue viruses. The committee also notes that the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council has identified the Army as the 
lead agent to develop capabilities to address the Initial 
Capabilities Document for Infectious Disease Countermeasures. 
To support these efforts, the committee recommends an 
additional $5.0 million in PE 63002A for research on the 
development of vaccines and therapeutics for dengue infections.

Lightweight cannon recoil technologies

    The budget request included $59.4 million in PE 63004A for 
advanced weapons and munitions technologies. The committee 
notes that the Army has a goal to reduce the size and weight of 
weapon systems associated with Future Combat Systems (FCS) to 
maintain lethality while being rapidly transportable. The 
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for the 
development of technologies to reduce the weight of FCS cannon 
systems using advanced recoil reduction technologies.

Combat vehicle armor technologies

    The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for 
advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The 
Vehicle Armor Technology Army Technology Objective (ATO) seeks 
to provide comprehensive solutions for Future Combat System 
(FCS) ground vehicles to address a variety of threats, 
including mines, rocket propelled grenades, improvised 
explosive devices, and other ballistic threats. In conjunction 
with that objective, the Army's long term armoring strategy, 
and the need for armor technologies to be robust, lightweight, 
and affordable, the committee recommends a number of increases 
for armor technologies. The committee recommends an increase of 
$3.0 million for the development of composite armored cabs, 
$1.0 million for research on ceramic composite materials for 
armor, and $4.0 million for development of windshield armor 
systems.
    The committee continues to be concerned about the 
development of technologies to support force protection 
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, including defenses against 
snipers and rocket propelled grenades. To enhance the force 
protection capabilities of our deployed forces, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of 
counter sniper detection systems in coordination with the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and an additional 
$7.5 million for the development and testing of vehicle-based 
active protection systems (APS) for use on light tactical 
vehicles. The committee notes that the recent independent 
technical assessment of APS indicated that the best possible 
system ``may be based on `best of breed' solutions developed 
within multiple programs.''

Unmanned ground vehicle initiative

    The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for 
advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The 
committee notes that section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 
Law 106-398) established a goal that by 2015, one-third of the 
operational ground combat vehicles acquired through the Army's 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) program will be unmanned. The 
committee understands that the Army believes that given current 
development and fielding schedules for the FCS program, this 
goal will be met. Significant technical challenges remain in 
the development of unmanned ground vehicles, including 
development of propulsion systems, intelligent navigation 
systems, human-machine interfaces, and reliability. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for this 
initiative.

Combat vehicle energy and power technologies

    The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for 
advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The 
committee notes that the Department of Defense's Energy & Power 
Technology Initiative includes a thrust on energy storage 
technologies to support hybrid electric vehicle mobility, 
including research on batteries, fuel cells, and safety issues. 
The committee also notes that the Army is developing hybrid 
systems for use on Future Combat Systems vehicles and other 
vehicle applications. The committee recommends a number of 
funding increases which will demonstrate the viability of 
hybrid technologies in military environments and explore the 
feasibility of deploying hybrid engines for military 
applications. The committee recommends increases of $10.0 
million for a program to develop advanced hybrid vehicle 
technologies including research on engine technology, power 
electronics, control technology, and other areas; $4.0 million 
for advanced solid hydrogen storage technologies for military 
vehicles; $3.0 million for research on improving the 
reliability and reducing the cost for fuel cells in military 
materiel handling equipment applications; and $1.5 million for 
developing manufacturing processes needed to reduce fuel cell 
costs to the military.

Combat vehicle reliability and readiness technologies

    The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for 
advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The 
Prognostics and Diagnostics for Operational Readiness and 
Condition-based Maintenance Army Technology Objective has a 
goal to improve near-term and Future Combat Systems 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 an increase of $1.5 million for research on computer 
models and simulations to better predict military vehicle 
reliability, and an increase of $3.0 million for the 
development of test facilities to evaluate advanced combat 
vehicle power train designs. Further, the committee notes that 
the Army is planning an initiative to invest in research 
activities that develop advanced mechanical fastening and 
joining technologies that will increase vehicle reliability and 
performance. In support of that effort, the committee 
recommends an additional $1.5 million for ground vehicle 
fastening and joining research.

Leadership training simulators

    The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63015A for 
next generation training and simulation systems. The committee 
understands that the Army's Learning with Adaptive Simulation 
and Training Technology Objective is developing virtual 
training simulations that incorporate political and cultural 
effects of the environment and behaviors of adaptive enemies. 
The committee also notes that the Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities heard testimony indicating that 
leadership training that improves cultural awareness will 
enhance operational performance in the future. To support 
efforts to improve leadership training of this type, and in 
conjunction with efforts at the Army's Institute for 
Collaborative Technologies, the committee recommends an 
increase of $4.0 million for the development of leadership 
training models and simulations.

Fuel cells for military applications

    The budget request included $6.8 million in PE 63734A for 
military engineering advanced technology. The committee notes 
the Department of Defense's efforts to develop technologies to 
support continuity of operations missions. The committee also 
notes that under the Department's Energy and Power Technology 
Initiative, one of the technical challenges in power 
distribution technologies is the improvement of component and 
system reliability and availability. In support of these 
challenges, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million for the development of fuel cell systems that support 
continuity of operations missions.
    The committee also notes that the Energy and Power 
Technology Initiative identified an objective of developing 
fuel cell portable power systems using methanol as a fuel. In 
support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase 
of $3.0 million for the development of direct methanol fuel 
cells.

Counter rocket, artillery, and mortar radar technologies

    The budget request included $67.0 million in PE 63772A for 
advanced tactical computer science and technology. The 
committee understands that the Extended Area Protection and 
Survivability Army Technology Objective (ATO) has a goal to 
develop concepts and supporting technologies for a system 
capable of providing extended area protection and distributed 
survivability from rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) threats. 
To support this effort, the committee recommends an increase of 
$3.0 million to develop radar systems to support counter RAM 
missions.

Language translation technologies

    The budget request included $67.0 million in PE 63772A for 
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology 
development, $76.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for combating 
terrorism technology support, and $137.7 million in PE 61102A 
for defense research sciences. The Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities received testimony highlighting the 
need for the Department of Defense to significantly improve its 
language translation capabilities for a variety of operational 
missions--including intelligence analysis and peace and 
stability operations. Technologies being developed by the 
Department include speech and text translators, including 
handheld and bidirectional systems being designed to assist in 
translating a growing number of target languages. The committee 
notes that the Defense Science Board recently emphasized the 
need to advance these capabilities in its recent ``21st Century 
Strategic Technology Vectors'' study. To support these efforts, 
the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63772A to continue the development of handheld translation 
systems, $2.0 million in PE 63122D8Z for research on Arabic 
language analyses, and $3.0 million in PE 61102A for research 
on document exploitation systems to assist intelligence 
analysts.

Radiation hardening initiative

    The budget request included $14.4 million in PE 63305A, 
Army Missile Defense Systems, but no funds for radiation 
hardening integration. The committee recommends an increase of 
$2.0 million for a radiation hardening initiative to improve 
understanding of radiation transport and effects, modeling and 
simulation tools, and radiation-hard design approaches. This 
activity should be closely coordinated with the Joint Radiation 
Hardened Electronics Oversight Council.

Active protection systems development and integration

    The budget request contained $142.5 million in PE 63653A 
for the advanced tank armament system, which includes funding 
for the integration of a suitable active protection system 
(APS) onto Stryker vehicles. The committee notes a recent 
December 2006 decision to restructure the Future Combat System 
(FCS) and designate the APS as a key spin out component, with a 
plan for fielding available systems on Stryker vehicles first. 
The committee notes that a recent independent assessment has 
expressed concern over the Army's chosen technological approach 
to APS and the feasibility of its fielding as planned by 2010.
    Given the likely acceleration of a number of threats, the 
committee supports the acceleration of the best possible 
protection systems to the current force, including tactical 
vehicles, and considers this a top force protection priority 
for the Army. Therefore, the committee directs the Army, in 
conjunction with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to 
closely monitor the development and deployment of foreign and 
domestic APS, including where appropriate through the 
establishment of data exchange agreements and joint exercises 
and demonstrations.
    To accelerate the fielding of operationally suitable APS 
onto Stryker vehicles, the committee recommends an increase of 
$40.0 million in PE 63653A for technology integration efforts. 
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
detailed technical plan and schedule for efforts related to the 
technological maturation of APS technologies and the 
integration of APS onto current force vehicles, prior to the 
obligation of any of these additional authorized funds. 
Further, the committee directs the Army to include sufficient 
funding in its future years budget, beginning with the fiscal 
year 2009 budget, to accomplish the stated goal of integration 
on Stryker by fiscal year 2010, which may require additional 
funding for both technological maturation of the APS 
technologies as well as funding for integration issues.
    The budget request included $142.5 million in PE 64660A for 
FCS manned ground vehicles and common ground vehicle. Given 
concerns about the maturity of APS currently under development, 
the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 
64660A to support the development and testing of APS for FCS 
manned ground vehicles.

Undersea chemical weapons assessment program

    The budget request included $6.1 million in PE 63779A for 
environmental quality technology, but did not provide any funds 
for the Undersea Chemical Assessment program. This program will 
provide a comprehensive definition of risks presented by 
chemical weapons disposed of by the Department of Defense in 
selected undersea locations. The committee recommends an 
increase of $8.0 million in PE 63779A for the Undersea Chemical 
Assessment program.

Warfighter information network--tactical

    The budget request included $222.3 million in PE 63782A for 
the continued research and development of the Warfighter 
Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T) program. The committee 
notes with concern that this program has been troubled for a 
number of years, culminating in its January 2007 Nunn-McCurdy 
unit cost breach.
    In title I of this Act, the committee has directed the 
Secretary of the Army to consolidate the joint network node 
program and the WIN-T program into one single Army tactical 
network program. The committee believes the Army can 
incrementally provide WIN-T capabilities to the warfighter in 
the near-term. However, the committee believes the Army cannot 
spin into the force these incremental improvements without 
funding support. Therefore, the committee recommends a $100.0 
million increase in funding for WIN-T research, development, 
test, and evaluation.
    The committee also directs the Secretary of the Army, in 
consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Networks and Information Integration and the Secretary of the 
Navy, to report to the committee, no later than 180 days after 
the enactment of this bill, on whether the Marine Corps should 
also be part of the single Army tactical network program. The 
committee is concerned that the two military services are not 
working in concert on the development of this important and 
expensive communications technology.

Future medical shelter systems

    The budget request included $12.5 million in PE 63807A for 
advanced development of medical systems. The committee notes 
that the Army is in the process of evaluating technologies for 
advanced combat support hospitals. These systems are vitally 
important for the care of military casualties in theater, as 
well as for responding to domestic natural disasters. The 
committee recommends an additional $7.5 million for the next 
phase of combat support hospital development.

Nickel boron metal coating technology for crew served weapons

    The budget request included $18.2 million in PE 63827 for 
soldier systems advanced development, but no funding for nickel 
boron metal coating technology for crew served weapons.
    Blowing dust and sand as experienced in Iraq and 
Afghanistan penetrate weapon mechanisms and contribute to 
accelerated wear rates and reduced reliability. Worse, these 
conditions can result in weapons jamming in the middle of 
combat at great risk to the soldiers. Applying lubricious 
coatings to selected high-wear parts will significantly reduce 
or eliminate wear, while doing so to the entire weapon system 
will allow weapons to be operated without lubrication.
    Funding is required to complete development and evaluate 
performance of nickel boron coatings on the M249 Squad 
Automatic Weapon to minimize the amount of lubricant needed 
during weapon functioning.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million for 
that purpose.

Integrated broadcast service

    The budget request included $38.2 million for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for the Integrated 
Broadcast Service program within the Army. This line item funds 
development of improvements for the Joint Tactical Terminals 
(JTT) used to receive the broadcast service. The fiscal year 
2008 request reflects an increase of $37.1 million over the 
fiscal year 2007 funding level, and the projected request for 
fiscal year 2009 falls back to $13.7 million. The large single-
year rise apparently reflects a decision by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense to almost fully fund in 1 year a series of 
upgrades to all JTT radios. The committee recommends a 
reduction of $10.0 million to fund higher priorities because 
the remaining requirement can be deferred until next year.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 64622A for 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army for 
work associated with the family of heavy tactical vehicles, 
which includes the variants of the heavy expanded mobility 
tactical truck. This program element will fund the development 
of the Army's next generation tactical truck, as part of the 
Army's Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Modernization Strategy. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to fund the 
RDT&E of oil and thermal management systems. Oil and thermal 
management systems have proven to extend the life of vehicle 
engines and other engine components, particularly in vehicles 
designed for long-haul missions.

Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles

    The budget request included $82.3 million in PE 64642A for 
technology development for Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles. 
Under this account, the Army pursues survivability, mobility, 
communications, energy and power, and autonomous technology 
improvements for the High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled 
Vehicle (HMMWV) and the next generation HMMWV, known as the 
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The committee recommends 
an increase of $3.0 million in PE 64642A for fuel cell vehicle 
propulsion research. This funding will permit the Army to 
pursue potential advanced fuel cell technologies and 
applications in the development of the JLTV.

Future combat systems

    The budget request included $3.6 billion for the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS). The committee has been, and continues to 
be, a strong supporter of Army transformation, and believes 
that the FCS program is the centerpiece of that transformation.
    For many years the committee has expressed concern about 
the lack of strategic mobility for ground combat forces. This 
issue was illustrated by the problems the Army faced in 
projecting forces rapidly into the Balkans during the Kosovo 
crisis, and also by the length of time required to build up 
ground combat forces and the required logistical stockpiles for 
both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. These 
latter operations were aided to some degree by the availability 
of pre-positioned equipment and by an adversary who failed to 
take advantage of the risk to U.S. forces from a slow build-up 
of combat power by launching a pre-emptive strike. Those 
conditions may not be present the next time ground combat 
forces must be quickly inserted into a hostile environment.
    While strongly supporting the Army's plan to build the 
Objective Force, which was the term for the transformed force 
nearly a decade ago, the committee was admittedly skeptical of 
the Army plan to buy several brigades of interim armored 
vehicles. The committee believed at the time that the Army 
should indeed reorganize a number of its units into lighter, 
more mobile brigades, but believed that could be accomplished 
using combat vehicles currently in the inventory, such as the 
upgraded M113A3 armored personnel carrier. The committee was 
concerned that the added cost of acquiring ``off-the-shelf'' 
interim armored vehicles might eventually put the 
transformation to a new fleet of modern medium-weight combat 
vehicles at risk.
    Responding to committee concerns, the Army did extensive 
analyses and comparative testing, and reconfirmed its decision, 
backed by the Secretary of Defense, to build new Interim 
Brigade Combat Teams with a new family of vehicles--the 
Strykers.
    The committee notes that the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 
(SBCT), by all reports, have been very successful in Iraq, and 
has supported additional funding for Strykers elsewhere in this 
report. The committee has also expressed concern about the 
Stryker Mobile Gun System elsewhere in this report, but 
believes that the SBCTs have provided a hint as to the future 
potential that the vastly more capable FCS Brigade Combat Teams 
will bring to the Army. However, adding seven SBCTs has 
provided only a hint, and it would be a critical mistake to 
abandon the Army's core modernization effort, believing that 
seven Stryker Brigade Combat Teams solve the strategic mobility 
problem the Army continues to confront, or that marginal 
modernization of the current force postures the Army for the 
challenges of the future.
    The committee believed that the original FCS program was 
much too risky, and was fully in agreement with the first 
program restructure, and in particular supported the addition 
of previously deferred systems and the spin out of promising 
FCS technologies to the current force.
    Consequently, the committee is concerned about the most 
recent restructure, which now eliminates or defers four of the 
systems and stretches the fielding of FCS Brigade Combat Teams 
over a longer period of time. The committee believes this 
decision was purely a result of budgetary concerns, and does 
not reflect either a change in requirements or programmatic 
difficulties. The committee believes FCS is a well-run program 
which is well within cost and schedule parameters of the earned 
value management system.
    Most troubling in the latest restructure is the elimination 
of the Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV), both the Assault and 
Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA) 
variants, which will provide a survivable means for the 
commander to sense and deliver desired effects on the enemy 
without jeopardizing the lives of soldiers. The ARV is highly 
mobile and well suited for both mounted and dismounted forces--
the only robotic platform that is capable of maneuvering with 
the FCS manned ground vehicles, survivable in direct 
engagements, and lethal enough to defeat the enemy. The 
committee believes that it is short sighted to eliminate such a 
capability.
    The committee also believes that any proposals or decisions 
to further curtail or stretch out the FCS program are also 
extremely short sighted. The Nation cannot afford to mortgage 
the future to pay current bills by curtailing Army 
transformation to meet the demands of the current conflict. 
History teaches that, while we do not know precisely the nature 
of future conflict, we do know that future conflict will come. 
If history is a guide, the Americans most at risk will be those 
who engage in direct ground combat.
    The committee believes that the FCS program, the 
centerpiece of Army transformation and modernization, will 
provide the American soldier with lethal and survivable 
systems, and a versatile organization which will allow him to 
prevail no matter the nature of future conflicts.
    The committee recommends an increase of $90.0 million in PE 
64663A to restore the ARV to the FCS program, and encourages 
the Army to include adequate funding in the future years 
defense program for that purpose.

Combat identification

    The budget request included $11.3 million in PE 64817A for 
combat identification. Under this account, the Army seeks to 
maximize overall combat effectiveness by mitigating incidents 
of fratricide and maximizing the situational understanding of 
the warfighter. This is achieved by rapid, reliable 
identification of friends, foes, and neutrals in the battle 
space. To accelerate research in this area, the committee 
recommends an increase in PE 64817A of $2.0 million for the 
research and development of a single channel ground and 
airborne radio system-based combat identification technology.

High energy laser systems test facility

    The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 65605A for 
the Department of Defense High Energy Laser Systems Test 
Facility (HELSTF). The committee understands that this low 
level of funding will result in a reduction in contractor 
support personnel and reduces the Department's ability to 
adequately test planned high energy laser weapon systems such 
as the Airborne Laser and the High Energy Laser Technology 
Demonstrator, as well as support for work of the Joint 
Technology Office for High Energy Lasers. The committee 
recommends an increase of $7.5 million for operations at 
HELSTF.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, the 
Director of the Test Resource Management Center, and the 
Director of the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office to 
report jointly to Congress on a plan, including required 
funding over the Future Years Defense Program, to develop and 
maintain adequate personnel, resources, and facilities to test 
current and future high energy laser systems, no later than 
March 1, 2008.

HIMARS modular launcher communications system

    The budget request included $54.1 million in PE 63778A for 
the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) product improvement 
program, but no funding for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket 
System (HIMARS) Modular Launcher Communications System (MLCS).
    The HIMARS Operational Requirements Document (ORD) contains 
a requirement for a sensor-to-effects capability using the M142 
HIMARS launchers assigned to active component and National 
Guard HIMARS units. Sensor-to-effects capability significantly 
reduces target engagement timelines, improves combat 
effectiveness, and increases flexibility associated with 
attacking time-sensitive, high value targets.
    The committee notes that work is currently on-going for 
this system upgrade and additional funding is required in 
fiscal year 2008 to accelerate this needed capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
63778A for HIMARS MCLS to accelerate the development, 
integration, and testing of sensor-to-effects.

Combat vehicle improvement programs

    The budget request included $27.6 million in PE 23735A for 
combat vehicle improvement programs, but no funding for Vehicle 
Health Management systems development or for combat vehicle 
transmission improvement.
    Vehicle Health Management is a set of maintenance processes 
and capabilities derived from real-time assessments of weapon 
system conditions obtained from embedded sensors and software. 
The goal of Vehicle Health Management is to perform maintenance 
only upon evidence of need and to limit the time it takes to 
troubleshoot failures. Vehicle Health Management represents a 
conscious effort to shift equipment maintenance from a 
reactive, preventive approach at the time of failure to a more 
routine and predictive approach using real-time vehicle 
information. It will improve maintenance and readiness, and 
reduce major sustainability costs.
    Funding is needed to support design efforts and to 
prototype data collection systems on-board the Heavy Brigade 
Combat Team (HBCT) vehicles, to design and procure network 
systems to offload the vehicle data, and to analyze the vehicle 
data to perform failure analysis and failure prediction.
    Tank and armored personnel carrier transmissions have not 
significantly changed in 30 years and are the second largest 
cost driver in terms of operation and support costs.
    Funding is needed for electronic controls for the Abram 
tank X1100 series transmission. These controls immediately make 
available a wealth of information and data that can be mined by 
a Vehicle Health Management system to monitor transmission 
function and health. Proper diagnosis of faults prior to 
transmission removal offers one of the most effective means of 
reducing operating and support costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for 
Vehicle Health Management systems development, and $4.9 million 
for combat vehicle transmission improvement, for a total of 
$38.5 million.

Helicopter autonomous landing system

    The budget request included $325.6 million in PE 23744A for 
aircraft modifications and product improvement programs, but no 
funding for the Helicopter Autonomous Landing System (HALS).
    Utility flight operations are accomplished today using best 
available training, tactics, and procedures to minimize flight 
in degraded visual conditions. However, this is not always 
possible --for example, one recent unofficial study of all 251 
U.S. Army Class A-B rotary wing mishaps ascribed to ``human 
factors'' from fiscal years 1985 to 2005 counted 52 landing 
mishaps. These 52 landing mishaps involved a total of 8 
fatalities and 20 major injuries. All these fatalities and all 
these major injuries except one occurred in degraded visual 
conditions (brownout, whiteout, or instrument flight rules). 
Materiel solutions, to include hover symbology and fully 
coupled flight directors, are being integrated into the UH-60M 
helicopter and will significantly improve operations in 
degraded visual conditions.
    The materiel solution to counter brownout conditions 
consists of a three-phase approach. Phase-1 or Brownout 
Situational Awareness Upgrade (BSAU) is precision hover 
symbology cockpit display; Phase-2 is two-axis automated hover 
hold; Phase-3 or Helicopter Autonomous Landing System (HALS) is 
a visual based ``see-through'' capability based on radar and/or 
forward looking infrared technology. Additional funding is 
needed to bring the HALS Phase-3 design achieved through 
funding in fiscal year 2006 to a level capable of production 
for potential application onto both legacy and modernized UH-60 
helicopters.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 
HALS, for a total of $330.6 million.

Joint tactical ground station

    The budget request included $23.5 million in PE 28053A for 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of the 
Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS). Army and Air Force plans 
for mobile ground stations to receive and exploit the Space-
Based Infrared System (SBIRS) are not synchronized and are not 
funded across the future-years defense program. The committee 
recommends a reduction to the request of $10.0 million, to 
offset higher funding priorities.

                                  Navy




Navy science and technology educational outreach

    The budget request included $374.1 million in PE 61153N for 
defense research sciences. The committee notes that many expert 
studies, including efforts by the services and the National 
Academies of Sciences have concluded that a greater emphasis 
must be placed on K-12 educational activities in math and 
science in order to increase the likelihood that the nation 
will have enough scientific and engineering talent to meet its 
future needs. The need for a highly qualified pool of technical 
specialists is particularly acute for the Department of 
Defense, given its need for clearable scientists and engineers. 
To support initiatives to stimulate math and science education 
and outreach efforts by Navy scientists and engineers, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for naval 
science and technology educational outreach activities.

Infrared materials research

    The budget request included $83.4 million in PE 62114N for 
applied research in power projection technologies. The 
committee notes that the Navy and Marine Corps have a number of 
initiatives developing infrared seeker technologies, and that 
the Army has official technology objectives in third-generation 
infrared technologies and low-cost, high-resolution infrared 
focal plane arrays. In support of these efforts, and in 
conjunction with ongoing efforts of the Army's small business 
innovative research program, the committee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million for infrared materials research for 
military applications.

Undersea perimeter security technologies

    The budget request included $155.9 million in PE 62123N for 
applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy's 
Maritime Domain Awareness science and technology focus area has 
a specific technology objective of improving homeland and port 
defense monitoring capabilities by developing ``new systems and 
protocols for target identification and tracking using fixed 
and deployable cueing systems.'' Consistent with this 
technology objective, the committee recommends an increase of 
$3.5 million for the development of a deployable undersea 
threat detection, classification, and response system; and an 
increase of $2.0 million for the development of deployable, 
rapid under-hull inspection capabilities.

Navy energy and power technologies

    The budget request included $155.9 million in PE 62123N for 
applied research on force protection technologies. The 
committee notes that the Navy is seeking to develop next 
generation shipborne directed energy weaponry, which will 
require advanced power and energy systems, as well alternative 
energy technologies for a variety of platforms. 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 $2.0 million to develop energy 
delivery technologies for advanced naval weapons systems. 
Consistent with the Navy's Energy Storage Technology Objective 
to provide reliable power sources for all non-nuclear systems, 
the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the 
development of fuel cells for unmanned aerial vehicle 
applications, and an additional $3.0 million for propulsion 
systems for unmanned surface vessels.

Composites research for special operations craft

    The budget request included $155.9 million in PE 62123N for 
applied research on force protection technologies. The 
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for critical 
composites technologies for special operations forces medium 
range endurance craft.

Situational awareness processing technologies

    The budget request included $26.8 million in PE 62131M for 
applied research on force protection 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.

Navy electronics research

    The budget request included $45.5 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 $3.0 million for research 
on advanced semiconductor radio frequency power technologies.

Undersea sensor arrays

    The budget request included $68.5 million in PE 62747N for 
applied research on undersea warfare technologies. The 
committee notes that the Navy's Maritime Domain Awareness 
science and technology focus area has a vision to ``locate and 
track any target of interest on, under or above the water . . . 
using integrated networks of persistent sensors.'' This focus 
area has a specific technology objective of developing tactical 
sensor networks that are secure, survivable, self-healing, and 
adaptable. The committee further notes that the Chief of Naval 
Operations has indicated that critical anti-submarine warfare 
enhancements are among the Navy's highest unfunded priorities. 
Consistent with those priorities and goals, the committee 
recommends an additional $3.0 million for the development of 
advanced sensor arrays to enhance maritime domain awareness.

Tactical unmanned air vehicles

    The budget request included $49.7 million in PE 63114N for 
advanced power projection technologies. The committee has long 
supported the efforts of the services to increase the number of 
unmanned air systems being used for military operations. The 
committee notes that the Marine Corps' highly responsive 
loitering munitions science and technology objective seeks to 
develop munitions which can be deployed aboard an unmanned air 
vehicle. In support of this goal, the committee recommends an 
increase of $1.0 million for development of tactical unmanned 
air vehicles in coordination with Army efforts in this area.

Free electron laser research

    The budget request included $49.7 million in PE 63114N for 
advanced technologies for power projection. The committee notes 
that the Navy has explored the use of free electron lasers as a 
weapons system, as well as for industrial manufacturing 
applications. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million for research on the use of free electron lasers for 
manufacturing of military systems.

Force protection advanced technology

    The budget request included $70.8 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 development of a 
transportable manufacturing and repair cell. This cell would 
reduce operating and support costs, while maintaining equipment 
readiness in theater. The cell would be deployable by ships and 
large ground vehicles, and would provide precision, on-demand 
manufacturing of critical parts for the Navy and Marine Corps. 
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the 
development of a transportable manufacturing and repair cell.
    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 $5.0 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 $4.9 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 
autonomous superconducting fault current limiting systems. 
Modern electric power generation and distribution systems on 
naval ships are susceptible to catastrophic high current surges 
(i.e., fault currents) that may result in permanent equipment 
damage and total power system shutdowns. Efficient, reliable, 
and stable shipboard power systems are critical to the 
operation of present and future naval surface combatants. 
Conventional hardware systems (e.g., fuses, circuit breakers, 
etc.) provide some degree of protection, but are insufficient 
to meet the critical requirements for reliable, uninterrupted 
power under the most adverse conditions of warfare. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop a 
current limiting system to help address current and future 
shipboard power systems issues.
    The budget request included no funding for continued 
development of an electrochemical field-deployable system for 
generating potable water. The Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-289) 
provided $1.0 million to accomplish Phase I objectives to 
develop, establish, and demonstrate an economical process to 
make sodium hypochlorite, and team with potential industrial 
and medical end users. If the program is to succeed, the Navy 
needs to complete Phase I and begin Phase II of the program 
which would: (i) conduct long-term testing of sub-scale 
electrochemical cell membrane modules; (ii) demonstrate a sub-
scale technology unit; and (iii) begin concept design of full-
scale electrochemical cell membrane modules. The committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million to complete Phase I and 
begin Phase II of this activity.
    The budget request included no funding for improving the 
capability to manufacture fuel cells to help accelerate the 
application of fuel cells for a wide range of Department of 
Defense electrical power needs, including ships and submarines, 
ground vehicles, mobile electric power for bases and other 
field equipment, and aircraft. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.4 million to enable the Department of the Navy 
to advance fuel cell manufacturing feasibility and readiness 
for field testing.
    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. The primary purpose would be to save the costs of 
fuel consumed by the primary reserve generator, which must 
operate constantly as a back-up source of power for the ship's 
primary propulsion and electrical systems. 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 $5.0 million to enable the 
development of such lithium battery technology.
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $100.1 
million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology.

Ground sensor networks

    The budget request included $71.0 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 $5.0 
million for the development of ground sensor networks that can 
detect and locate hostile fire.

Navy sensor arrays

    The budget request included $16.0 million in PE 63506N, but 
included no funding to develop new technology sensors that 
would exploit the advantages of these sensors in arrays and 
integrate them into micro-arrays. The committee understands 
that there have been some innovative developments in sensor 
technology that offer significant promise for the fielding of 
better sensor arrays for torpedo defense and for other 
potential applications on the battlefield. The committee 
recommends an increase of $1.5 million to pursue better array 
technology.

Shipboard system component development

    The budget request included $9.4 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard system component development, but included no funding 
for Smart Valve development, power conversion equipment for 
high density power generation packages, high temperature 
superconductor alternating current (HTS-AC) synchronous marine 
propulsion motor development, or shipboard flywheel energy 
storage systems.
    Smart Valve is an advancement in control system technology 
applied to the design for bleed air regulating, control, and 
relief valves on existing and future gas turbine naval vessels. 
Existing bleed air valves for gas turbine ships are subject to 
high maintenance costs and reliability concerns. Smart Valve 
provides an advanced linear electro-mechanical actuator design 
for accurate and quick response, and includes self-diagnostic 
capability for preventive, condition-based maintenance. 
Increased service life and improved functional design with 
Smart Valves results in reduced maintenance and reduced life 
cycle cost. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million to complete development and testing of a prototype 
Smart Valve.
    The development of component technologies for power system 
management is critical to the success of the Navy's efforts to 
field the all-electric warship. Power conversion equipment for 
high density power generation is one of the key enabling 
capabilities required by the integrated power distribution 
systems required by the all-electric warship. The committee is 
aware that ongoing efforts to develop next generation power 
conversion equipment for the DDG-1000 destroyer and CG(X) 
cruiser programs requires funding to complete the proof of 
concept. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 
to complete development of power conversion equipment for an 
advanced high density power generation system.
    The Navy has been developing and testing a 36.5 megawatt 
prototype HTS-AC synchronous propulsion motor. The Navy will 
take delivery of a prototype of such a motor for final testing 
during fiscal year 2007. Additional funding is required in 
fiscal year 2008 to support full power testing of the prototype 
motor, and to complete the preliminary design for 
militarization of the HTS-AC motor and associated drive system 
for potential application to a future surface combatant. The 
committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million to continue 
development and testing of the HTS-AC synchronous marine 
propulsion motor.
    Flywheels have long been targeted as an energy storage 
technology for emerging applications, and as such, are included 
in the Militarily Critical Technologies list. In particular, 
the Navy has identified a list of critical shipboard 
applications of flywheel energy storage systems that includes: 
``Dark Start,'' uninterrupted power to essential loads, 
leveling loads faced by the electrical system, and single 
generator operation. Additional efforts would develop and test 
a flywheel energy storage system with greater power density and 
output that is fully adapted to the shipboard environment. The 
committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million to continue 
development and testing of a flywheel energy storage system.
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $38.8 
million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component 
development.

Surface vessel torpedo tubes

    The budget request included no funds in PE 63513N for 
developing better torpedo tube technology for surface ships. 
The Navy has been managing a Small Business Innovative Research 
(SBIR) project to develop a modular, gas generator launch 
canister. This project is employing commercial, off-the-shelf 
(COTS), automobile-style air bags for launch energy. Employing 
such long shelf life COTS components could greatly reduce the 
maintenance burden of keeping air flask-based torpedo tubes in 
operational condition. Additional funding in fiscal year 2008 
would continue fabrication and testing of two advanced 
development models (ADMs) that could launch lightweight 
torpedoes from unmanned surface vessels (USV) planned for the 
Littoral Combat Ship. These ADMs could also serve as the basis 
for an option to backfit during the Arleigh Burke class 
destroyer modernization program. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63513N to continue 
development of an improved launch capability for surface vessel 
torpedo tubes.

Advanced submarine system development

    The budget request included $134.9 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 low level 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 
recent 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 start that effort in fiscal year 2008 and recommends an 
increase of $25.0 million for that purpose.
    The budget request included $13.5 million for a variety of 
advanced submarine sensors, including the twin line, thin line 
towed array. Twin line towed array geometries lead to improved 
gain and better target motion analysis by resolving the right-
left ambiguity of a single line array without the need for ship 
maneuvering. This approach would provide an efficient means of 
achieving significant improvement in detection, fire control, 
and self-defense capabilities. The committee recommends an 
additional $4.5 million to demonstrate twin line, thin line 
towed array technology.
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $164.4 
million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine system development.

Next generation shipboard monitoring

    The budget request included $30.9 million in PE 63563N for 
Ship Concept Advanced Design, but included no funding for next 
generation shipboard monitoring. The Navy has placed a priority 
on reducing operating and maintenance costs for in-service and 
future ship classes, which requires that all ships in the fleet 
transition to condition-based maintenance. Condition-based 
maintenance requires ships to be equipped with a system that 
effectively monitors equipment performance, performs 
diagnostics, and provides predictive analysis for plant 
operation and maintenance. Additional funding for next 
generation shipboard monitoring is necessary to integrate and 
implement open system diagnostic data infrastructure and 
monitoring systems for shipboard equipment. The committee 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63563N for next 
generation shipboard monitoring.

Expeditionary fighting vehicle

    The budget request included $288.2 million in PE 63611M for 
the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The EFV is a high 
speed, amphibious, armored tracked vehicle for transporting 
marines from amphibious ships over the horizon to shore and 
inland. The Department of Defense Office of Program Analysis 
and Evaluation directed a reduction to the Marine Corps' 
acquisition objective, which was reduced from 1,013 to 573 
vehicles in fiscal year 2006.
    The EFV program entered the system development and design 
phase in December 2000, and was scheduled to award a Low Rate 
Initial Production (LRIP) contract late in fiscal year 2006. 
Operational assessment of the vehicle's performance during 2006 
determined that the EFV, while meeting most key performance 
parameters, fell critically short of requirements for system 
reliability. Therefore, the Department deferred LRIP and 
conducted an independent review, which determined that redesign 
of the EFV would be required in order to correct significant 
system engineering deficiencies.
    The compounding impacts of a 45 percent reduction to the 
EFV program's acquisition objective and a 3 or 4 year further 
delay to the LRIP decision resulted in a critical Nunn-McCurdy 
breach. The committee is awaiting the Secretary of Defense's 
determination on whether the EFV program meets the 
certification requirements under section 2433 of title 10, 
United States Code.
    The Department's reliance upon the EFV test program to 
reveal failures in fundamental systems engineering for this 
major program reflects a disturbing trend in systems 
acquisition. Equally troubling is the belated acknowledgment 
that the vehicle design has been overly-influenced by 
performance requirements that are unreasonable and unnecessary.
    If the EFV program is certified by the Secretary of 
Defense, it would resume development in the third quarter of 
the current fiscal year. The resultant under-execution in 
fiscal year 2007 provides significant carryover of funding into 
fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends a reduction of 
$100.0 million in fiscal year 2008 in PE 63611M.
    The committee is aware that the Department's corrective 
action plan includes production of new vehicles, which adds 
significant cost and schedule to the development effort. The 
committee is concerned that the Department arrived at this 
decision independent of root cause analysis of the operational 
assessment results. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
providing the root cause analysis for the EFV reliability 
failures prior to obligation of funding toward production of a 
new prototype EFV. The report shall include the Department's 
assessment correlating the reliability failures to the 
requirement to produce new test vehicles.

Joint light tactical vehicle

    The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 63635M for 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Marine 
Corps Ground Combat/Support Systems. The war-related budget 
request for fiscal year 2008 also included $35.8 million for 
the same program element. Of this $35.8 million, $20.0 million 
is requested for acceleration of the development of the Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The JLTV development program has 
nothing to do with ongoing military operations and should be 
funded exclusively in the base budget. The committee recommends 
a reduction to the war-related budget request for JLTV of $20.0 
million and an increase of $20.0 million for JLTV development 
in the base budget.

Optical interconnect

    The budget request included $3.5 million in PE 63739N for 
Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but include 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.

Tactical aircraft direct infrared countermeasures development

    The budget request included $27.6 million in PE 64272N for 
developing and testing airborne electronic attack systems under 
the tactical aircraft direct infrared countermeasures (TADIRCM) 
development. The TADIRCM program develops electronic warfare 
systems for the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, 
and the United States Army tactical aircraft, Marine Corps 
helicopters, Navy surface combatants, data link vulnerability 
assessments, Navy and Marine Corps jammers, and electronic 
warfare devices for emerging threats and emergency 
contingencies. The Navy down selected to one contractor in 
fiscal year 2005 for the pointer/tracker/laser systems to 
ensure the project did not exceed the budget. Therefore, the 
budget request for TADIRCM included no funding for taking 
advantage of different technical approaches potentially 
resulting from recent successful testing of a high power fiber 
laser (HPFL).
    Given the seriousness of the threat posed by missiles with 
infrared seekers, the committee believes that the Department of 
Defense should pursue promising new approaches whenever such 
new testing results become available. The committee believes 
that a demonstration could provide important information to the 
Navy, which would permit accelerating initial operational 
capability by several years. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for conducting an HPFL 
demonstration.

Conventional Trident modification

    The budget request included a total of $175.0 million for 
the conventional Trident modification (CTM), with $126.4 
million in hard and deeply buried target defeat systems, PE 
64327N; $36.0 million in Trident II modifications, Weapons 
Procurement, Navy (WPN) line 1; and $13.0 million in strategic 
systems missile equipment, Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) line 
108. The committee recommends no funding for the CTM and 
further recommends that all of the funding for CTM be 
transferred to PE 65104D8Z for common prompt global strike 
concepts, discussed elsewhere in this title.

Permanent magnet motor

    The budget request included $621.5 million in PE 64300N for 
DD-1000 destroyer total ship systems engineering. The budget 
request included no funding for completing the development and 
testing of the permanent magnet motor (PMM).
    Present Navy and Marine Corps electric propulsion and power 
generation systems are several times larger and heavier than 
mechanical drive equivalents, limited by very heavy generation 
equipment and propulsion motors. The PMM was developed to 
resolve this. Congress provided funding in fiscal year 2006 
which the Navy and the contractor team used to complete factory 
testing, ship the PMM engineering development model to the 
Navy's land based test site, and begin testing.
    Because of the promise of this technology for future ship 
applications, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 
million to incorporate changes resulting from land based 
testing, repackage PMM design to reflect evolving DDG-1000 
requirements, and perform shock analysis.

Wireless encryption technology

    The budget request included $621.5 million in PE 64300N for 
DD-1000 destroyer total ship systems engineering, but included 
no funding to develop wireless encryption technology. With the 
reduced manning planned on the DDG-1000 and other vessels, the 
Navy will have to place greater reliance on automation and 
having the crews stay connected to the ships' computing 
environment. Absent better wireless encryption technology, the 
goal of being connected to all information systems will be 
problematic for very sensitive information. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to develop better 
wireless encryption technology for use aboard Navy vessels.

Improved towed array handler

    The budget request included $114.8 million for SSN-688 and 
Trident submarine modernization, but included no funding for 
developing or testing improved handling gear for submarine 
towed arrays. The committee understands that additional funding 
this year would complete the initial phase of the program. The 
Navy has now gathered data about stresses encountered by arrays 
during reeling cycles. The next step is to use this data to 
design engineering changes to both the handling system and the 
array that would preserve system performance while increasing 
system reliability and lowering life cycle costs of the 
combined system.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million to 
complete the design, and develop and test prototype system 
changes to improve thin-line towed array system reliability.

Combat information center conversion

    The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 64518N for 
Combat Information Center Conversion. The Combat Information 
Center Conversion is an essential upgrade for Navy anti-
submarine warfare (ASW), including development of net-centric 
capabilities, improved command and control, incorporation of an 
open architecture computing environment, and upgrades to signal 
processing and display technologies. The Chief of Naval 
Operations has included critical ASW enhancements on the Navy's 
unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase 
of $4.0 million to PE 64518N to accelerate the development of 
the ASW dead-reckoning table and other display requirements, in 
conjunction with the Combat Information Center Conversion.

Submarine electronic chart updates

    The budget request included $224.0 million in PE 64558N, 
but include 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 (SBIR) 
effort that focused on the demonstration of net-ready, web-
service updates of electronic charts for submarines. The 
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to: (i) obtain 
certification of the common geographic display processing 
improvements already developed for submarines; (ii) adapt the 
results of this effort to Navy-wide applications; (iii) 
evaluate Navy instructions on the use of electronic chart 
systems to compare those requirements with best commercial 
practices; and (iv) establish a Navy certification benchmark 
for state-of-the-practice of net-ready, web-service 
environments.

Next generation Phalanx

    The budget request included $67.4 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 $9.8 million in PE 64756N 
for the continued development of the next generation Phalanx.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

    The budget request included $34.3 million for ship self-
defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including 
$6.0 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.

Navy medical research

    The budget request included $8.0 million in PE 64771N for 
medical development activities. The committee notes that field 
reports indicate that many battlefield deaths are caused by 
uncontrolled hemorrhage. The Navy's Warfighter Performance and 
Protection science and technology focus has a specific 
objective to improve casualty care and prevention. In support 
of that effort, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million for the development of technologies to control internal 
hemorrhage due to battlefield injuries.

Joint Strike Fighter research and development

    The budget request included $1,707.4 million in PE 64800N 
and $1,708.9 million in PE 64800F to continue development and 
testing of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
    In recent analysis, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) investigated the size of award fees that the JSF program 
was not awarding, but retaining to provide additional 
incentives in future periods. Portions of this ``roll over'' 
amount can be awarded to the contractor at the discretion of 
the Government to provide performance incentives in designated 
target areas. However, March 2006 Department of Defense (DOD) 
guidance states that ``rolling over'' unearned award fees 
should be the exception rather than the rule. Since the March 
2006 guidance, the JSF program has continued the practice of 
rolling over 100 percent of unearned award fees for the air 
system contract. The air system contract has a balance of $58.4 
million in its cumulative reserve award fee pool. In addition, 
there is a balance of $22.1 million in the cumulative reserve 
award fee pool for ``subjective'' criteria for the F135 
propulsion contract. The size of the award fee ``roll over'' 
has been growing steadily since the first award fee period in 
2001, as unearned award fees were rolled over into the 
cumulative reserve award fee pool.
    Given the 2006 DOD guidance and past award fee reserve pool 
activity for both contracts, GAO believes that a balance of 
$36.0 million in the air system contract and $5.0 million in 
the F135 propulsion contract cumulative award fee reserve pools 
would provide sufficient funding for future target areas. 
Therefore, approximately $39.5 million in previously unearned 
award fees should be excess to requirements in fiscal year 
2008. The committee recommends a decrease of $19.7 million in 
each of these two budget lines.

Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead

    The budget request included $81.3 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), PE 101221N, 
for strategic submarine and weapons system support of which 
$15.0 million was for phase 3 support to the reliable 
replacement warhead (RRW). The committee recommends a reduction 
of $15.0 million. The committee recommends no funds for RRW 
activities beyond phase 2A in fiscal year 2008.

Linear accelerator

    The budget request included $81.3 million in PE 11221N, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but 
no funding for the Crane linear accelerator (LINAC). The 
committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the LINAC 
to simulate the high radiation environment in space. The 
committee directs the Navy to develop and use this in 
conjunction with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics 
Oversight Council.

Structural life tracking

    The budget request included $2.2 million in PE 25633N for 
the Navy's Aircraft Equipment Reliability and Maintainability 
Improvement program (AERMIP). The AERMIP effort is the only 
Navy program that provides engineering support for in-service, 
out-of-production aircraft equipment, and provides increased 
readiness at reduced operational and support cost. The 
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 25633N 
to fund initiatives for parts fatigue tracking for military 
rotary-wing aircraft through structural life tracking of Navy 
and Marine Corps helicopters.

Ultrasonic consolidation technology

    The budget request included $57.2 million in PE 26623M for 
the development of Marine Corps ground combat and supporting 
arms systems, but no funding for the Sense and Respond Support 
system. The committee understands that the Marine Corps will be 
entering the final year of a study to determine whether 
ultrasonic consolidation technology can be embedded in a 
variety of components of the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) as 
part of a Sense and Respond system for vehicle health 
monitoring. The committee recommends an increase of $3.9 
million for the LAV Sense and Respond system.

Anti-sniper infrared targeting system

    The budget request included $6.2 million in PE 26623M for 
the development of joint and Marine Corps unique improvements 
to infantry weapons technology, but included no funding for the 
Anti-Sniper Infrared Targeting System (ASITS).
    The system employs infrared thermal targeting technology to 
passively detect and locate sources of fire in real-time, and 
may be mounted on ground vehicles or low flying aircraft, or 
permanently emplaced. ASITS is particularly effective against 
incoming fire from concealed positions, and provides a unique 
capability to enhance survivability for urban operations and 
countersniper applications. Funding for accelerated development 
and fielding of a prototype system has been included on the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priorities list.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 
26623M for ASITS.

Satellite communications (space)

    The budget request included $746.5 million in PE 33109N for 
satellite communications (space) including $611.6 million for 
the Multiple User Objective System (MUOS) satellite. MUOS is 
the Navy's next generation ultra high frequency (UHF) 
satellite. The first MUOS satellite is currently scheduled to 
launch in fiscal year 2010. The Ultra High Frequency Follow-on 
(UFO) satellite, the legacy UHF satellite system, is failing at 
a somewhat faster pace than anticipated. At the current failure 
rate, there will be a UHF communications capability gap 
beginning in January 2008 and continuing for approximately 23 
months, until the launch of the first MUOS satellite. The 
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to evaluate 
the option to purchase UHF payloads that could be flown on 
commercial satellites to see if reducing the communications gap 
would be feasible.

Internet protocol version 6

    The budget request included $736.6 in PE 33109N, Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) for satellite 
communication space, but no funds for internet protocol version 
6 (IPv6). The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million 
for IPv6 efforts to determine benchmarks, validate network 
connectivity, and test next generation warfighter applications 
in a service orientated architecture for transitioning from the 
current internet protocol version 4 (IPv4), to IPv6.

Navy manufacturing research

    The budget request included $56.4 million in PE 78011N for 
industrial preparedness activities. The committee notes that 
the Navy's Affordability, Maintainability, and Reliability 
science and technology focus area has a specific objective to 
develop condition-based maintenance systems in order to reduce 
acquisition and life cycle costs of Navy platforms through 
intelligent diagnostics. In support of that goal, the committee 
recommends an increase of $2.5 million for systems to measure 
stress on airframe structures during maintenance and 
manufacturing.

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 which 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

    The budget request included $104.3 million in PE 61103F for 
university research initiatives. The committee notes that this 
is a reduction from the fiscal year 2007 requested levels and 
is concerned about the commitment of the Air Force to 
protecting the funding levels of previously devolved science 
and technology, including the joint high energy laser programs 
and university research initiatives. At the same time, as the 
Air Force is reducing its investments in basic research, it is 
increasing investments in biological sciences, while not 
sufficiently supporting university research in areas of 
critical concern to the Air Force including propulsion and 
information sciences. To enhance investments in the development 
of necessary future Air Force capabilities and to support the 
training of the next generation of technical, military, and 
business leaders, the committee recommends a number of 
increases to Air Force basic research programs. The committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research on high 
energy lasers for detection, inspection and non-destructive 
testing applications; an increase of $3.0 million for research 
to improve the security of critical military networks; and an 
increase of $3.0 million for research on reducing military 
decision making cycle times.

Carbon fiber research

    The budget request included $122.8 million in PE 62102F for 
applied research on materials. The committee notes that t is a 
growing need for advanced composite materials to support a 
number of next generation air platforms. As indicated by the 
2006 JASON report ``Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence,'' 
reducing vehicle weight through the use of advanced materials 
such as carbon reinforced polymers could lead to significant 
enhancements in the fuel efficiency of military platforms. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
for research on advanced carbon fiber materials for Air Force 
applications.

Optical components for air vehicles

    The budget request included $131.9 million in PE 62201F for 
applied research on aerospace vehicle technologies. The 
committee notes that the National Research Council, in its 
recent study ``Future Air Force Needs for Survivability,'' 
highlighted the need for better control of electronic emissions 
as an important element in reducing aircraft signatures. 
Therefore, consistent with current Air Force Small Business 
Innovative Research efforts, the committee recommends an 
additional $1.5 million in PE 62201F for research on optical 
components to replace electric components for potential use in 
onboard aircraft communications and flight control systems.

Scramjet technologies

    The budget request included $179.2 million in PE 62203F for 
applied research on aerospace propulsion. The committee notes 
the role that hypersonic technologies can play in future Air 
Force operations, by enabling capabilities such as prompt 
global strike and space access. The committee notes the need 
for robust research funding and flight test schedules, clearly 
established technical goals for demonstration programs, and 
well-defined transition pathways to formal acquisition 
programs. The committee believes that it is the role of the 
Hypersonics Joint Technology Office, established in the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), to oversee and ensure that all of the 
Department of Defense's research, development, test, and 
evaluation programs in hypersonics are executed in this manner. 
In order to enhance Department efforts in developing hypersonic 
strike capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of 
$3.5 million for scramjet research.

Network centric collaboration technologies

    The budget request included $108.1 million in PE 62204F for 
applied research on aerospace sensors. The committee notes that 
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded priorities list 
included research on collaboration for sensor technology to 
allow a network of sensors to work securely in hostile 
operating environments. To support this need, the committee 
recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the development of 
secure collaborative sensor grids for military operations.

Air Force seismic research for nuclear test monitoring

    The budget request included $109.6 million in PE 62601F, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force 
(RDTEAF), for space technology including $6.8 million for 
seismic technologies to support national requirements for 
monitoring nuclear explosions. The committee recommends an 
additional $11.8 million to improve operational seismic 
capability. The recent North Korean nuclear test highlighted a 
need for additional monitoring capability.

Acoustic shields for rocket payloads

    The budget request included $109.6 million in PE 62601F for 
space technology. The committee notes the need to develop 
robust space technologies for use as the Department of Defense 
tries to develop operationally responsive space systems. The 
committee recommends an increase of $400,000 for research on 
acoustic shielding technology to protect rocket payloads.

Cyber attack mitigation

    The budget request included $116.7 million in PE 62702F for 
applied research on command, control, and communications. The 
Information Assurance and Survivability Technology Base Defense 
Technology Objective includes the specific technical challenge 
of designing sensors to detect highly sophisticated, stealthy, 
distributed attacks spread out over time; detecting subtle 
integrity attacks; and developing algorithms for self-repair. 
In support of this objective, the committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million for the development of advanced 
systems for the detection and defeat of malicious software on 
military networks and information systems.

Aerospace metals research

    The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapons systems. The committee notes 
that the Fighter/Attack/Strike Propulsion Defense Technology 
Objective has identified a technical challenge of improving a 
number of aircraft engine performance parameters with advanced 
materials and designs, as well as with lower cost manufacturing 
processes. In support of that effort, the committee recommends 
an increase of $5.0 million to support advanced aerospace 
metals research and manufacturing.

Deployable fuel cell processors

    The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapons systems. The committee has 
supported efforts to develop energy efficient technologies 
specific to military applications that can increase operational 
performance while reducing energy costs and reducing logistics 
burdens on deployed forces. The committee notes that the 
Department of Defense has a number of ongoing efforts, 
including the Energy and Power Technology science and 
technology initiative, that seek to develop deployable energy 
and power systems. To support those efforts, the committee 
recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of 
deployable fuel cell processors as part of systems intended to 
replace conventional generators and provide efficient, 
reliable, and environmentally safe power to bare base and Air 
Expeditionary Force operations.

Aerospace titanium research

    The budget request included $64.9 million in PE 63211F for 
aerospace technology development and demonstration. The 
Department of Defense's Materials and Processes Defense 
Technology Objectives (DTO) include a focus on materials and 
processes for affordable aircraft structures. The committee 
notes that the cost of next generation platforms such as the F-
35 and unmanned air vehicles will be reduced through the 
development of low cost, reliable titanium structures. 
Therefore, in coordination with the Affordable Aircraft 
Structures DTO, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 
million for research on affordable aerospace titanium 
structures.

Thin film amorphous solar arrays

    The budget request included $78.7 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology. The committee recommends an 
increase of $5.6 million. Fiscal year 2008 will be the last 
year of a successful development and demonstration program of 
advanced solar arrays for space systems using thin film 
amorphous substrates. These solar arrays are 10 times cheaper, 
3 to 5 times lighter, and significantly more efficient than 
current solar arrays. The recently launched TacSat-2 has 
included these innovative solar cells as part of its suite of 
research and demonstration activities. The committee believes 
these solar cells could be a key element of future TacSats and 
other small operational responsive satellites where weight and 
power efficiency are key program requirements.

High integrity global positioning system

    The budget request included $70.8 million for the High 
Integrity Global Positioning System (IGPS) technology concept 
demonstrator in PE 63422F. The committee recommends no funding 
for IGPS in PE 63422F. The budget request also included $10.0 
million for IGPS in PE 1160403BB. The committee recommends the 
amount of the budget request in PE 116040BB.
    The committee believes that the IGPS, if successful, could 
provide a limited set of users an enhanced jam resistant and 
accurate Global Positioning Signal (GPS). The committee is 
nevertheless concerned that the potential development, 
transition, and user equipment costs, coupled with a rather 
limited useful life, make IGPS a low priority given the other 
demands on space systems funding. If, however, the Department 
of Defense can identify a specific user community that would 
share in the development costs and that would make a commitment 
to the purchase of user equipment, the committee would 
reconsider a request for IGPS in the future.

Optical interconnects for battlefield communications

    The budget request included $27.4 million in PE 63789F for 
command, control, communications, and information (C3I) 
advanced development. The committee notes that the most recent 
Defense Technology Objectives (DTO) endorsed by the Department 
of Defense include the development of optical networking 
technology with a potential payoff of developing networks for 
controlling vehicle actuators and flight control computing. 
Consistent with that objective and with efforts in the Air 
Force Small Business Innovative Research program, the committee 
recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of 
optical interconnects for battlefield communications.

Space control technology

    The budget request included $37.6 million for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 
63438F, for space control technology. The committee recommends 
an increase of $50.0 million for the self-awareness space 
situational awareness program to develop a suite of sensors to 
detect and locate threats to a satellite and provide 
notification and characterization of nearby objects. This 
program is included on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's 
unfunded priority list.

Space radar technology study

    The budget request included no funds in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 
63858F. The committee recommends an increase of $80.0 million 
for space radar technology evaluation, testing, and 
development.
    The committee supports the need to develop a single common 
radar system to support space radar capabilities, which would 
support equally the intelligence community and the warfighter. 
The committee is concerned, however, that the current program 
is unaffordable and may not provide the persistent capabilities 
for surface moving target indications that are desired. Radar 
options other than the current option may be more affordable 
and could provide some advantages when compared with the 
current program in the near-term. The approach to the near-term 
space radar capability should be joint so that the requirements 
of both the warfighter and the intelligence community are met, 
and the concepts of operations and tasking are developed 
jointly.
    Work on the longer-term approach to space radar 
capabilities is equally important. These longer-term approaches 
should be based on new radar applications that are affordable 
and timed to fit within longer-term planning for space budgets 
and programs. Using the funds recommended, the committee 
directs that the Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of 
National Intelligence, acting through the Joint Program Office 
(JPO) established by the Air Force and the National 
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), explore future radar technologies 
in a science and technology environment with a focus on 
reducing the cost of space radars and increasing utility. The 
JPO should continue to validate operational concepts for both 
the near- and longer-term space radar systems.

Common aero vehicle

    The budget request included $32.8 million for the Common 
Aero Vehicle (CAV) in PE 64856F. The committee recommends no 
funding for the CAV and further recommends that all of the 
funding for the CAV be transferred to PE 65104D8Z for common 
prompt global strike concepts, discussed elsewhere in this 
title.

Operationally responsive space

    The budget request included $87.0 million for Operationally 
Responsive Space (ORS) in Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), in PE 64857F. The committee 
recommends an increase of $15.0 million to have a more balanced 
program. The budget request supports launch and space vehicle 
work, but the committee believes additional attention is needed 
on sensor development as well.
    The new ORS office is in the process of standing up with 
good participation by all of the military services and 
laboratories. This new office will work with the United States 
Strategic Command to explore fully the potential opportunities 
for ORS capabilities. Like many new ideas, such as Global 
Positioning Systems, the uses and benefits are unknown at the 
outset. The committee continues to believe that the ORS concept 
holds considerable promise and is encouraged by the increased 
interest which has developed over the past 2 years. Some recent 
successes, such as the launch of TacSat 2, have begun to 
demonstrate potential applications of small, responsive, low 
cost satellite and launch vehicles.
    The committee directs the new ORS program to submit to the 
congressional defense committees at the conclusion of the first 
6 months of operations, a report outlining any issues that the 
office has encountered, progress made, and highlighting any 
legislative or other requirements that the office needs in 
order to be successful.

Combat search and rescue replacement vehicle

    The budget request included $280.0 million in PE 64261F for 
the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Vehicle (CSAR-X). The 
primary mission of the CSAR-X is to recover downed aircrew and 
isolated personnel from hostile or denied territory.
    The Air Force anticipated beginning CSAR-X system 
integration and demonstration activities in early fiscal year 
2007, immediately after awarding the system development 
contract. However, these activities have been delayed because 
bid protests by competitors were sustained, requiring the Air 
Force to reopen the competition. These delays have affected the 
program's funding needs in two areas. First, $165.3 million in 
fiscal year 2007 funding apparently exceeds current needs as 
integration and demonstration activities slip into the next 
fiscal year. This funding, however, will still be available to 
support activities that occur in fiscal year 2008. Also, many 
development activities originally planned for fiscal year 2008 
are likely to move into future fiscal years, thus making up to 
$80.0 million of the fiscal year 2008 request premature to 
needs. As a result, the fiscal year 2008 budget request could 
be reduced by $245.3 million, were it not for the fact that the 
Air Force already intends to reprogram $92.0 million of the 
fiscal year 2007 funds to other high priority programs.
    Although the committee strongly supports the CSAR-X 
program, there is no need to authorize more funding for the 
program than is necessary to keep it on the revised schedule. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $153.3 
million.

Rapid attack identification detection and reporting system

    The budget request included $53.4 million in PE 64221, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force 
(RDTEAF), for counterspace systems, including $13.8 million for 
Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting system 
(RAIDRS) Block 20. The committee recommends an additional $5.0 
million for RAIDRS Block 20. RAIDRS is a sensor system that 
will be able to detect and assess attacks on satellites. This 
program is on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded 
priority list.

Space control test capability

    The budget request included $53.4 million in PE 64421F, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force 
(RDTEAF), for counterspace systems, but no funds for the space 
control test capability. The committee recommends an additional 
$5.2 million for the space control test capability to continue 
the capability to test future space control options and 
determine costs in a simulated environment.

Space situation awareness systems

    The budget request included $187.8 million for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 
64425F, for Space Situation Awareness. The committee recommends 
an increase of $35.0 million for Space-based Space Surveillance 
(SBSS) Block 10. SBSS is a program to develop a constellation 
of optical sensing satellites to find and track objects in 
Earth orbit, primarily those in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 
(GEO). The additional funding would support the first SBSS 
satellite. This program is on the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force's unfunded priority list.

Space fence

    The budget request included $187.8 million in Space 
Situation Awareness systems Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 64425F, including $4.1 
million to develop and field a new space fence. The committee 
recommends an increase of $9.8 million for the space fence. The 
space fence is a network of ground radars that detect and track 
small objects in Earth orbit with a primary focus on objects in 
low Earth orbit. The new system should increase by an order of 
magnitude the number of space particles that can be detected 
and tracked to avoid collision and damage to space satellites. 
This program is on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's 
unfunded priority list.

Joint space intelligent decision support

    The budget request included $187.8 million in PE 64425F, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force 
(RDTEAF), for Space Situation Awareness systems, but no funds 
for joint space intelligent decision support (JSIDS). The 
committee recommends an additional $7.5 million for JSIDS to 
support space situational awareness data analysis.

Space-Based Infrared Satellite System High GEO

    The budget request included $587.0 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 
64441F, for Space-Based Infrared Satellite System (SBIRS) High. 
The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to 
address nonrecurring and other obsolescence issues to support 
SBIRS High GEO satellites three and four. As a result of the 
time elapsed between the acquisition of the SBIRS High GEO 
satellites one and two and the planned acquisition of 
satellites three and four, some significant redesign work is 
necessary. This gap has served to highlight an issue in the 
allocation between research and development funding for 
constellations with a small number of satellites. While the 
committee does not support incremental funding of satellite 
programs, production or acquisition gaps in these small 
constellations, in certain limited circumstances may dictate 
treatment of these later satellites as research and development 
satellites. This problem is limited to constellations of no 
more than four satellites and occurs when substantial 
nonrecurring costs are incurred.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report no later than August 1, 2007 outlining the budgetary and 
programmatic implications of utilizing Research and Development 
funds for small constellations of satellites in limited 
circumstances, including when such a funding approach might be 
appropriate. The committee also directs the Secretary to 
address in the report alternative approaches and options to 
fund satellite development and testing, including the 
establishment of a single Air Force budget line for space 
research, development, and testing.

Alternate infrared satellite system

    The budget request included $230.9 million for the 
Alternate Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS) in PE 64443F. The 
committee recommends no funding for the AIRSS.
    The AIRSS was initiated in fiscal year 2007 to provide an 
alternative approach for overhead non-imaging infrared (ONIR) 
for missile attack early warning at a time when the Spaced-
based Infrared Satellite System (SBIRS) was suffering from 
repeated cost and schedule overruns. When the SBIRS program 
generated two Nunn-McCurdy breaches in a 2-year period, there 
was serious concern about whether the SBIRS-GEO portion of the 
program was salvageable.
    Early missile attack warning is an essential capability 
that was to be performed by the SBIRS combination of highly 
elliptical orbit (HEO) and geosynchronous orbit (GEO) 
satellites as a replacement to the Defense Satellite Program 
(DSP). With the uncertainty in the SBIRS program, the Air Force 
wanted to explore alternatives in the event SBIRS-GEO was 
canceled after the first two GEO satellites. Since that time, 
and through the significant efforts of Air Force program 
managers and leadership, the SBIRS-GEO, while still facing a 
number of technical and cost challenges, has significantly 
improved.
    With the improvement in the SBIRS-GEO program the Air Force 
started to look at AIRSS as a follow-on to SBIRS. The committee 
does not believe that AIRSS is appropriately structured at this 
point to be a follow-on satellite program and that the SBIRS-
GEO should be able to provide the necessary missile attack 
early warning, technical intelligence, and battle space 
characterization for the next decade. The committee does 
support the Air Force's desire to explore next generation ONIR 
technologies in a science and technology environment, and urges 
the Air Force to include a request for such a technology 
development program in its fiscal year 2009 budget request.

Ballistic missile range safety technology

    The budget request included $15.1 million in PE 65860F, 
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, Air Force 
(RDTEAF), for Rocket Systems Launch Program, but no funds for 
the Ballistic missile range safety technology (BMRST). The 
committee recommends an additional $13.7 million for BMRST to 
continue certification of integration of additional units 
requested by several space launch ranges, including the Eastern 
and Western ranges, White Sands Missile Range, Pacific Missile 
Range, and Wallops Island launch facilities.

MQ-9 Reaper

    The budget request included $61.1 million for development 
of the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in PE 25219F. 
Military forces operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere 
today are reliant on a small number of greatly over-taxed 
airborne systems that are able to provide signals intelligence 
intercept and precise direction-finding (SIGINT-DF). In 
addition, some specialized aircraft not designed or intended 
for direct support to tactical forces currently must be used 
heavily for this purpose.
    The Air Force is completing development of the scaleable 
Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP). The so-called 
``2-box'' configuration provides intercept and DF capabilities. 
This system would enable the MQ-9 Reaper to conduct area 
surveillance and use the SIGINT-DF capability to locate targets 
accurately enough to find them with on-board imaging systems. 
This in turn would enable the Reaper hunter-killer to prosecute 
the targets.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to 
integrate the ASIP 2-box payload on the existing MQ-9s for use 
in ongoing operations.

Predator trainer upgrade

    The budget request included $61.1 million in 25219F for 
research and development for the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial 
vehicle (UAV), including $0.5 million for developing an 
operator simulator. The MQ-9 is a derivative of the MQ-1 
Predator UAV, and, hence, much of the ground support and 
training equipment for the MQ-9 will be the same equipment or 
product-iRTIProved versions of similar Predator equipment. The 
committee believes that the Air Force should be proceeding more 
rapidly to develop and field upgrades to the Predator trainer 
system to ensure that operators and ground support personnel 
will develop and maintain the necessary skills to conduct 
effective operations when the MQ-9 systems are delivered. The 
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to develop an 
upgraded Predator trainer to support the MQ-9 Reaper with 
iRTIProved performance, visual systems, and sensors.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system research and development

    The budget request included $65.9 million in PE 27581F for 
research and development projects for the E-8 joint 
surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) and $291.6 
million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related research and 
development for JSTARS. In addition, the budget request 
included $39.7 million in PE 27450F for the E-10 aircraft 
program and $178.4 million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-
related research and development for E-10 development.
    The funding requested for the war-related JSTARS research 
and development included $251.0 million that would not be 
needed until fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010. Although the 
committee strongly supports the JSTARS program, there is no 
need to authorize more funding for the program than is 
necessary to maintain the obligation schedule within the Air 
Force's own plans. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $251.0 million in war-related research and 
development funding.
    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). The Air Force has now decided to cancel 
the E-10 program, but has not yet decided what to do instead. 
One possibility, which the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has 
discussed, would be to begin a program to modernize some or all 
of the existing E-8 JSTARS aircraft with an MP-RTIP radar 
system. In fact, the original Air Force plan was to backfit 
some number of these aircraft with the iRTIProved radar.
    With the cancellation of the E-10 program, the committee 
believes that the Air Force should pursue another path to 
fielding the capability that would be provided by having the 
MP-RTIP radar on a platform larger than the Global Hawk. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $178.4 
million in the war-related funding for E-10 research and 
development and an increase in PE 27851F of $275.4 million, 
consisting of $178.4 million from the cancelled E-10 program 
and an additional $97.0 million to begin the effort to backfit 
MP-RTIP radar technology to the E-8 JSTARS aircraft.

Weather service research and development

    The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 35111F for 
research and development projects for the Air Force weather 
weapon system (AFWWS), but included no funding to develop 
operations risk management visualization and integration (ORM-
VIZ) upgrades for the system.
    AFWSS 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 AFWSS and integrate all vital information (terrain, 
weather, risk assessment) into one visual display.

Classified program

    The committee recommends an increase of $190.0 million to 
PE 35172F, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
Force (RDTEAF) for a classified item on the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force's unfunded priority list.

Global Positioning System user equipment

    The budget request included $120.9 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 
3516F, for Global Positioning System (GPS) user equipment. The 
committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million to develop 
the next generation of GPS user equipment that could utilize 
the GPS M code. There are already two GPS IIR-M satellites on 
orbit, there will be a third one launched by the end of fiscal 
year 2007, and four additional satellites will be launched in 
fiscal year 2008 and there is no user equipment available to 
utilize the M code. This program is on the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force's unfunded priority list.

MQ-1 Predator signals intelligence direction finding

    The budget request included $22.3 million in PE 35219F for 
development of the Predator MQ-1 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). 
In another section of this report, the committee presented a 
rationale for equipping many more tactical reconnaissance and 
hunter-killer aircraft with signals intelligence (SIGINT) and 
precise direction-finding (DF). The committee recommended 
integrating the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP) 
``2-box'' SIGINT-DF on the MQ-9 Reaper UAV. The same logic 
applies to the Predator UAV.
    The MQ-1 Predator that the Air Force is currently procuring 
does not have the payload capacity to carry the 2-box 
configuration of ASIP. However, the MQ-1C Warrior that the Army 
is preparing to produce will be able to support the full 2-box 
payload. In another section of this report, the committee 
directs that the Air Force convert the MQ-1 production line to 
the MQ-1C variant in fiscal year 2008. In conjunction with that 
changeover, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million to integrate the ASIP 2-box on the MQ-1C.

Network-centric collaborative targeting

    The budget request included $8.6 million in PE 35221F for 
the Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program. 
This innovative program networks airborne and national systems 
to enable tipping and cueing in near real-time based on 
commander's guidance to prosecute time-sensitive or otherwise 
critical targets. This networking program is necessary because 
it is usually impossible for a single sensor to provide all the 
data necessary to perform wide-area surveillance, detection, 
identification, localization, tracking, and support to target 
attack--but combinations of existing sensors can accomplish 
these tasks if properly networked. The speed of collaboration 
required, however, can exceed the ability of human operators to 
coordinate. Instead, ``machine-to-machine'' communication and 
automatic action are necessary, based on rules and guidance 
established in advance by appropriate authorities.
    An example of such interactions might be using one signal's 
intelligence platform to automatically cue others to tune 
receivers to assist in geolocating a hostile emitter, then 
tipping an imagery system to locate and positively identify the 
target for attack.
    The NCCT capability is being fielded to Rivet Joint, Senior 
Scout, the Distributed Common Ground System, air and space 
operations centers, and the Airborne Overhead Interoperability 
Office. Through these systems, many of the most important 
collection sensors will be able to participate and contribute--
but not all. For example, the Joint STARS, Guardrail, EP-3, and 
Compass Call platforms are not tied into this network. The 
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to integrate 
these platforms into the NCCT network. In the future, the 
signals intelligence and imagery systems on Global Hawk, 
Predator, and Reaper should be integrated as well.

National Security Space Office

    The budget request included $10.8 million for the National 
Security Space Office (NSSO) in PE 35924F. The committee 
recommends an increase of $7.0 million to increase the 
capabilities of the NSSO. NSSO is a multidisciplinary 
multiservice office within the Department of Defense (DOD) that 
was established to provide independent technical and other 
advice with respect to space systems and space architectures. 
All DOD space programs, including the National Reconnaissance 
Office (NRO), were to support and participate in the work of 
this office to ensure close coordination and integration of 
white and black space. In the past year the NRO decided not to 
participate in this office. The committee believes that this 
decision is shortsighted and in the long run will serve only to 
exacerbate the differences between the two space communities. 
The committee directs the Director of the NRO to resume full 
participation in the NSSO in fiscal year 2008 and to submit a 
notification to the congressional defense committees by 
December 1, 2007, describing the participation and the number 
of NRO personnel who are assigned to the NSSO office.

Space situational awareness operations

    The budget request included $23.9 million in PE 35940F for 
space situational awareness operations. The committee 
recommends an increase of $16.8 million. The increase would 
provide additional funding for a variety of increases in 
operating costs for space situational awareness capabilities, 
including providing funds for the commercial and foreign 
entities program. This program is on the Commander of the Air 
Force Space Command's unfunded priority list.

C-130 deicing system

    The budget request included $188.1 million in PE 41115F for 
the developing and testing modifications to the Air Force's 
fleet of 434 C-130 aircraft. The C-130 is the primary intra-
theater airlift aircraft in the U.S. military's inventory, and 
its continued viability is critical to the success of current 
and future operations. The committee recommends an increase of 
$3.0 million in PE 41115F for ground-based engine testing, 
flight testing, and certification of metal fiber brushes in the 
C-130 aircraft's propeller deicing system.

KC-135 tanker replacement

    The budget request included $314.5 million in PE 41221F for 
a KC-135 replacement, called the KC-X. This program is intended 
to produce the Air Force's next generation aerial refueling 
aircraft.
    The committee notes that prior year unobligated 
appropriations of $173.5 million are available for the 
execution of the KC-X development program. The Air Force's 
request for proposals issued to industry on January 30, 2007, 
identified $250.0 million as the likely funding level available 
for KC-X developmental activities in fiscal year 2008. The 
committee fully supports the recapitalization of the KC-135 
fleet and understands that a reduced funding request for fiscal 
year 2008 should not have a significant effect on the program 
execution.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $140.0 million in PE 
41221F for KC-X development.

Combat casualty management system

    The budget request included $5.2 million in PE 48011F for 
research and development projects for improving the capability 
of the battlefield airman, but included no funding to improve 
the ability of combat medical personnel to operate more 
effectively within the personnel recovery system. The 
improvements needed to operate on today's battlefield include 
the capability to remotely activate communications links to 
tactical command centers or from low flying aircraft such as 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Such improvements would 
involve providing combat medical personnel with ongoing 
situational awareness of the total battle space and aid in: 
minimizing the risk of exposure of personnel recovery aircraft 
and crews to battlefield threats; providing the ability to 
bring supplies to a medic where needed; increasing signal 
strength for distance and non-line-of-sight detection; and 
locating and tracking multiple survivors within the battle 
space.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million to 
develop such improvements to the combat casualty management 
system.

Laser processing of materials

    The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 78011F for 
industrial preparedness activities. The committee notes that 
advanced aircraft will incorporate advanced composite 
materials. Reducing the manufacture and processing costs of 
these materials can reduce the life cycle costs of many future 
major acquisition programs. Therefore, the committee recommends 
an additional $2.0 million for development of advanced laser 
manufacturing tools for polymer composite materials.

                              Defense-wide




Semiconductor focus center research program

    The budget request included no funding in PE 61111D8Z for 
Government/Industry Cosponsorship of University Research 
(GICUR) in semiconductor technology. This is despite the fact 
that in the January 2007 report to Congress entitled ``Response 
to Findings and Recommendations of the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply,'' the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
indicated that the GICUR program ``is a shared commitment 
between industry and the Department to sponsor next generation 
semiconductor electronics research,'' which ``capitalizes on 
university-based research, education, and training in 
technologies of strategic importance to national defense and 
also to industry.'' The committee recommends an additional $5.0 
million in PE 61111D8Z for the semiconductor focus center 
research program. The committee directs that the Director of 
Defense Research and Engineering ensures that this funding is 
combined with an adequate cost-sharing investment from industry 
partners, and is executed in coordination with similar 
authorized funding requested in PE 61101E.
    Further, the committee directs the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering to comply with the recommendation of 
the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance 
Microchip Supply to develop an ``. . . estimate of Department 
of Defense 5- and 10-year future microelectronics needs 
(including processes and design methods)'' as well as to 
``collect and organize known and projected technology 
requirements.'' This estimate shall be delivered to the 
congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 2008.

Superstructural particle evaluation

    The budget request included $72.0 million in PE 61384BP for 
chemical and biological defense basic research. This basic 
research improves the understanding of the scientific processes 
for protecting against chemical and biological agents. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 61384BP 
to continue work 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.

Medical free electron laser

    The budget request included no funding for the Medical Free 
Electron Laser (MFEL) program. The Department of Defense 
describes the program as developing ``advanced, medical laser-
based technology applications focusing on rapid diagnosis and 
treatment of battlefield medical problems,'' while addressing 
``military mission and unique medical challenges on the 
battlefield.'' The Department further noted that ``most laser-
based medical procedures used in surgery . . . for Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom casualties have a 
research base and lineage'' from the MFEL program. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE 
62227D8Z for the continuation of competitive research awards 
under the MFEL program. Further, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan for the 
continuation of militarily relevant medical laser research, 
technology development, and technology transition to 
operational users, and to deliver that plan to the 
congressional defense committees along with the fiscal year 
2009 budget request.

Chemical and biological infrared detector

    The budget request included $305.3 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but did 
not include any funds to develop miniaturized infrared 
detection technology. The committee recommends an increase of 
$2.0 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.

Chemical and biological protective textile fabric

    The budget request included $305.3 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but 
included no funds for research and development of protective 
fabrics based on advanced molecular matrices. The committee 
recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62384BP for 
development of novel textile fabrics for protection against 
exposure to chemical and biological warfare agents. The 
committee notes that development of novel protective fabric 
concepts is currently a major thrust of the Department of 
Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program, and this 
research could lead to important contributions in future 
protective fabric development.

Verification and validation of chemical agent persistence models

    The budget request included $305.3 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but 
included no funding for the verification and validation of 
chemical agent persistence models. The committee recommends an 
increase of $1.0 million in PE 62384BP, to complete 
verification and validation of chemical agent persistence 
models to help ensure U.S. forces are capable of operating 
effectively in a chemically contaminated environment.
    The committee notes that the agent fate program is a joint 
service program that focuses on the acquisition of chemical 
warfare agent data and the development of models from that 
data. The continuation of the agent fate effort to validate and 
verify chemical agent persistence models meets a Defense 
Technology Objective, and will help U.S. military forces 
protect themselves and their equipment in a chemically 
contaminated environment.

Blast mitigation and protection

    The budget request included $182.4 million in PE 62718BR 
for technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 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 mitigation and protection options for 
military facilities. Terrorist attacks using high explosives 
have become more sophisticated and powerful. This requires 
improved analytic and predictive capabilities for external and 
internal blast effects, identification of critical 
vulnerabilities, and designing protective measures against 
blast.

Comprehensive national incident management system

    The budget request included $182.4 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 
(DTRA) to improve national capabilities to analyze potential 
catastrophic events such as pandemic influenza and terrorist 
attacks using weapons of mass destruction. This technology has 
the potential to significantly improve the ability of the 
Department of Defense to analyze and plan for such catastrophic 
events, including its ability to provide support to civil 
authorities for consequence management of such events.

Advanced technologies for special operations

    The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 1160401BB, 
$2.4 million in PE 1160407BB, and $29.9 million in PE 1160402BB 
for science and technology efforts to support the development 
of special operations capabilities. The committee notes that 
United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has 
highlighted ``tagging, tracking, and locating'' as a key 
technology challenge and plans to invest $17.6 million in the 
fiscal year 2008 budget in related research. The committee 
recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE 1160401BB for the 
development of multi-sensor data fusion systems to enhance 
detection and discrimination of targets hidden in foliage.
    Special Operations Command has also highlighted the 
development of ``alternative and advanced lightweight power 
sources'' as a priority technology challenge. Consistent with 
that assessment, and with efforts in the SOCOM Small Business 
Innovative Research program, the committee recommends an 
additional $2.0 million in PE 1160402BB for research on systems 
to produce mobile electric power from a variety of fuels. 
Further, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in 
PE 1160402BB for the development of portable fuel cell systems 
for battlefield communications equipment. Special Operations 
Command has identified the development of systems that can 
reduce signatures across the spectrum without mission impact to 
enhance clandestine operations capability as a major technology 
challenge. To support efforts to address this challenge, the 
committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 1160402BB 
to reduce antenna signatures and improve performance on 
airborne platforms. To support SOCOM's urgent need to enable 
precision fires in urban terrain and other operational 
settings, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million 
in PE 1160402BB for development of standoff precision guided 
munitions.

Directly printed electronic components

    The budget request included $118.6 million in PE 63175C for 
ballistic missile defense technology development. The committee 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63175C for 
development of directly printed electronic components for 
missile defense applications. Such components could have 
increased performance, greater reliability, and smaller size 
than currently available technology.

Semi-conducting metal oxide sensors

    The budget request included $232.3 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological defense advanced technology. The 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63384BP 
to develop miniaturized semi-conducting metal oxide sensor 
array technology for chemical warfare agents and toxic 
industrial chemicals. This technology effort meets the 
Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program 
objective to develop small, integrated chemical vapor sensors 
by targeting permissive exposure levels.

Improved chemical, biological, and radiological filters

    The budget request included $232.3 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 improved CBR filters. Improved filters would fill a 
requirement for enhanced collective protection capability 
against a wider 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 $232.2 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological defense advanced technology 
development, but included no funding to develop a miniaturized 
Raman chemical agent identification system. The committee 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63384BP for 
development of a hand-held Raman chemical 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.

Biometrics technologies

    The budget request included $8.0 million in PE 63665D8Z for 
biometrics science and technology. The 2007 ``Report of the 
Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Biometrics'' 
highlighted the need for improvements in the ability to perform 
biometric identification at standoff ranges, and recommended 
support of research efforts into ``extended-range human 
biometric identifiability and tracking.'' Therefore, the 
committee recommends an additional $4.0 million for the 
development of systems to perform clandestine identification of 
moving subjects at variable distances.

Manufacturing technologies

    The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 63680D8Z 
for defense-wide manufacturing science and technology programs. 
The committee commends the Department of Defense for 
understanding the need to advance manufacturing technologies to 
support the defense industrial base, improve the performance of 
defense systems, and reduce life cycle costs. In title II, 
subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee established the 
high performance defense manufacturing technology research and 
development program with a goal to identify and transition 
advanced manufacturing processes and technologies whose 
utilization would create significant productivity and 
efficiency gains in the defense manufacturing base. The 
committee notes that this legislation has been endorsed by the 
Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on the Manufacturing 
Technology Program. The committee recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million in PE 63680D8Z to continue activities under this 
program, including 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 can access required manufacturing and technology 
capabilities in critical defense technologies.
    The committee notes that the DSB recommended an increased 
investment in research on ``disruptive'' manufacturing 
technologies, which can radically alter traditional 
manufacturing processes and change the industrial base. These 
types of innovations would allow the Department to gain easier 
access to affordable low-volume, state-of-the-art production 
capabilities, as is often needed in the acquisition of defense 
unique technologies of low density, high demand systems. The 
DSB indicated that investments in areas such as 
nanomanufacturing and flexible manufacturing processes would be 
of high value to the Department. To support these efforts, the 
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63680D8Z for longer-term research into disruptive manufacturing 
techniques.

Printed circuit board technologies

    The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistics research and development technology 
demonstrations. 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.'' In support of that recommendation 
the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the 
development of emerging critical interconnect and printed 
circuit board technology.

Energy efficiency technologies

    The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistics research and development (R&D) technology 
demonstrations. The committee is aware of a growing number of 
studies from organizations including the JASONs technical study 
group, the Defense Science Board, and the Energy Security Task 
Force that highlight the need for the Department of Defense to 
closely examine its energy use and technologies for improving 
energy efficiency. The use of energy efficient technologies by 
the Department can result in cost savings, enhanced operational 
performance, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The 
committee also notes that the Marine Corps submitted an urgent 
request for renewable energy systems to be deployed in Iraq. 
Finally, the committee notes that Executive Order 13423 calls 
on federal agencies to increase their use of renewable energy 
for power, and for federal fleets to increase their consumption 
of non-petroleum-based fuels by 10 percent annually.
    The committee supports efforts by the Department to invest 
in energy efficient and alternative energy technologies. To 
support these efforts the committee recommends increases of 
$10.0 million to continue the Vehicle Fuel Cell Program 
established in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), $6.0 million for 
research on solid hydrogen storage materials and systems 
appropriate for military applications, $3.0 million for 
research on the production and use of biofuels for military 
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.

Unmanned air vehicle batteries

    The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistics technology demonstrations. The committee has 
strongly endorsed the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) 
for a growing number of military missions. The committee notes 
that one limiting factor in the use of UAVs on the battlefield 
is the limited power available on the platforms, which can 
limit both UAV flight range as well as the specific missions of 
each platform. In order to address this issue, the committee 
recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on advanced 
battery technologies for UAVs.

Water remediation research

    The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 63716D8Z 
for the strategic environmental research program. The committee 
understands that the Department of Defense has identified a 
large number of active and formerly used defense sites with 
issues of groundwater contamination. Many of these sites will 
require environmental remediation. To support those efforts, 
the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for water 
remediation research.

High performance computing modeling and simulation

    The budget request included $187.6 million in PE 63755D8Z 
for the high performance computing modernization program. The 
committee notes that one of the Army's major future force 
technology areas is advanced simulation technologies. These 
technologies are being developed to provide increasingly 
realistic training and mission rehearsal environments to 
support military operations and acquisition efforts. In order 
to support those efforts, the committee recommends an increase 
of $2.0 million for high performance computing modeling and 
simulation research.

Small craft common operating picture technology

    The budget request included $109.5 million in PE 63826D8Z 
for quick reaction special projects. The committee notes that 
the Navy's assymetric and irregular warfare science and 
technology focus area has a specific technical objective of 
improving riverine surveillance capabilities, through the 
development of a ``common and persistent maritime picture on 
and below the surface and shore.'' To support those efforts, 
the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for the 
development of technology to provide a common tactical 
operating picture to riverine craft.

Active protection systems comparative testing

    The budget request included $109.5 million in PE 63826D8Z 
for quick reaction special projects. The committee recommends 
an increase of $15.0 million for the comparative testing of 
foreign and domestic active protection systems as required 
elsewhere in this report. The committee further recommends an 
increase of $1.0 million for the assessment of current and 
future active protection systems as described elsewhere in this 
report.

Joint warfare experimentation

    The budget request included $112.0 million in PE 63828D8Z 
for joint experimentation. The committee notes that Joint 
Forces Command (JFCOM) is playing the lead role in the 
development of joint operational concepts and in the 
development of joint experiments and wargames to test new 
operational concepts, capabilities, and technologies. The 
committee notes that JFCOM is conducting experiments to 
understand how multiple federal agencies, including the 
Department of Defense, should interact with each other and 
state and local entities in carrying out homeland defense 
missions. To support these efforts the committee recommends an 
increase of $1.5 million for wargaming and experimentation to 
simulate terrorist attacks against domestic military 
facilities. The committee also is supportive of JFCOM efforts 
to enhance Department language and cultural awareness 
capabilities and recommends an increase of $3.2 million to 
continue the development of cultural and societal modeling and 
simulation tools. The committee also commends JFCOM efforts in 
the development of urban operations concepts and capabilities 
and recommends an increase of $1.5 million to fund the JFCOM 
unfunded requirement for the development of a joint urban fires 
prototype.

Range readiness analyses

    The budget request included $62.9 million in PE 63941D8Z 
for test and evaluation science and technology. The committee 
notes that the ``Annual Report of the Test Resource Management 
Center'' highlighted the fact that Department of Defense test 
facilities and ranges need to be protected against diminution 
in mission capability as an unintended consequence of 
environmental laws and encroachment. The committee recommends 
an additional $1.0 million for analysis of issues that may 
affect military mission readiness and test activities on and 
between installations and ranges.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

    The budget request included $858.3 million in PE 63881C for 
the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $105.0 million in PE 
63881C, of which $40.0 million is to begin development of the 
Evolved THAAD Interceptor, $40.0 million is to increase the 
missile production rate to four per month, and $25.0 million is 
to conduct additional flight testing of the THAAD system.
    The THAAD system is expected to have significant capability 
to defend against short-, medium-, and intermediate-range 
ballistic missiles, including potential Iranian missiles that 
could be launched at Europe. With evolutionary upgrades to the 
THAAD interceptor, the system would increase significantly its 
defensive area and its capability, to include the possibility 
of defending against some intercontinental ballistic missiles. 
The additional funding recommended would permit the Evolved 
THAAD Interceptor upgrade to begin development so that it could 
be tested and demonstrated on an accelerated schedule. This is 
not intended to interfere with the existing THAAD program of 
record.
    The committee notes that the THAAD system is designed to 
have nine launchers per fire unit, but that initially the 
system will have only three launchers per fire unit, with eight 
interceptors per launcher. The Commander of the Joint Force 
Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense told the 
committee in April 2007 that recent analyses indicate a need to 
nearly double the number of planned THAAD interceptors, 
currently 96. The committee believes that the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA) should plan and budget for a significantly larger 
number of THAAD interceptors to meet the needs of regional 
combatant commanders, as well as for a robust flight test 
program. The additional funding recommended to increase the 
interceptor production rate would permit production at rates 
that better meet the needs of combatant commanders.
    The committee is disappointed that the MDA eliminated three 
flight tests from the THAAD testing program for budget reasons 
and because of difficulty delivering targets on time. This 
reduction is contrary to the direction provided by Congress 
last year for the Department of Defense to place priority on 
the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of 
effective, near-term ballistic missile defense systems, 
specifically including the THAAD system.
    The testing reduction adds risk to the THAAD program, and 
increases the number of critical factors that must be 
accomplished in individual tests. It also eliminates two near-
term flight tests. The additional funding recommended by the 
committee is intended to restore a THAAD flight test to reduce 
risk and allow a more measured pace of demonstrating critical 
factors in each test.
    The committee is disappointed that the THAAD flight test 
program has suffered from target failures and target delivery 
delays, despite the availability to MDA of considerable sums of 
money for the targets program. The committee urges MDA to 
improve its performance on supplying reliable targets to the 
THAAD program and other element and system flight tests.

Arrow missile defense program

    The budget request included $73.6 million in PE 63881C for 
the Israeli Arrow missile defense program, including $55.0 
million for the Arrow System Improvement program, and $12.4 
million for co-production of the Arrow interceptor missile. The 
committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 63881C 
for the Arrow missile defense program, including $25.0 million 
for increased co-production of the Arrow interceptor missile, 
and $10.0 million for the United States and Israel to conduct a 
detailed analysis of the potential for the Terminal High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to serve as a follow-on to 
the Arrow system to provide an upper tier defense of Israel 
against longer-range and more advanced ballistic missiles armed 
with unconventional warheads.
    The Arrow co-production program provides a means to 
increase the near-term inventory of operational Arrow 
interceptors. The Arrow system provides defense of Israel and 
defense of U.S. forces deployed in the region, thus allowing 
U.S. freedom of action in future contingencies. The Arrow 
system is designed to be interoperable with deployed U.S. 
missile defense assets.
    The committee notes that the THAAD system is planned to 
have the capability to defend an area the size of Israel 
against regional ballistic missiles that could leak through 
Israel's improved Arrow weapon system. The committee believes 
that Israel should consider seriously the option of purchasing 
the THAAD system, rather than beginning a development program 
for a new upper tier interceptor system that would replicate 
the capabilities of THAAD. The committee urges the Department 
of Defense to assist in this effort.

Short-range ballistic missile defense

    The budget request included $962.6 million in PE 63881C for 
terminal-phase missile defense efforts, of which $7.0 million 
is for short-range ballistic missile defense (SRBMD) research 
and development cooperation between the United States and 
Israel on the Israeli ``David's Sling'' weapon system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63881C 
for acceleration of the SRBMD development effort.
    The short-range missile and rocket attacks by Hezbollah 
against Israel in the summer of 2006 reinforced the importance 
of developing affordable and effective short-range ballistic 
missile defense capabilities. The Missile Defense Agency wants 
to ensure that the technology developed for the David's Sling 
weapon system can be fully interoperable with the U.S. 
Ballistic Missile Defense system. The program seeks to produce 
an interceptor missile costing $350,000, which is less than 15 
percent of the cost of a Patriot missile.
    This program development objective is on an accelerated 
schedule to allow rapid demonstration and fielding of an 
initial capability by Israel starting as early as 2009.

Ground-based midcourse defense in Europe

    The budget request included $2.5 billion in PE 63882C for 
midcourse ballistic missile defense, including $85.0 million 
for construction of facilities in Europe for the proposed 
deployment of Ground-based Interceptors in Poland and a 
midcourse X-band radar in the Czech Republic. As noted 
elsewhere in this report, the committee believes this proposed 
deployment request is premature. The committee recommends a 
reduction of $85.0 million in PE 63882C, the entire amount for 
site activation and construction activities for the proposed 
European deployment.
    Should the international agreements be reached before or 
during fiscal year 2008, the Department of Defense could then 
seek a reprogramming request to fund site activation and 
construction activities.

Airborne Laser

    The budget request included $548.8 million in PE 63883C for 
the Airborne Laser boost-phase missile defense technology 
demonstration program. The committee recommends a reduction of 
$200.0 million to PE 63883C for the Airborne Laser. The 
committee notes that the Airborne Laser (ABL) program has had a 
history of schedule delays and cost overruns since its 
inception in 1996. The Department of Defense previously told 
Congress that the system would be available for an emergency 
capability in 2003. The current schedule has delayed the first 
demonstration shoot-down flight test until 2009 and, if all the 
technology worked as hoped, the system would likely not be 
operational until 2018, or later.
    The committee has concerns about the many technical 
challenges still facing the Airborne Laser program, as well as 
its operational constraints and very considerable cost. For 
example, the ABL demonstration program is expected to cost $5.0 
billion dollars to get through the first demonstration of the 
proof of principle in a shoot-down flight test in 2009. Even if 
that flight test were to work, it would not demonstrate that 
the system could be made operationally effective. And it is 
unclear that the system would be affordable. The Congressional 
Budget Office has provided an initial estimate that an 
operational ABL system of 7 aircraft could cost as much as 
$36.0 billion.
    Although the MDA says that the ABL program is a knowledge-
based program, it did not meet all its knowledge points in 2006 
before moving forward to the next knowledge point. This 
indicates too high a degree of technical risk, and an undue 
effort to meet a schedule for the flight test demonstration, 
rather than demonstrating all necessary knowledge point steps 
before proceeding to the next step.
    The committee notes that near-term capabilities to defend 
against existing threats are a higher priority than far-term, 
high risk technology demonstrations. The committee urges the 
Department to consider restructuring the ABL program as a 
technology demonstrator.

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector

    The budget request included $57.2 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 capabilities. The committee 
notes that this effort would provide a significant upgrade to 
the current 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 domestic consequence 
management missions.

Ballistic missile defense reductions

    The budget request included $482.0 million in PE 63890C for 
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems Core; and $323.3 
million in PE 63891C for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Special 
Programs. The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million 
in PE 63890C for BMD systems Core; and a decrease of $150.0 
million in PE 63891C for MDA Special Programs to partially 
offset the additional funding needed for the Patriot PAC-3, 
Aegis BMD, and THAAD 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 these three near-term 
programs, which meet the needs of combatant commanders to 
defend against existing short-range and medium-range missile 
threats to forward-deployed U.S. forces.

Aegis ballistic missile defense

    The budget request included nearly $1.1 billion in PE 
63892C, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-
wide, for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, 
including the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor. The 
committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million in PE 63892C 
for the Aegis BMD system, of which $20.0 million is for 
increasing the SM-3 interceptor production rate to four per 
month; $45.0 million is for long lead production of an 
additional 15 SM-3 interceptors; and $10.0 million is for 
accelerating the development of the Aegis BMD Signal Processor 
(BSP) and Open Architecture software for the Aegis weapon 
system.
    The committee notes that the Aegis BMD system, and its SM-3 
interceptor, is deployed today and provides an important 
missile defense capability against short- and medium-range 
missiles deployed widely in theaters where U.S. forces are 
forward deployed. The system is planned for significant 
capability improvements in the future.
    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) increased the planned 
funding for SM-3 missiles in fiscal year 2008 to fund missiles 
it had previously cut for budget reasons. Currently MDA plans 
to procure only some 147 SM-3 missiles of all Block I 
varieties. The Commander, Joint Forces Component Command for 
Integrated Missile Defense (JFCC-IMD) testified in April 2007 
that recent analyses indicate a need to nearly double the 
number of planned SM-3 interceptors. The committee urges MDA to 
plan and budget for increased numbers of SM-3 interceptors to 
meet the needs of regional combatant commanders, as indicated 
by the Commander, JFCC-IMD.

Space tracking and surveillance system

    The budget request included $331.5 million in PE 63893C for 
the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS). The 
committee recommends a reduction of $55.0 million in PE 63893C 
for STSS, the amount requested for product development of the 
follow-on satellites that will not be deployed until 2016. The 
committee notes that the STSS program is preparing to deploy 
two experimental STSS satellites to learn how the system works, 
and what changes or improvements are needed for the operational 
system. It is premature to plan to spend funds on developing 
the follow-on operational satellites before the Missile Defense 
Agency knows how the experimental satellites work, and what 
changes are needed in the follow-on satellites.

Space test-bed

    The budget request included $27.7 million in PE 63895C for 
Ballistic Missile Defense system space programs, including 
$10.0 million for a new ``space test-bed.'' The committee 
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63895C, the entire 
amount requested for the space test-bed.
    The committee notes that the space test-bed is intended to 
be the initial step toward deploying space-based interceptors. 
There is no threat that justifies such a deployment, and 
therefore no justification to create such a test-bed. There 
are, however, numerous real missile threats for which near-term 
missile defense capabilities are needed, 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 more appropriate to support 
funding for those effective, near-term systems that meet 
current combatant commander needs against existing threats.

Surface-to-air missile threat simulators

    The budget request included $133.8 million in PE 64940D8Z 
for central test and evaluation investment development. The 
committee notes the need to develop simulators for the large 
variety of threats that may face warfighters in the future. The 
fiscal year 2006 annual report of the Director of the Test 
Resource Management Center identified digital modeling and 
simulation of targets and threats as a test and evaluation gap. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 million 
for the development of surface-to-air missile hardware 
simulators.

Prompt global strike

    The budget request included a total of $175.4 million for 
the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM), with $126.4 
million in hard and deeply buried target defeat systems, PE 
64327N; $36.0 million in Trident II modifications, Weapons 
Procurement, Navy (WPN) line 1; and $13.0 million in strategic 
systems missile equipment, Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) line 
108. The budget request also included $32.8 million for the 
Common Aero Vehicle, PE 64856F.
    The committee believes that a coordinated look at a variety 
of kinetic non-nuclear concepts is necessary to address the 
feasibility of a prompt global strike (PGS) capability and to 
review, in a coordinated fashion, technologies that would be 
common to such a capacity, including thermal protection, 
guidance navigation, and control issues. The committee 
recommends that the funds identified above be transferred to 
technical studies, support, and analysis, PE 65104D8Z, to be 
used to establish an integrated PGS research program. 
Requirements for the program should be provided by the United 
States Strategic Command as informed by the ongoing analysis of 
alternatives for PGS and the PGS technology roadmap.
    In addition to the research areas mentioned above, research 
should include advanced propulsion, payload delivery and 
dispensing mechanisms, weapon system command and control, and 
advanced non-nuclear, kinetic, and other enabling capabilities.
    The committee is aware of several potential options for 
non-nuclear prompt global strike, including the Army's advanced 
hypersonic weapon technology demonstrator program, which is 
included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priority 
list in the amount of $41.7 million. The committee recommends 
that of the funds provided for PGS, $41.7 million be provided 
to begin sounding rocket and flight vehicle tests, and to 
support booster development for the Army's advanced hypersonic 
weapon.
    Other service program elements, including PE 63216F, 
aerospace propulsion and power technology, also include 
research and development areas that could be applied to the PGS 
mission. Included in the propulsion research and development 
efforts is the versatile, affordable advanced turbine engine 
high speed turbine engine demonstrator (HiSTED). The budget 
request included $2.5 million for this effort. The committee 
recommends an additional $10.0 million to allow the PGS effort 
to coordinate research and development activities with the Air 
Force HiSTED project.
    The committee continues to believe that it is essential to 
maintain a bright line between legacy nuclear capabilities and 
any future PGS capability, and therefore recommends no funds 
for the CTM or other similar capability that could raise any 
nuclear ambiguity issues. The committee believes that PGS 
should be clearly and unambiguously non-nuclear.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Commander of the Strategic Command, to 
submit a research plan for PGS for fiscal year 2008, including 
a funding plan, prior to initiating any PGS research.

Information systems security program technology development

    The budget request included $394.3 million in PE 33140G for 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for the 
Information Systems Security program at the National Security 
Agency (NSA). The committee is concerned that the NSA 
information assurance program does not have a dedicated program 
for developing a technology base for future requirements for 
advanced products like high-speed encrypters for space and 
terrestrial applications.
    Multiple Department of Defense and national intelligence 
major acquisition programs have been adversely affected by 
delays in the development of security features. These delays 
are in part the result of NSA security technology lagging 
behind the constant, rapid advance of communications 
technology.
    The committee believes it is unwise for a critical mission 
area such as this to receive no tech base funding, especially 
in the current era when the communications technology that must 
be protected is growing relentlessly.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the establishment of an 
anticipatory technology development program for advanced 
information assurance capabilities. The committee recommends an 
authorization of $30.0 million for this purpose.
    The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Network and Information Integration to develop a technology 
development plan that describes key challenges, critical 
capabilities, and technical goals for information assurance 
over the future-years defense program. This plan must delineate 
how the Department intends to structure the anticipatory 
development program, and to utilize commercial expertise and 
investments. This plan, as well as a spending plan for fiscal 
year 2008, must be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees prior to obligation and expenditure of authorized 
funds.

Software assurance education and research

    The budget request included $394.3 million for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in PE 33140G for the 
Information Systems Security program (ISSP), 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.

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing research

    The budget request included $20.1 million in PE 78011S for 
industrial preparedness programs of the Defense Logistics 
Agency (DLA). The committee notes that efforts to adopt fuel 
cell technology by the military are inhibited by cost barriers. 
The reduction of fuel cell cost is a specific technical goal of 
the Department of Defense's Energy and Power Technology 
Initiative. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional 
$3.0 million for the improvement of manufacturing processes to 
reduce the cost of fuel cells for use in military applications. 
The committee directs that these activities will be undertaken 
in coordination with the efforts of the Joint Defense 
Manufacturing Technology Panel. The DLA has indicated that a 
disproportionate share of equipment backorders are due to an 
unavailability of critical cast parts. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $2.0 million to develop systems to 
accelerate the manufacturing and procurement of high priority 
castings. Further, the committee notes that the DLA has set an 
objective to improve supply chain performance through a number 
of improvements including supply chain integration. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for 
continued improvements in supply chain integration and 
accelerating response times to equipment backorders. Finally, 
the committee notes that DLA and the Army have a need for shelf 
stable combat rations, especially items sensitive to heat, such 
as produce and eggs, and recommends an increase of $4.0 million 
for development of equipment to improve processing of rations 
to enhance their produceability, quality, and shelf life.

Manufacturing processes to support surge requirements

    The budget request included $20.1 million in PE 78011S for 
Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology programs. The 
committee notes that this is part of the overall Department of 
Defense manufacturing technology program which has total 
funding of $193.3 million in the budget request. The committee 
notes that the 2006 Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on 
the Manufacturing Technology Program called for increased 
funding levels for the program over a 5-year period to a level 
of ``one percent of the RDT&E budget,'' to align the Department 
with the level of manufacturing technology investments in the 
early 1980s. The committee notes that 1 percent of the 
requested RDT&E budget in fiscal year 2008 would be 
approximately $750.0 million.
    The committee recommends that the Department seriously 
consider implementing the DSB recommendations for increased 
manufacturing research funding and has recommended a series of 
investments throughout this bill to support the ramp up in this 
important area.
    As part of that effort the committee recommends an increase 
of $30.0 million in PE 78011S for the establishment of an 
industrial base innovation fund. The committee directs that 
these funds be executed in coordination with the Joint Defense 
Manufacturing Technology Panel and the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Industrial Policy to ensure that investments are 
made to develop manufacturing processes and technologies to 
support both long-term and short-term needs of the Department. 
The committee has noted that the surge production requirements 
of current operations have stressed the industrial base and 
lead to intolerable wait times for the delivery of some much 
needed materiel to the battlefield. The committee believes that 
this recommended increased investment should be used to begin 
the development of advanced manufacturing technologies that can 
reduce the time required to produce high demand items during 
surges in military operations.

                       Items of Special Interest


Adaptive optics

    The committee notes that adaptive optics are an important 
enabling technology for a wide variety of military 
applications, including laser weapons and space surveillance 
systems. The committee is concerned that the domestic research 
and industrial base may not be able to meet the innovation and 
production demands of the Department of Defense in the future. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a report not later than September 1, 2008, analyzing 
and recommending a multiyear funding requirement and a set of 
technical challenges for research to maintain a viable domestic 
manufacturing base for adaptive optics that can support the 
meeting of military requirements.

Advanced cruise missile threats

    The committee is concerned about the limited effort that 
the Navy is undertaking in developing test resources that can 
adequately simulate emerging advanced cruise missile threats to 
Navy platforms. The committee is aware that the lack of this 
test capability has been raised specifically by the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation as potentially impacting the 
operational testing of a number of major Navy acquisition 
programs. The committee also notes that the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense is currently reviewing Navy plans to address this 
shortfall.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, jointly 
with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the 
Director of the Test Resource Management Center to report on 
plans to develop test resources to adequately test naval assets 
against advanced cruise missile threats. The report should 
include a classified analysis of the current and projected 
future threat, required funding and schedule for the 
development and acquisition of relevant test resources, and 
impacts on test schedules and adequacy of testing for specific 
relevant Navy systems. Further, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
provide the committee with a report containing an assessment of 
international advanced cruise missile capabilities relative to 
the United States' capabilities and the feasibility, cost, and 
schedule for developing similar capabilities for the Navy. The 
committee directs that these two reports shall be delivered to 
the congressional defense committees no later than April 15, 
2008.

Analyses of the Air Force test and evaluation proposals

    The committee notes that both the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-289) 
and the statement of managers accompanying the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) expressed concern over proposed realignments and 
closures of Air Force test and evaluation facilities. In 
response to these concerns, the Air Force has delivered an 
analysis of one such proposal to Congress, and has undertaken a 
second overall assessment of Air Force test and evaluation 
activities.
    The committee continues to monitor this situation and the 
iterations of Air Force proposals and strategies to 
appropriately resource critical test and evaluation functions 
within a constrained budget. The committee has been concerned 
in the past with the preservation of a robust test and 
evaluation capability, leading to establishment of the Test 
Resource Management Center in the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), to 
provide oversight over proposed budgets and expenditures for 
the Major Range and Test Facility Base and to be cognizant of 
other test and evaluation facilities and resources.
    In order to ensure that any reductions in test and 
evaluation workforce or capabilities are only undertaken after 
comprehensive and careful analyses of the costs, benefits, and 
impacts of such decisions on the Department of Defense, the 
committee directs the Air Force to provide planned actions, 
criteria used to determine acceptable risk, and supporting data 
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics and the Director of the Test Resource Management 
Center. The committee directs the Director of the Test Resource 
Management Center to review and analyze existing and ongoing 
test and evaluation studies being conducted by the Air Force 
after their completion and to submit a report that provides the 
committee with any appropriate conclusions and recommendations 
on the studies, findings, or planned actions that affect the 
capabilities and capacity of the Major Range and Test Facility 
Base. The committee directs that this report shall be delivered 
to the congressional defense committees as soon as practicable 
after the completion of the Air Force studies, and that no 
implementation of proposed plans be initiated before 60 days 
after receipt of the Director of the Test Resource Management 
Center's report by Congress.

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation workforce study

    The committee notes that the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation plays a critical role in determining that 
weapons systems are operationally effective. The Director's 
efforts help ensure that acquisition programs deliver systems 
that provide deployed forces with battlefield superiority. The 
committee notes that the duties of the office of the Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation have expanded into areas 
such as information assurance, force protection, and non-lethal 
weapons, while continuing the extensive oversight and reporting 
functions required by statute and regulation. The committee is 
concerned that the office may not have the workforce required 
to perform its assigned duties.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation to undertake a comprehensive 
review and analysis of his workforce requirements and report 
back to the congressional defense committees no later than 
April 1, 2008. The report shall include an assessment of 
projected future workforce requirements, resources required to 
meet those requirements, and recommendations on additional 
personnel hiring and retention authorities that would support 
the Director in the conduct of his required duties.

Ground/air task-oriented radar

    The budget request included $104.4 million in PE 26313M to 
develop a multi-function radar that would replace five existing 
single-purpose Marine Corps radar systems used for air defense 
surveillance and weapons engagement, counter-battery fire, and 
air traffic control.
    The committee is aware that the Marine Corps requirements 
specified for this system resulted in selection of an S-band 
radar, and that the first of the four planned increments of the 
ground/air task-oriented radar (G/ATOR) program includes weapon 
cueing. S-band radar can do many tasks well, but it is not 
optimal for weapons engagement. Furthermore, the Marine Corps 
has terminated its planned weapons engagement system, the 
Complementary Low-Altitude Weapons System based on the Advanced 
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy 
has embarked on the development of a new radar system which may 
be poorly suited for the system's primary functions. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an 
independent assessment and submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees, with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, 
on the Marine Corps acquisition of the G/ATOR system. The 
report shall address: (1) the Marine Corps requirement for 
weapons engagement, and verify that the planned S-band radar 
design will support that requirement; (2) an assessment of the 
phasing for planned increments, recognizing that the Marine 
Corps does not yet have a defined weapons engagement 
requirement (other than cueing of terminal weapons such as 
Stinger); and (3) an examination of the technical and program 
management resources needed to effectively execute this complex 
state-of-the-art development program.

National Security Agency acquisition management

    The National Security Agency (NSA) has experienced 
significant problems over the last decade in transforming 
itself from the Cold War era to operate effectively in today's 
global information environment. The Congress and the executive 
branch concluded that poor acquisition management was a major 
cause of the NSA's relative lack of success, and the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) prohibited the delegation of Milestone Decision Authority 
(MDA) to the NSA Director and designated the ongoing 
transformation program, TRAILBLAZER, as a major defense 
acquisition program (MDAP).
    The Congress intended this action to cause the Senior 
Acquisition Executives (SAEs) in the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 
(ODNI) to take vigorous action to improve the Agency's 
acquisition management capabilities, and to enforce acquisition 
discipline and accountability through process controls and 
milestone reviews.
    Although some progress is evident, the TRAILBLAZER program 
was essentially abandoned, and its successor has significant 
problems. One of the most serious problems is that the NSA 
chose to structure the TURBULENCE architecture, a major element 
of its new Transformation 3.0 activity, as a series of loosely 
connected projects, not one of which met the threshold for 
designation as a major systems acquisition. This decision, 
while permitting the NSA to avoid external acquisition 
oversight, exacerbated the Agency's weaknesses in systems 
engineering and systems integration. The Department and the 
ODNI have tolerated this situation for almost 1.5 years.
    The committee directs that TURBULENCE be designated as a 
major systems acquisition requiring milestone review and 
approval, and formal oversight, by the DOD and DNI MDAs. In 
addition, the committee directs that the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation exercise oversight over all 
major elements of the Agency's Transformation 3.0 architecture, 
including TURBULENCE and the remaining activities under 
TRAILBLAZER.
    The committee supports the Agency's recent decision to 
create the position of Chief Technology Officer (CTO), whose 
responsibilities will include ensuring that all the major 
elements of the Transformation 3.0 effort are integrated at the 
enterprise level. The committee is concerned, however, that the 
Agency still lacks the skills necessary to manage a systems 
engineering and integration challenge of this size and 
complexity.
    The committee directs that the TURBULENCE program may not 
proceed to Milestone B without a certification to the 
congressional defense and intelligence committees from the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (USD(AT&L)), and the Deputy Director of National 
Intelligence for Acquisition (DDNI(A)), that: (1) the program 
managers for TURBULENCE and TRAILBLAZER are qualified and have 
the authority and resources necessary to carry out effective 
program management; and (2) the CTO has the authorities, 
personnel, funding, and plans necessary to effectively 
integrate the Agency's Transformation 3.0 activities.

Open Architecture

    The Navy has made considerable investments over the past 
several years in an effort to transition development of surface 
ship systems to an open business model, commonly referred to as 
Open Architecture (OA). OA systems are characterized by modular 
design, public access to design specifications, software reuse, 
common interface standards, and seamless interoperability 
between system hardware and software applications. By rejecting 
proprietary and closed solutions, OA promises to bring to bear 
the critical elements of competition and innovation to achieve 
improved system performance and affordability.
    Absent an open business model, the ability to modernize the 
surface force effectively, affordably, and routinely to keep 
pace against future threats becomes highly problematic. This is 
well exemplified by the challenges confronting the Navy with a 
protracted, 20-year plan to modernize the weapon system for 
Aegis cruisers and destroyers. However, the challenges with 
implementing OA for surface ship systems are highly problematic 
in their own right. Absent a comprehensive OA implementation 
plan that keeps faith with underlying OA principles, the Navy 
will expend critical financial, technical, and management 
resources without achieving measurable improvement to system 
performance or life cycle cost.
    The Navy's success in building a future force of 313 ships, 
and with that, the Navy's ability to meet its long-range 
warfighting requirements, is directly linked to its success in 
implementing OA. However, despite having made significant OA 
investments to date, the Navy's overall progress in 
transitioning into OA business processes is disappointing. In 
view of the criticality of this overall effort, Congress needs 
a clear understanding of the full scope of the effort, the 
investment required, and the progress achieved towards the 
objectives outlined above.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, 
commencing with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, to be 
updated quarterly, that outlines the Navy's plan and progress 
with implementing OA. The report shall include: (i) an 
integrated schedule outlining OA development and the related 
surface ship fielding plan; (ii) an assessment of OA 
development, test, procurement, installation, and operating and 
support costs; (iii) the Navy's acquisition strategy for 
leveraging competition in software development; and (iv) the 
Navy's performance to the plan. Additionally, the report shall: 
(i) identify software that is intended to be available for 
reuse by third parties in support of the OA implementation 
plan; (ii) describe the Navy's progress in making that software 
and related documentation available through the Navy's 
Software, Hardware Asset Reuse Enterprise (SHARE) Library; 
(iii) describe how the Navy is assuring quality for software 
and related documentation deposited in the SHARE Library; (iv) 
describe how the Navy is driving reuse of SHARE Library 
software; (v) outline contracts which have reused third party 
software from the SHARE Library; and (vi) identify the 
impediments to entering outstanding Navy system software into 
the SHARE Library and the plan for managing these impediments.
                  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 2008 budget request for 
operation and maintenance programs, and indicate those programs 
for which the committee either increased or decreased the 
requested amounts. As in the past, 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


Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in 
        connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 
        Lake, Washington (sec. 311)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental 
Protection Agency for its costs incurred in connection with the 
former Larson Air Force Base, Moses Lake Superfund Site, Moses 
Lake, Washington, as requested by the Department of Defense.

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in 
        connection with the Arctic Surplus Superfund Site, Fairbanks, 
        Alaska (sec. 312)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental 
Protection Agency for costs incurred in connection with the 
Arctic Surplus Superfund Site, Fairbanks, Alaska, as requested 
by the Department of Defense.

Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated penalties in 
        connection with Jackson Park Housing Complex, Washington (sec. 
        313)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to pay a stipulated penalty assessed 
by the Environmental Protection Agency against the Jackson Park 
Housing Complex, Washington, as requested by the Department of 
Defense.

    Subtitle C--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


Availability of funds in Defense Information Systems Agency Working 
        Capital Fund for technology upgrades to Defense Information 
        Systems Network (sec. 321)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to use up to 
$500,000 of working capital funds to pay for any project 
directly related to technology upgrades to the Defense 
Information System Network (DISN). The committee appreciates 
that the rate of technological advances in information systems 
challenges the ability of DISA to keep pace with the 
opportunities to upgrade the system and provide better service 
to its users. Increasing the level of authorized investment 
from the working capital fund would allow DISA greater 
flexibility to technically refresh the system. The committee 
notes, however, that this increased authority is not intended 
to fund major technical insertions that substantially change 
the form, fit, or function of the DISN, which should continue 
to be funded through appropriated accounts.

Extension of temporary authority for contract performance of security 
        guard functions (sec. 322)

    The committee recommends a provision that would continue 
the orderly phase-out of the temporary authority for contract 
performance of security guard functions under section 332 of 
the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). Under the provision, the 
Department of Defense would be required to continue reducing 
the number of contract security guards employed under section 
332 from the baseline number of such personnel as of October 1, 
2006. In 2010, the Department would be permitted to employ 70 
percent of the baseline number; in 2011, 60 percent of the 
baseline number; and in 2012, 50 percent of the baseline 
number.

Report on incremental cost of early 2007 enhanced deployment (sec. 323)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 323 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to include a 
reporting requirement on the incremental increase in reset 
costs related to the deployment of additional forces to Iraq. 
The committee remains concerned that the services accurately 
capture the costs and fully fund the reconstitution or reset of 
forces committed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This 
provision requires the military departments to identify and 
project the increase in costs of reset based on the increase of 
forces under the new strategy in Iraq.

Individual body armor (sec. 324)

    The committee notes the continuing controversy over the 
technical capabilities of commercially available individual 
body armor and whether it fails, meets, or exceeds the 
military's ballistic protection requirements. This kind of 
controversy can undermine peoples' confidence in the quality of 
the equipment we provide our troops. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a provision that would require, within 90 days of 
enactment of this Act, a joint technical assessment and 
classified and unclassified reports by the Director, Defense 
Research and Engineering (DDRE) and the Director, Operational 
Test and Evaluation (DOTE) of individual body armor systems 
currently available in the domestic market.

                 Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues


Extension of authority for Army industrial facilities to engage in 
        cooperative activities with non-Army entities (sec. 341)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 4544 of title 10, United States Code, to extend, until 
September 30, 2014, the authority for any working capital 
funded Army industrial facility to enter into a contract or 
cooperative arrangement with a non-Army entity to carry out 
specified military or commercial projects. The committee 
encourages and supports public-private industrial cooperation 
and partnerships to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and get 
the most out of public industrial capacity. However, the Army 
does not appear to have effectively used existing authority 
upon which to base a business case assessment of potential 
costs, benefits, or risks associated with these partnerships at 
its manufacturing facilities. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends extending the current authority for 5 years, 
allowing the Army additional time to enter into no more than 
eight long-term cooperative arrangements or partnerships. The 
provision would also provide for an annual report by the 
Secretary of the Army explaining how the Army is using this 
extended authority. The committee further recommends that not 
later than September 30, 2012, the Army submit a business case 
analysis on the advisability of making this authority 
permanent.

Two-year extension of Arsenal Support Demonstration Program (sec. 342)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), to 
extend until September 30, 2010 the Arsenal Support Program 
Initiative. The committee notes that this demonstration program 
was created in fiscal year 2001 and was extended to fiscal year 
2008. The committee recommends a 2-year extension of this 
program to allow for consideration of a report from the 
Secretary of the Army, due not later than July 1, 2007, on the 
results of the demonstration program. The Secretary's report 
will include the Army's views regarding the benefits of the 
program as well as an assessment of the success of the program 
in achieving the purposes specified in section 343. The report 
will also contain a comprehensive review of contracting at the 
Army manufacturing arsenals covered by the program and such 
recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate 
regarding changes to the program. The committee recommends an 
extension of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative 
demonstration to allow for consideration of the Secretary of 
the Army's report and suggested changes.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Enhancement of corrosion control and prevention functions within 
        Department of Defense (sec. 351)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2228 of title 10, United States Code, to provide for a 
permanent Director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight reporting directly to the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD-ATL). The 
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense continues 
to place a low priority on the management, oversight, and 
funding of corrosion control policies and programs. The fiscal 
year 2008 budget request included only $12.0 million for 
projects to address the Department's estimated $380.0 million 
corrosion prevention and control-related requirements. With 
aggressive investment in corrosion control the Department could 
realize an industry standard 49 to 1 return on investment. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that many 
Department weapons systems experience significant corrosion-
related cost, readiness, and safety problems. Corrosion 
prevention and control planning is the most effective way to 
reduce these problems. However, the committee is concerned that 
the Department and military services have not comprehensively 
or effectively incorporated corrosion control planning in major 
defense acquisition or maintenance programs for both older and 
new systems.
    The committee believes that the establishment of a Director 
for the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and placing 
this function directly under the USD-ATL will result in a more 
comprehensive and aggressive approach to corrosion prevention 
and control throughout the Department. The committee also 
recommends provisions that would give the Director additional 
authorities for oversight of corrosion-related training, 
development of directives, and interaction with non-Department 
activities including taking advantage of opportunities for 
cooperative efforts in science and technology research and 
development. Finally, the committee recommends that the 
Department submit an annual report on the implementation of its 
corrosion control strategy.

Reimbursement for National Guard support provided to Federal agencies 
        (sec. 352)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 377 of title 10, United States Code, to require federal 
agencies that receive law enforcement support or support to a 
national special security event provided by National Guard 
personnel performing duty under section 502(f) of title 32, 
United States Code, to reimburse the Department of Defense for 
the costs of that support. The provision would continue to 
exempt from the requirement for reimbursement support that is 
provided in the normal course of military training or 
operations, or when the support results in an operational or 
training benefit to the element of the Department providing the 
support.

Reauthorization of Aviation Insurance Program (sec. 353)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, relating to the 
expiration of chapter 443, Aviation Insurance program. The 
provision would extend the authority of the Secretary of 
Transportation to provide insurance and reinsurance which would 
otherwise expire during fiscal year 2008. This government-
provided insurance program for commercial air carriers 
supporting Department of Defense transportation activities is 
an essential requirement for activating the Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet during wartime.

Property accountability and disposition of unlawfully obtained property 
        of the Armed Forces (sec. 354)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 661 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of the Navy to prescribe regulations for the 
accounting of Navy and Marine Corps property and to fix 
responsibility for such property. The provision would also add 
a new section for the Navy and Marine Corps similar to existing 
laws applicable to the Army and Air Force that prohibit 
improper disposition of military equipment and authorize 
seizure of such unlawfully transferred government property. The 
provision would also modify sections 4836 and 9836 of title 10, 
United States Code, to clarify the meaning and intent of those 
sections pertaining to property accountability in the Army and 
Air Force.

Authority to impose reasonable conditions on the payment of full 
        replacement value for claims related to personal property 
        transported at Government expense (sec. 355)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2636a(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to require compliance with reasonable 
conditions for a military member or civilian employee of the 
Department of Defense to receive full replacement value for 
personal property lost or damaged while being transported at 
government expense.
    The committee believes that the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, U.S. Transportation Command, and the military 
departments must take more effective measures to ensure that 
accurate data about the performance of household goods movers 
is collected from service members and civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense following permanent change of station 
moves. Imposing a duty on service members and civilian 
employees to complete simple surveys about the quality of the 
moves is a key factor in measuring the relative merits of 
household goods movers and should be monitored and enforced.

Authority for individuals to retain combat uniforms issued in 
        connection with contingency operations (sec. 356)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
secretary of a military department to authorize members of the 
armed forces under their jurisdiction to retain combat uniforms 
issued as organizational clothing and individual equipment in 
connection with their deployment in support of contingency 
operations.

Modification of requirements on Comptroller General report on readiness 
        of Army and Marine Corps ground forces (sec. 357)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 
expand the assessment and report required of the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) by section 345 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364). The committee notes that in January of this year 
the President announced a new strategy for Operation Iraqi 
Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that 
requires the deployment of additional combat and support forces 
to Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee remains concerned about 
the impact of sustained high operational tempo due to ongoing 
operations on the readiness of our ground forces and their 
ability to respond to other threats or contingencies.
    The committee notes that the GAO has nearly completed its 
analysis and report as directed by section 345. The GAO has 
provided the committee with useful interim reviews of their 
initial findings. The committee looks forward to receiving the 
next report on June 1, 2007. However, the decision to increase 
the commitment of U.S. ground forces to OIF and OEF and the 
subsequent deployment of additional combat brigades and support 
units to Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that the GAO should 
continue its assessment to account for these changes to the 
underlying reality of ground forces commitment.
    The committee directs the GAO to include in its continuing 
analysis an assessment of the Army and Marine Corps ability to 
provide forces to meet specific contingency plans of the 
regional combatant commands. While detailed information on 
readiness and contingency plans are classified, the issues 
being assessed in this report are of enormous importance to the 
Department of Defense and the Congress and should be available 
for open discussion to the extent that classification rules 
allow. Therefore, this report should be provided in both 
classified and unclassified form. The various elements required 
by this report, as with the report required in section 345, may 
be provided separately, as long as all the required elements 
are submitted before March 1, 2008, and the information used to 
satisfy the reporting requirement is current.
    The committee expects that the Department of Defense will 
cooperate fully with the Government Accountability Office 
throughout its assessment of ground forces readiness.

                           Budget Items--Army


Extended cold weather clothing system

    The budget request included no funding in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for the Extended Cold Weather Clothing 
system (ECWCS). The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in OMA for the ECWCS.

Manufacturing engineering training outreach program

    The budget request included $2.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for force readiness operations support, 
but no funds were provided for the Manufacturing Engineering 
Training Outreach program (METOP). This program assists the 
Department of Defense to meet the challenge of finding and 
preparing the next generation of manufacturing engineers. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMA for the 
METOP.

Live fire ranges modernization and improvements

    The budget request included $2.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for operating forces facilities 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization. The committee 
notes that the Army will continue to depend upon home station 
ranges to prepare units for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The heavy use of existing range and training support equipment 
accelerates wear and tear, undermining the quality of pre-
deployment training. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $15.0 million in OMA for live fire training range 
upgrades.

                           Budget Items--Navy


Naval aircraft depot maintenance

    The budget request included $40.0 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $1.1 billion for aircraft 
depot maintenance. The Chief of Naval Operations identified a 
shortage of resources for aircraft depot maintenance as an 
unfunded priority for fiscal year 2008. The committee 
recommends an increase of $77.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy for aircraft depot maintenance.

Mk45 mod 5" gun depot overhaul

    The budget request included $486.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for weapons maintenance. The committee 
recommends an increase of $29.5 million in OMN for Mark-45 gun 
system overhauls.

Environmental impact assessment, outlying landing field

    The committee is aware of growing opposition to the 
placement of an outlying landing field (OLF) at the Washington 
County, North Carolina site proposed by the Navy as the 
preferred alternative in their environmental impact statement. 
At the same time, the committee appreciates the need to 
establish an OLF within a suitable range of both Naval Air 
Station Oceana, Virginia and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry 
Point, North Carolina. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million to fund a follow-on supplemental 
environmental impact statement to assess the feasibility of 
alternative sites in the region.

Unobligated balances

    The Department of Defense continues to underexecute its 
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the active 
and reserve components. According to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), the Department returned an annual 
average of $185.7 million in unexpended balances to the U.S. 
Treasury for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. The Department had 
$180.4 million in average yearly unobligated balances for 
fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The military departments, 
including their reserve components, returned an average of $1.0 
billion in unexpended balances to the U.S. Treasury for fiscal 
years 1997 through 2001. The military departments had $942.8 
million in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years 
2002 through 2006. While the trend continues to improve, the 
committee remains concerned about the Department's inability to 
manage the funds which it is authorized and appropriated.
    The committee recalls that 2 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 did not, however, reduce the fiscal year 2008 
amounts in full accordance with the analysis, or as 
significantly in the out-years.
    The committee notes that the challenges associated with the 
increased scope and pace of ground force operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan create an unusually difficult fiscal management 
situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps. This does 
not, however, relieve the Department or the services from their 
obligation to provide the best possible stewardship of taxpayer 
dollars. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$174.6 million to the Department's O&M accounts, as follows: 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $60.6 million; Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force, $60.0 million; and Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, $54.0 million.

Excess cash balances

    An analysis of the defense working capital fund budgets 
shows that the Department of Defense significantly 
underestimated its fiscal year 2006 ending cash balance. 
Although the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide fiscal 
year 2007 budgets estimated that the year-end cash balance 
would be $3.4 billion, the actual cash balance, as reported in 
the fiscal year 2008 budget, was $4.9 billion--a difference of 
$1.5 billion, or 44 percent. These working capital funds 
provide important financial flexibility for critical defense 
support activities. When working capital fund activities earn a 
profit--revenues exceeding expenses--fund activities are 
supposed to adjust future rates charged to customers to reduce 
the excess. The working capital fund, however, needs sufficient 
levels of cash in order to meet its obligations and ensure its 
ability to provide uninterrupted services to the military 
departments and agencies. Department of Defense policy requires 
the working capital fund to maintain 7 to 10 days of cash.
    Last year, the committee noted that the global war on 
terror, and especially operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, had 
created increased workflow in and out of working capital funds 
well over peacetime projections. This was especially true for 
the Army and defense-wide working capital fund activities that 
had high end-of-year positive operating balances and excess 
cash balances.
    The committee's analysis of last year's budgets shows that 
the military departments significantly underestimated their 
fiscal year 2006 working capital fund cash balances. 
Specifically, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide 
working capital funds reported actual cash balances in excess 
of the estimated budgeted cash balances by at least $300.0 
million for each of the four funds--or a total of $1.2 billion. 
For example, while the Air Force estimated that it would end 
fiscal year 2006 with a cash balance of $1.0 billion, the 
reported actual cash balance was $1.4 billion. This indicates 
that the Department continues to base projections of their net 
operating result for fiscal year 2008 on low revenue estimates.
    To ensure proper management of the funds, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $208.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance accounts as follows: Operation and Maintenance, 
Navy, $80.0 million; Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 
$88.0 million; and Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, 
$40.0 million.

                       Budget Items--Marine Corps


Extended cold weather clothing system

    The budget request included no funding in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for the Extended Cold Weather 
Clothing system (ECWCS). The committee recommends an increase 
of $6.0 million in OMMC for the ECWCS.

Family of combat equipment support and services

    The budget request included $867.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces. The 
Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified an unfunded 
requirement in this account for the Family of Combat Equipment 
Support and Services. The committee recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million in OMMC for the Family of Combat Equipment 
Support and Services.

Rapid deployable shelters

    The budget request included $876.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) but does not include funds for 
rapid deployable shelters. Tents and shelters are an essential 
deployable element of an expeditionary force. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OMMC for rapid 
deployable shelters.

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USMC

    The budget request included $502.4 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for field logistics 
activities. The committee recommends an increase of $15.1 
million in OMMC for mobile corrosion protection and abatement.

                        Budget Items--Air Force


National Security Space Institute

    The budget request included $17.3 million for the National 
Security Space Institute (NSSI) in Operation and Maintenance, 
Air Force (OMAF) line 90, Global C3I and Early Warning. The 
committee recommends an additional $3.3 million for the NSSI. 
The NSSI is the Air Force school for space professionals, 
serving Air Force and other military services' space training 
requirements. The additional funding will allow the NSSI to 
expand the number of classes and students, accelerate 
development of the advanced space course, and undertake other 
educational activities. This program is on the Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force's unfunded priority list.

Mobile shear

    The budget request included $845.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for other service wide 
activities, but provides no funding for Mobile Shear. This 
equipment will assist Air Force installations to comply with 
environmental and Department of Defense demilitarization 
regulations. The committee recommends an increase of $525,000 
in OMAF for Mobile Shear.

Transfer of funds from Air Force centralized asset management program 
        to Air Guard and Air Force Reserve

    The budget request included $41.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force. Within this amount the Air Force 
consolidated $543.6 million of Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve Operation and Maintenance funds into a ``Centralized 
Asset Management'' (CAM) initiative.
    The committee is concerned that consolidation of funds that 
support Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve operations, 
readiness, and facilities denies the Congress required 
visibility into the distribution and utilization of reserve 
component resources. Therefore, the committee recommends the 
transfer of $129.7 million to Operation and Maintenance, Air 
Force Reserve, and $413.9 million to Operation and Maintenance, 
Air National Guard from Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.

                       Budget Items--Defense-wide


Language training shortfalls

    The budget request did not include any funding to cover 
costs associated with improving the language and cultural 
awareness training of Special Operations Forces (SOF).
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.7 
million for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) language 
training needs in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, 
Budget Activity 1.
    $6.4 million of the total amount would fund a shortfall at 
the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School to pay 
for instructor hours, homework books, and reproduction of 
language and culture training CDs and books. The training 
programs are components of the Special Forces Qualification 
Course and are already operated on a very lean basis. This 
funding will allow for an increase in student load from 772 
(Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and Psychological Operators) in 
2004, to 1,500 personnel over several years, trained at a 
higher standard. This funding ensures that the growing training 
population in Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and Psychological 
Operations, authorized in the Quadrennial Defense Review, will 
continue to be trained to the higher 1/1/1 standard. This 
standard was raised in 2004 by the Commander of U.S. Army 
Special Operations Command (USASOC) and validated by the 
Commander of SOCOM as necessary in direct response to global 
war on terrorism-related capability shortfalls.
    $526,000 of the total would be used to fund the foreign 
language proficiency sustainment training for USASOC units. 
This includes maintaining proficiency in unit core languages 
via unit-run training (classroom and live environmental 
training (LET)). All language requirements directly support 
SOCOM and regional combatant commander requirements. The 4th 
Psychological Operations Group (Airborne) and the 95th Civil 
Affairs Brigade require $526,000 to fund sustainment training. 
This includes: $277,600 for Foreign Language Training Center 
Europe and LET events in Bahrain, Colombia, China, Peru, Korea, 
Russia, France, Indonesia, and Costa Rica; $158,000 for 
additional instructor contract hours in unit language training 
facilities; $68,200 for training aids, books, supplies, and 
internet services; and $21,800 for travel to attend SOCOM 
training seminars. Without this funding, the command will be 
unable to fully support training of SOF for unconventional 
warfare missions, which are a critical SOF core competency. 
This funding allows units to conduct mission language training 
in support of operational deployments, and helps ensure that 
soldiers maintain and increase their language proficiency (part 
of the SOF for Life/Region for Life concept).
    $950,000 of the total amount would fund language training 
for joint SOF personnel in tailored internet classes. Funding 
would be used to train about 16 students in full-length 1/1/1 
courses and about 56 students in tailored sustainment and 
enhancement courses. This training would help SOCOM increase 
its ability to sustain and increase the proficiency of SOF 
across their careers regardless of their location, and it 
facilitates full-time courses for SOF teams that are 
``remissioned'' and need a different language capability. 
Without this funding many operators would have little or no 
access to language training conducted by a qualified instructor 
due to geographic location and work schedule. These regionally-
focused operators, preparing for deployment often, are faced 
with adding a lengthy temporary duty/temporary additional duty 
in front of a long mission deployment in order to take language 
classes. This further increases time away from family. Funding 
internet classes and similar initiatives begins to address this 
issue.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

    The budget request included $673.4 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 
capacity of foreign forces. The committee notes that the amount 
requested for the Global Train and Equip program exceeds the 
existing 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), 
which is limited to $300.0 million of Operation and Maintenance 
funds in fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
    The committee also notes that the request for the Defense 
Security Cooperation Agency included $7.4 million for the 
Center for International Issues Research (CIIR) program, which 
provides updates of open-source media reports. The committee 
recommends the elimination of this program as an unnecessary 
duplication of reporting available from other sources.
    The request for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency 
included $5.0 million for the Stability Operations Fellowship 
program (SOFP). The committee notes that no authority currently 
exists for the Department of Defense to conduct this fellowship 
program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $212.4 
million to the Department's Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
wide account for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, as 
follows: Global Train and Equip--decrease of $200.0 million; 
CIIR--decrease of $7.4 million; and SOFP--decrease of $5.0 
million.

Defense readiness reporting system and management tools

    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 $12.0 
million for DRRS including $2.0 million only for the 
acceleration of the Global Force Management Visibility Toolkit 
in support of U.S. Joint Forces Command requirements.
    The committee notes 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 the demands of the force rotation 
strategy that supports operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
Department of Defense, Joint Staff, and U.S. Joint Forces 
Command, the joint force provider, lack the visibility of 
deployed and non-deployed forces' capabilities and readiness 
required to manage global military commitments.
    The committee supports the Department's development of DRRS 
as a management modernization and replacement for the current 
system. DRRS is scheduled to achieve full operational 
capability at the end of fiscal year 2007. Additional funds 
will accelerate the delivery of the basic system, programmed 
functionality expansion, support for system operations, 
training, and sustainment. The committee recommendation also 
supports the development and fielding of capabilities within 
the system that allow near real-time force management for 
contingencies including capability-gap analysis, risk 
mitigation, and the Global Force Management Visibility Toolkit.

Readiness and environmental protection initiative

    The budget request included $30.0 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 2007.
    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 
should 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.

Strategic communication and integration

    The budget request included $3.0 million for the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense for Strategic Communication and 
Integration. This funding would support a contractor to help 
institutionalize strategic communications and complete the 
implementation of the Strategic Communication Execution 
Roadmap.
    Responsibility for strategic communication and public 
diplomacy rests with the President and Secretary of State, and 
any Department of Defense efforts to formulate a message should 
be informed and framed by those efforts. Moreover, public 
diplomacy, public affairs, and information operations are 
separate and distinct functions, with different purposes and 
guidelines for their use. Any attempt to integrate them could 
compromise the integrity of each of these functions. 
Nonetheless, the committee supports the use of the Operation 
and Maintenance funds of the respective offices conducting 
communications activities in order to improve the Department's 
communication efforts, including updating regulations and other 
activities being conducted as part of the strategic 
communication and integration effort. The level of funding 
requested is unjustified. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $3.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
wide.

                       Budget Items--Army Reserve


Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USAR

    The budget request included $84.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces readiness 
support activities. The committee recommends an increase of 
$4.0 million in OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and 
abatement.

                   Budget Items--Army National Guard


Extended cold weather clothing system

    The budget request included no funding in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for the Extended Cold 
Weather Clothing system (ECWCS). The committee recommends an 
increase of $4.0 million in OMARNG for the ECWCS.

National Guard interoperability upgrades

    The budget request included no funds for command and 
control interoperability upgrades for the Army National Guard. 
The committee notes that interoperable communications are 
required for adequate command and control of federal, state, 
and local responses to domestic emergencies. The committee 
recommends an increase of $1.3 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard for command and control 
interoperability upgrades.

Integrated disaster and rapid data management systems

    The budget request included $309.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 
operations support, but did not include funds for the 
Integrated Disaster Management system (IDMS) or Rapid Data 
Management system (RDMS). These systems provide near real-time 
data management and analysis to and from field operators 
through deployable hand-held and cellular devices. The 
integration of IDMS and RDMS increases speed and efficiency of 
command and control during domestic emergencies. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.9 million in OMARNG for IDMS and 
RDMS.

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USARNG

    The budget request included $109.5 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces 
systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an 
increase of $4.0 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion 
protection and abatement.

Operator driving simulator

    The budget request included no funding for operator driving 
simulators for the Army National Guard. The committee notes 
that a number of casualties have occurred in Iraq and 
Afghanistan as a result of vehicle accidents, including single 
vehicle accidents. Ensuring vehicle operators have quality 
training is vital to the readiness of the armed forces as well 
as their safety. These driving simulators would ensure that 
training time for soldiers is maximized, even with limited 
vehicle assets. The fielding plan includes 79 simulator units 
at 27 sites, including Army National Guard sites at nine 
states. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, for operator 
driving simulators.

                    Budget Items--Air National Guard


Controlled humidity protection

    The budget request included $3.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for aircraft 
operations, but included no funds for controlled humidity 
protection. The committee notes the high readiness costs 
associated with corrosion and that it is particularly harmful 
to sensitive and expensive aircraft components. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OMANG for controlled 
humidity protection.

Weapons skills trainer

    The budget request included $540.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for mission support 
operations, but included no funds for the Weapons Skills 
Trainer (WST). The committee notes the high mobilization rates 
of members of the Air National Guard and their occasional use 
in non-traditional ground force roles. Individual and unit 
weapons training is enhanced by the availability of a 
multilevel weapons simulator such as the WST. The committee 
recommends an increase of $7.5 million in OMANG for the Weapons 
Skills Trainer.

                    Budget Items--Transfer Accounts


Funding for formerly used defense sites

    The budget request included $250.2 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for environmental restoration 
of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The committee notes that 
the budgeted amount is below the level authorized for this 
program in fiscal year 2007. The committee understands that it 
is the Department of Defense's goal to achieve a remedy in 
place or response complete at all FUDS by 2020 under the 
Installation Restoration program for hazardous substances, 
pollutants, or contaminants. It is also the Department's goal 
to complete preliminary assessments at all FUDS by 2007, and 
complete site inspections at all FUDS by 2010, under the 
Military Munitions Response program for clean-up of unexploded 
ordnance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 
OMDW to expedite the clean-up of FUDS and to move more 
aggressively to achieve the Department's goals. The committee 
expects the Department to demonstrate its commitment to these 
goals, and improve on them where it is possible to do so, by 
steadily increasing the amount of funding budgeted for this 
effort.

               Budget Items--Miscellaneous Appropriations


Building partnership capacity for humanitarian assistance

    The budget request included $103.3 million for Overseas 
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid (OHDACA). Of this amount, 
$40.0 million was included for building partnership capacity 
for humanitarian assistance. However, no authority was 
requested by the Department of Defense for this new program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, Budget Activity 4 be decreased by 
$40.0 million.

                       Items of Special Interest


Comptroller General report on depot work

    Section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Department of Defense to report annually on the expenditures 
for service contract and organic depot maintenance. This report 
contains the actual expenditures for the previous fiscal year, 
as well as projections for the current and future years. The 
committee directs the Comptroller General to review and make 
recommendations with respect to the current system of reports, 
assessments, analysis, or documents required by law or 
regulation to determine the compliance of the Department of 
Defense and military departments with the percentage limitation 
in section 2466(a) of title 10, United States Code. The 
committee is particularly interested to learn if there are 
better methods than the current system for meeting its 
oversight responsibilities of Department compliance with the 
requirements of this section. This report is due not later than 
March 1, 2008.

Department of Defense foreign language training

    The budget request included $10.4 million for the Defense 
Language Institute in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), 
specifically for satellite communications language training 
activities (SCOLA).
    SCOLA is a unique and innovative satellite-based language 
training activity that provides television programming in a 
variety of languages from around the world. SCOLA also has an 
internet-based streaming video capability that greatly 
increases the availability of this training medium to military 
and civilian linguists, virtually anywhere they can obtain an 
internet connection. In addition, SCOLA is developing a digital 
archive that will allow users anywhere to review and sort 
language training on demand.
    In the Senate report accompanying S. 2744 (S. Rept. 109-
254) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee commended 
the Department of Defense for increasing investment in language 
technology. That report noted that SCOLA can help sustain and 
improve foreign language skills and cultural understanding of 
military and civilian linguists in the Department.
    The committee understands, unfortunately, that the 
Department has failed to obligate the funds that were 
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2007. There are 
indications that the Department may intend to wait until the 
last month of the fiscal year before doing so. The committee 
fails to understand what could have caused a delay in 
obligating funds for this important activity and encourages the 
Department to move more expeditiously to do so with the fiscal 
year 2008 funds.

Fee-for-service air refueling services

    The committee remains concerned about the ability of the 
Department of the Air Force to provide adequate air refueling 
services to support all operational and training requirements. 
While the average age of the KC-135 fleet is more than 45 years 
old, the next generation KC-X aircraft is not scheduled to 
begin low-rate initial production until 2011. The committee is 
concerned about our ability to meet our air refueling 
requirements in the immediate future. At a time of historically 
low readiness levels, the Air Force cannot afford further 
degradation in air refueling capacity.
    The committee is aware of several commercial providers of 
fee-for-service air refueling. Such an option was one of the 
alternatives considered in the analysis leading to the release 
of the KC-X request for proposals. In fact, Air Force officials 
have indicated a desire to investigate using fee-for-service 
air refueling services for some portion of their mission. They 
have referred to this as ``Part B'' of the KC-X acquisition 
strategy. This potential commercial capability has been 
estimated by some to save the Air Force up to 50 percent over 
current methods of organic air refueling operations. Due to the 
technological maturity of commercial concepts, the promising 
business cases presented by several of the commercial 
providers, and the growing capability gap in the air refueling 
arena, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
initiate a competitive fee-for-service air refueling pilot 
program, utilizing currently available Operation and 
Maintenance funds. Furthermore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to seek ``Part B'' proposals to 
determine the practicality of relying on fee-for-service air 
refueling services for satisfying some portion of the Air Force 
refueling mission.

Next generation enterprise network

    The committee understands that the Department of the Navy 
is attempting to develop the Next Generation Enterprise Network 
(NGEN) as a follow-on to the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. This 
endeavor depends on seamless coordination between the 
Department of Defense's Chief Information Officers, the 
Department's Senior Acquisition Executives, the Navy and Marine 
Corps, and various other elements of the Department of Defense. 
Accordingly, the committee directs that the Secretary of the 
Navy coordinate the NGEN initiative with these relevant 
entities. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, 
jointly with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks 
and Information Integration; the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation; to produce a report for 
Congress describing the plans and schedule, including planned 
funding for the NGEN initiative. The report should include a 
description of NGEN's compliance with the policies and 
architectures of the Business Transformation Agency, testing 
plans and procedures, and review and coordination mechanisms 
with all relevant oversight agencies. The report should be 
delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 1, 2008.

Report on Department of Defense personnel access to the internet

    The committee is concerned with the recent Department of 
Defense policy changes that seek to limit the access of 
military personnel to certain popular internet web sites. While 
the committee understands the need to preserve available 
bandwidth for military needs and the necessity of ensuring 
operational security, the potential negative effects on morale 
must also be carefully considered. Those deployed in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world, sometimes for more 
than a year, deserve every opportunity to connect with their 
friends and family on a frequent basis. Social networking web 
sites facilitate that communication for this generation, in the 
same way letters, phone calls, and telegrams did for previous 
ones. The committee believes that access to the commercial 
internet can promote strong morale among personnel in the field 
as well as family members on the home front.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
report that includes a detailed description of the measurable 
effect that the use of these sites has had on operations and a 
detailed analysis of any bandwidth or security challenges that 
their use poses, as well as a description of any policies and 
procedures in place for the provision of internet access for 
deployed personnel when operational security requires denial of 
access via Government systems. The report should be delivered 
to the congressional defense committees no later than September 
1, 2007.
              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 2008, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2007                                  2008
                                                           authorization       2008 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army...................................................            512,400            489,400            525,400
Navy...................................................            340,700            328,400            328,400
Marine Corps...........................................            180,000            180,000            189,000
Air Force..............................................            334,200            328,600            328,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) authorized active-duty 
end strength for the Army at 512,400 and for the Marine Corps 
at 180,000. Additional authority was also provided in section 
403 of that Act to increase active-duty end strength for the 
Army by up to 20,000 and for the Marine Corps by up to 4,000 
above the fiscal year 2007 authorized levels of 512,400 and 
180,000, respectively.
    The committee recommends combining the base budget end 
strength with the end strength funded in recent years in 
emergency supplementals. Although the Department of Defense has 
again divided its fiscal year 2008 end strength request between 
its base and war-related budget requests, the committee 
believes that it is more appropriate to authorize the total end 
strengths available to the military services in an integrated 
manner without regard to whether they are ``permanent'' or war-
related. In the committee's view, the total end strength that 
is needed to accomplish the military mission should be 
authorized in this section in a way that does not obscure the 
true cost that the actual end strength presents.
    The committee remains concerned that the planned growth in 
ground forces will come too late to impact the war in Iraq, and 
5 years from now, when the planned growth is scheduled to be 
complete, the requirements for a larger force may not remain. 
Nevertheless, the committee supports the planned increases in 
the ground forces for the coming fiscal year, but will continue 
to assess this growth on a year-to-year basis. The committee 
recommends an active-duty end strength for fiscal year 2008 for 
the Army and Marine Corps of 525,400 and 189,000, respectively.
    The Navy and the Air Force continue large manpower 
reductions achieved through major changes in organizational 
structure, including deleting redundancies, retiring manpower-
intensive platforms, incorporating new technology, and shifting 
non-core military functions from military personnel to 
civilians. These efforts continue to be challenging and will be 
monitored closely by the committee. The committee is concerned 
that the Navy and the Air Force may be cutting personnel too 
far and too fast, opting to spend money on procurement programs 
and weapons systems to the detriment of personnel. The 
committee recommends an active-duty end strength for the Navy 
and Air Force of 328,400 and 328,600, respectively.

                       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 2008, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2007                                  2008
                                                           authorization       2008 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States...........            350,000            351,300            351,300
The Army Reserve.......................................            200,000            205,000            205,000
The Navy Reserve.......................................             71,300             67,800             67,800
The Marine Corps Reserve...............................             39,600             39,600             39,600
The Air National Guard of the United States............            107,000            106,700            106,700
The Air Force Reserve..................................             74,900             67,500             67,500
The Coast Guard Reserve................................             10,000             10,000             10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2008, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2007                                  2008
                                                           authorization       2008 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States...........             27,411             29,204             29,204
The Army Reserve.......................................             15,416             15,870             15,870
The Navy Reserve.......................................             12,564             11,579             11,579
The Marine Corps Reserve...............................              2,261              2,261              2,261
The Air National Guard of the United States............             13,291             13,936             13,936
The Air Force Reserve..................................              2,707              2,721              2,721
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee recommends increases of 1793 in the Army 
National Guard, 454 in the Army Reserve, 645 in the Air 
National Guard, and 14 in the Air Force Reserve over levels 
approved for fiscal year 2007. The committee supports increases 
in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels 
to increase readiness in the reserve components.
    The committee also recommends a decrease from the fiscal 
year 2007 level of 985 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 2007 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 2008, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2007                                  2008
                                                           authorization       2008 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve.......................................              7,912              8,249              8,249
The Army National Guard of the United States...........             26,050             26,502             26,502
The Air Force Reserve..................................             10,124              9,909              9,909
The Air National Guard of the United States............             23,255             22,553             22,553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal year 2008 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, 2008, 
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2007                                  2008
                                                           authorization       2008 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States...........              1,600              1,600              1,600
The Army Reserve.......................................                595                595                595
The Air National Guard of the United States............                350                350                350
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, 2008, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2007                                  2008
                                                           authorization       2008 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States...........             17,000             17,000             17,000
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 the United States............             16,000             16,000             16,000
The Air Force Reserve..................................             14,000             14,000             14,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations


Military personnel (sec. 421)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the following amounts for military personnel for fiscal year 
2008: (1) for the Army, $34,952,762,000; (2) for the Navy, 
$23,300,841,000; (3) for the Marine Corps, $11,065,542,000; (4) 
for the Air Force, $24,091,993,000; (5) for the Army Reserve, 
$3,701,197,000; (6) for the Navy Reserve, $1,766,408,000; (7) 
for the Marine Corps Reserve, $593,961,000; (8) for the Air 
Force Reserve, $1,356,618,000; (9) for the Army National Guard, 
$5,914,979,000; and (10) for the Air National Guard, 
$2,607,456,000.
    The total authorized amount of $109,351,757,000 is 
$3,948,059,000, or 3.7 percent, above the base budget request. 
This increase includes a shift of funds from the supplemental 
budget to the base budget for the end strength requested in the 
supplemental budget, and an additional $302,000,000 for an 
across-the-board 3.5 percent pay raise, versus the budget 
request of 3 percent.
    The Department of Defense has consistently underexecuted 
its military personnel funding authorization and appropriation 
since fiscal year 1995 for the active and reserve components. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, from fiscal 
years 2002 through 2005, the lowest annual unobligated balance 
was $271.2 million and the highest was $2,169.0 million. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $507.2 million to military 
personnel accounts to reflect anticipated unobligated balances, 
as described in the following table.



                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Increase in authorized strengths for Army officers on active duty in 
        the grade of major to meet force structure requirements (sec. 
        501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
table in section 523(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to 
increase the authorized strength limits for active-duty Army 
officers in the grade of major to meet the Army's requirement 
for additional majors in its new modular structure.
Increase in authorized strengths for Navy officers on active duty in 
        grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain to meet 
        force structure requirements (sec. 502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
table in section 523(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to 
increase the authorized strength limits for active-duty Navy 
captains, commanders, and lieutenant commanders to meet the 
Navy's force structure requirements for additional officers in 
these grades.
Expansion of exclusion of military permanent professors from strength 
        limitations for officers below general and flag grades (sec. 
        503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 523 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 
50 to 85 the number of permanent professors for each of the 
United States Military Academy and the United States Air Force 
Academy and professors of the United States Navy who are career 
military professors who may be excluded from the authorized 
number of commissioned officers who may be serving on active 
duty in that grade.
Mandatory retirement age for active-duty general and flag officers 
        continued on active duty (sec. 504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 637(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, relating to 
deferral of retirement and continuation on active duty of 
regular officers to conform with recently enacted extended age 
limits for mandatory retirement of general and flag officers 
serving on active duty included in section 502 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364).
Authority for reduced mandatory service obligation for initial 
        appointments of officers in critically short health 
        professional specialties (sec. 505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 651 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to waive the 8-year minimum service 
obligation for initial appointments of commissioned officers in 
critically short health professional specialties. The minimum 
period of service under such a waiver would be the greater of 2 
years or the period of obligated service associated with 
receipt of an accession bonus or special pay.
Increase in authorized number of permanent professors at the United 
        States Military Academy (sec. 506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 4331(b) of title 10, United States Code, to increase 
from 22 to 28 the authorized number of permanent professors at 
the United States Military Academy. Although the Military 
Academy has made numerous changes to the structure of the 
academic departments, the authorized number of permanent 
professors has not been increased since 1978. The additional 
authorization for permanent professors would allow assignment 
of a permanent professor as deputy department head for each 
academic department and as Vice-Dean.
    The committee understands that the performance of permanent 
professors at the Military Academy is formally reviewed every 5 
years. The committee is concerned that a formal review every 5 
years is not sufficient to document the quality of performance 
and potential for increased responsibility expected of officers 
in their positions. The committee directs that permanent 
professors receive a formal evaluation at least annually, 
consistent with the practice for evaluating other Army 
officers.
Expansion of authority for reenlistment of officers in their former 
        enlisted grade (sec. 507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3258 and 8258 of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize regular Army and Air Force officers to reenlist under 
certain conditions in their former enlisted grade. Under 
current law, only reserve officers are authorized to reenlist 
in their former grade.
Enhanced authority for reserve general and flag officers to serve on 
        active duty (sec. 508)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 526(d) of title 10, United States Code, to exclude from 
the limitations on the number of general and flag officers on 
active duty certain reserve general and flag officers serving 
on active duty for not more than 365 days. The total number of 
these officers could not exceed 10 percent of the number of 
reserve component general and flag officers authorized to be in 
an active status under section 12004 of title 10, United States 
Code.
Promotion of career military professors of the Navy (sec. 509)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
promotion of Navy permanent professors to the grade of captain 
or colonel pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
of the Navy. The regulations would include a competitive 
selection board process to identify those permanent professors 
best qualified for promotion. The promotion would be effective 
not earlier than 3 years after the selection of the officer as 
a permanent professor.

                 Subtitle B--Enlisted Personnel Policy

Increase in authorized daily average of number of members in pay grade 
        E-9 (sec. 521)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 517(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
an increase to the upper limit on the authorized daily average 
of active-duty enlisted members in pay grade E-9 from the 
current 1 percent of the enlisted force to 1.25 percent.

                Subtitle C--Reserve Component Management

Revised designation, structure, and functions of the Reserve Forces 
        Policy Board (sec. 531)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10301 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate 
the Reserve Forces Policy Board as the Reserve Policy Advisory 
Board and restructure it to provide the Secretary of Defense 
with independent advice and recommendations on matters relating 
to the reserve components.
    This provision implements a recommendation of the 
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves to reconstitute 
the Reserve Forces Policy Board with a goal of generating and 
providing the best possible advice to the Secretary of Defense 
on reserve policy matters.
Charter for the National Guard Bureau (sec. 532)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10503 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prescribe a charter for the National 
Guard Bureau.
    This provision implements a recommendation of the 
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves that the 
Secretary of Defense be responsible for drafting the charter 
for the National Guard Bureau to accurately reflect the full 
scope of the Bureau's required duties and activities.
    The committee recognizes that the role of the National 
Guard in performing federal missions at home and overseas and 
in assisting governors in responding to State and local 
emergencies has grown significantly. This dual role and the 
competing demands for National Guard forces underscores the 
vital role of the National Guard Bureau as a channel of 
communication with the States, and of the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau as an advisor to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander, U.S. 
Northern Command, and State governors on National Guard 
matters. The committee believes that an updated charter which 
takes into account the various missions being performed by the 
National Guard is essential and urges the Secretary to complete 
this at the earliest possible time.
Appointment, grade, duties, and retirement of the Chief of the National 
        Guard Bureau (sec. 533)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10502(d) of title 10, United States Code, to increase 
the grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from 
lieutenant general to general and to require that an officer 
appointed to this position be recommended by his or her 
Governor and by the Secretary of the Army or the Air Force, 
have at least 10 years of federally recognized commissioned 
service in an active status in the National Guard, be in the 
grade of major general or above, have significant joint duty 
experience, and have successfully completed such other 
assignments and experiences so as to possess a detailed 
understanding of the status and capabilities of National Guard 
forces and the missions of the National Guard Bureau. The 
provision would also designate the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau as an advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involving the 
National Guard not employed in a federal status and would amend 
section 14512(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the President to defer the mandatory retirement age of an 
officer serving as Chief of the National Guard Bureau until age 
68.
    This provision implements a recommendation of the 
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves to increase the 
grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to general and 
serve as a senior advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff and, through the Chairman, to the Secretary of 
Defense, for matters pertaining to the National Guard in its 
non-federal role.
    The committee believes that this provision reflects the 
increasing importance of the role of the National Guard in 
homeland defense and civil support missions, as well as an 
operational force. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau would 
be able to provide the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 
Secretary of Defense with valuable advice across a broad 
spectrum of issues related to the use of non-federalized 
National Guard forces in these missions.
Mandatory separation for years of service of Reserve officers in the 
        grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral (sec. 534)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14508 of title 10, United States Code, to require 
transfer of reserve officers to the Retired Reserve or 
discharge from the officer's reserve appointment 30 days after 
completion of 38 years of commissioned service. This change is 
consistent with the requirement for mandatory separation for 
years of service of regular officers in the grade of lieutenant 
general or vice admiral.
Increase in period of temporary Federal recognition as officers of the 
        National Guard from six to twelve months (sec. 535)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 308(a) of title 32, United States Code, to increase 
from 6 to 12 months the period of temporary federal recognition 
as an officer of the Army or Air National Guard that can be 
granted to an individual during the period that the 
individual's appointment as a reserve officer of the Army or 
Air Force is pending. This provision would allow additional 
time for processing of appointments for permanent federal 
recognition and avoid hardships resulting from delays in 
appointment.

                   Subtitle D--Education and Training

Grade and service credit of commissioned officers in uniformed medical 
        accession programs (sec. 551)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code, 
to require that medical students at the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences and persons participating in 
the armed forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial 
Assistance Programs who have prior commissioned service, serve, 
while on active duty, in pay grade 0-1, or in pay grade 0-2 if 
they meet specified promotion criteria prescribed by the 
service secretary. The provision would also amend section 2004a 
of title 10, United States Code, to impose the same limitations 
regarding the pay grade and service credit exclusion on 
officers on active duty with prior commissioned service who are 
detailed as students at medical schools under section 2004a.
    The committee believes that limiting the amount of prior 
service commissioned officer credit for purposes of rank for 
medical students in military-sponsored programs is necessary in 
order to achieve career progression objectives. The limitations 
should be uniformly applied in various programs for medical 
students. The committee notes that the services have not 
implemented the authority extended in section 2004a of title 
10, United States Code, despite ongoing difficulty in achieving 
health professional recruiting goals. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of all health 
professional commissioning programs with the objective of 
identifying and remedying impediments to successful recruiting 
of the most highly qualified students.
Expansion of number of academies supportable in any State under 
        STARBASE program (sec. 552)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2193b(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to support, with Department of Defense 
funds, the establishment and operation of up to four STARBASE 
academies in a State.
    The committee recognizes the Department of Defense STARBASE 
program as an effective educational program focused on science, 
math, technology, and engineering. It has reached over 350,000 
youths at 54 locations associated with active, guard, and 
reserve commands throughout the United States. The STARBASE 
program seeks to heighten the interest of students in pursuing 
careers requiring skills in science, technology, math, and 
engineering that are in high demand in the Department of 
Defense. Raising the limit on the number of Department of 
Defense-funded STARBASE academies per state would enable 
expansion of this program in States where there is a 
particularly strong justification for establishing new STARBASE 
programs.
Repeal of post-2007-2008 academic year prohibition on phased increase 
        in cadet strength limit at the United States Military Academy 
        (sec. 553)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 4342 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
authority of the Secretary of the Army to increase by up to 100 
cadets per year the size of the Corps of Cadets at the United 
States Military Academy to a maximum of 4,400 cadets. This 
would afford the Secretary of the Army the flexibility to 
respond to the Army's requirement for additional company grade 
officers to support the Army's projected increased end strength 
and force structure.
Treatment of Southold, Mattituck, and Greenport High Schools, Southold, 
        New York, as single institutions for purposes of maintaining a 
        Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit (sec. 554)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Southhold, Mattituck, and Greenport High Schools, located 
in Southold, New York, to be treated as a single institution 
for the purposes of maintaining a Navy Junior Reserve Officers' 
Training Corps (JROTC) unit. This provision would allow the 
Navy to continue a very successful JROTC program in a unique 
setting.

           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 
$35.0 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.
Inclusion of dependents of non-Department of Defense employees employed 
        on Federal property in plan relating to force structure 
        changes, relocation of military units, or base closures and 
        realignments (sec. 563)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 574(e)(3) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), to 
include dependents of personnel who work on federal property 
but are not members of the armed forces or civilian employees 
of the Department of Defense in the plan and annual reports 
required to identify and assist local educational agencies 
experiencing growth in enrollment due to force structure 
changes, relocation of military units, or base closure and 
realignments. The provision would make the definition of 
``military dependent students'' consistent with the definition 
used for purposes of computation of payments under the Federal 
Impact Aid program authorized in section 7703 of title 20, 
United States Code.

Authority for payment of private boarding school tuition for military 
        dependents in overseas areas not served by Department of 
        Defense dependents' schools (sec. 564)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to pay tuition for attendance at 
private boarding schools in the United States for military 
dependents in overseas areas not served by Department of 
Defense schools. Under current law, such dependents are sent to 
other overseas schools rather than to boarding schools in the 
United States.

       Subtitle F--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters


Authority of judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
        Forces to administer oaths (sec. 571)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 936 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
Forces to administer oaths.

Military legal assistance for Department of Defense civilian employees 
        in areas without access to non-military legal assistance (sec. 
        572)

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
authority of the service secretaries to provide legal 
assistance to civilian employees of the Department of Defense 
in locations where legal assistance from non-military legal 
assistance providers is not reasonably available.

Modification of authorities on senior members of the Judge Advocate 
        Generals' corps (sec. 573)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air 
Force serve in the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral, 
and would exclude them from the authorized number of officers 
serving in grades above major general or rear admiral. The 
provision would also authorize the position of Legal Counsel to 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and would require 
that the officer appointed to this position serve in the grade 
of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) and be 
recommended by a board of officers convened by the Secretary of 
Defense.
    The need for enhanced authority and independence by the 
most senior military attorneys of the services has become 
increasingly apparent during the global war on terrorism. The 
committee believes that the Judge Advocates General and the 
Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
should serve in higher grades than presently assigned, 
commensurate with the vital importance of their duties and 
responsibilities.

                 Subtitle G--Military Family Readiness


Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (sec. 581)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council to 
review and make recommendations on Department of Defense policy 
and plans for the support of military family readiness; to 
monitor requirements for the support of military family 
readiness; and to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of 
military family readiness programs and activities of the 
Department of Defense. The council would consist of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who would 
serve as chair, one representative from each of the services, 
and three individuals from representatives of military family 
organizations.
    The committee has received testimony of senior leaders from 
throughout the Department of Defense stressing the importance 
of support for military families. Yet, from a Department-wide 
perspective, many of these efforts appear to be independent and 
ad hoc. Creation of the council authorized by this provision 
would facilitate a coordinated approach across all services for 
the development and sustainment of such programs and improved 
oversight by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The 
committee strongly recommends that the Department move toward 
the creation of structures similar to the Army Family Action 
Plan, which has proven to be singularly successful in 
identifying family readiness needs at the highest levels of 
Army leadership in a systematic and effective manner.

Department of Defense policy and plans for military family readiness 
        (sec. 582)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a policy and plans for the 
support of military family readiness. The policy would ensure 
that military family readiness programs and activities are 
comprehensive, effective, and supported; continuously available 
to military families in peacetime and in war; available to 
military families of the regular and reserve components; 
included in Department of Defense plans, programs, and 
budgeting activities; and that they undergo continuous 
evaluation. The plans would include an ongoing identification 
and assessment of the effectiveness of military family 
readiness programs and activities; a description of the 
resources required to support them; an ongoing identification 
of gaps in the programs and activities and resources required 
to address those gaps; and a summary of the allocation of funds 
for major categories of military family readiness programs and 
activities. The provision would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct surveys of service members, family members, 
and survivors beginning in fiscal year 2009, and not less 
frequently than once every 3 years thereafter.
    The committee has received testimony on numerous Department 
of Defense and service-specific programs which support military 
families in important and effective ways. However, these 
programs appear to be independent and ad hoc.
    The committee believes that family readiness is an enduring 
need and is concerned that many support programs, such as non-
medical counseling and family support services, are funded 
primarily, or completely, by supplemental appropriations.
    The committee expects that the policy and plans required by 
this provision will ensure that effective family readiness 
support programs will be included in the basic planning, 
programming, and budgeting activities of the Department of 
Defense.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


Enhancement of carryover of accumulated leave for members of the Armed 
        Forces (sec. 591)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to increase for 
all service members the number of days of accumulated leave 
they may carry over from one fiscal year to the next from 60 to 
90 days. The provision would also increase by 1 year the amount 
of time available to service members to use leave accumulated 
under the special leave accrual provisions of section 701(f) of 
title 10, United States Code. Finally, the provision would 
amend section 501(b) of title 37, United States Code, to allow 
enlisted service members who have accumulated more than 120 
days of leave under section 701(f)(1) of title 10, United 
States Code, to sell back, on a one-time basis, up to 30 days 
of such leave in excess of 120 days.
    The committee recognizes that the ongoing high operations 
tempo has resulted in many service members accumulating more 
leave than they can use or carry over into the next fiscal 
year. In section 542 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), Congress authorized 
service members deployed in certain areas to accumulate up to 
120 days of leave and allowed those service members 3 
additional years to use that leave. Unfortunately, even under 
these conditions, some service members eligible for this 
benefit have lost leave. This provision would enable these 
members, on a one-time basis, to sell back up to 30 days of 
that leave in excess of 120 days.
    The committee believes it is essential for military and 
civilian leaders to ensure that their subordinates maintain 
adequate leave balances for emergencies but that they are 
encouraged, if not required, to take leave whenever possible 
for their good and the good of their service. While the 
enhanced leave carryover authorized by this provision is needed 
in today's operational environment, the committee expects the 
services to ensure that all officer and enlisted personnel 
understand the need to plan to use their excess leave so as to 
avoid losing this important benefit or to adversely affect 
their unit's mission.

Uniform policy on performances by military bands (sec. 592)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
uniform policy for Department of Defense bands regarding when 
public performances are permitted, the conditions under which 
band members may perform in their personal capacities, and 
recording of music for distribution to the public.

Waiver of time limitations on award of medals of honor to certain 
        members of the Army (sec. 593)

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 
statutory time limits and authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble for valor during the Korean 
War; Leslie H. Sabo, Jr., for valor during the Vietnam War; 
Philip G. Shadrach for valor during the Civil War; Henry Svehla 
for valor during the Korean War; and George D. Wilson for valor 
during the Civil War.

                       Items of Special Interest


Army company-grade officer retention

    The committee is concerned about the increasing attrition 
rate among company-grade officers in the Army, particularly 
graduates of the United States Military Academy and the Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps scholarship program, and the potential 
effects of this trend on the capabilities of the officer corps. 
This trend is particularly alarming as the Army strives to 
increase its end strength in a time of war.
    The committee applauds the Army's initiatives to improve 
retention of high caliber company-grade officers, and 
particularly notes the promising response to the Army's 
advanced civilian education program. This program has value 
beyond increased officer retention, expanding the intellectual 
and professional growth of officers, allowing respite from 
operational demands, and laying the foundation for the future 
senior leaders of the Army. The committee urges the Army to 
continue this program and to explore expanding its use.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review 
the programs and incentives in place to increase company-grade 
officer retention, including identifying additional 
opportunities to increase the use of advanced civilian 
education options in exchange for increased service obligations 
and the use of the critical skills retention bonus to retain 
officers serving in designated critical branches. The committee 
further directs the Secretary to report on this review to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2008.

Comptroller General study of implementation by the military departments 
        of sexual assault policies and mental health issues related to 
        sexual assault

    The committee is concerned about reports of sexual assaults 
on service members during deployment and the impact on the 
mental health of victims of such assaults. The committee 
expects the military departments to continue to examine ways to 
ensure that applicable policies aimed at preventing and rapidly 
and effectively responding to sexual assault are properly 
executed at all levels of command, in deployed areas as well as 
on installations in the United States.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a 
review of the policies and systems in place within the military 
departments in response to section 577 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 
Law 108-375) and in response to the comprehensive policies on 
sexual assault put in place by the Department of Defense. In 
particular, the Comptroller General should assess the adequacy 
of mental health resources available to victims of sexual 
assault, both in deployed environments and on installations in 
the United States, and whether current Department of Defense 
policies, surveys, assessments, and training of military and 
civilian personnel are effective and adequate to identify and 
respond to such needs. The Comptroller General should report on 
this review by August 2008.

Counter-remote controlled improvised explosive device systems

    The committee is concerned that the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Office has become too dependent 
on a single source of supply for counter-Remote Controlled IED 
(RCIED) jamming systems and system components, thereby limiting 
innovation and potentially preventing more effective systems 
from being fielded. The committee further believes the Joint 
IED Defeat Office (JIEDDO) should consider identifying and 
qualifying additional sources for counter-RCIED systems. The 
committee therefore directs the JIEDDO and the military 
departments to identify and, as appropriate, qualify additional 
sources for counter-RCIED systems and system components.

Explosive ordnance disposal personnel

    The committee recognizes the strains experienced by 
explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel in the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The committee applauds the professionalism, 
dedication, and skill of these highly proficient technicians 
and acknowledges the tremendous danger associated with bomb 
disposal missions. The committee notes that, in addition to 
frequent combat tours with limited dwell time in the Unites 
States, EOD personnel are performing backfill requirements at 
military installations, as well as supporting the United States 
Secret Service in their mission to protect the President and 
other officials. The committee is concerned, however, that EOD 
personnel are being stretched too thin for their various 
missions.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
report to the congressional defense committees on the health 
and viability of the EOD force by March 1, 2008. The report 
shall: (1) evaluate whether the EOD force is properly sized, 
trained, and equipped for the tasks assigned; (2) analyze the 
sufficiency of pays and incentives available to EOD personnel 
in light of force requirements and recruiting and retention 
trends; (3) identify means to reduce operational demands on EOD 
units; (4) evaluate the need, feasibility, and costs associated 
with increasing the number of EOD units and personnel in the 
National Guard; and (5) evaluate the current placement of EOD 
units within each respective service, specifically evaluating 
whether EOD units and personnel are more properly organized 
under a joint command or the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Feasibility of expanding access to mental health professionals in 
        military units

    The committee is concerned about the stigma associated with 
seeking mental health services in the military, the 
availability of mental health care to service members, and the 
ability of military leaders to identify service members with 
mental health conditions. Access to mental health care is 
generally not available at the unit level, requiring service 
members to go to a military hospital or to a combat stress 
control team to receive such care.
    The committee is interested in the potential value of 
embedding military mental health professionals in units in a 
manner similar to the current utilization of military 
chaplains. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
assess the efficacy of creating positions within subordinate 
military organizations, particularly at the battalion level, in 
which mental health care professionals would serve. The 
Secretary's assessment shall include, but not be limited to, an 
evaluation of: (1) the impact on force structure of such a 
program; (2) the potential value of increasing the number of 
military mental health professionals; (3) the value of 
embedding military mental health professionals in subordinate 
units, particularly at the battalion level; (4) the appropriate 
professional skills that would be required of mental health 
professionals placed in such positions; (5) whether such a 
program would reduce the stigma for service members seeking 
mental health care; and (6) whether such a program would 
increase the capability of unit leaders to identify service 
members with mental health needs. The committee directs the 
Secretary to submit the results of the assessment, including 
findings and recommendations, to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
March 1, 2008.

Implementation of clarifying changes to jurisdiction under the Uniform 
        Code of Military Justice

    Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
amended section 802(a)(10) of title 10, United States Code, to 
clarify the application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ) to persons serving with or accompanying an armed force 
in the field.
    Prior to the enactment of section 552, section 802(a)(10) 
provided that ``[i]n time of war, persons serving with or 
accompanying an armed force in the field'' would be subject to 
the UCMJ. In the 1970 case of United States v. Averette, 19 
U.S.C.M.A. 363, the United States Court of Military Appeals 
interpreted the phrase ``in time of war'' to mean a war 
formally declared by Congress. Section 552 modified the 
provision to apply ``in time of declared war or a contingency 
operation.''
    A number of contractor groups have expressed the view that 
this provision is ``both broad and vague.'' According to these 
groups:

          The Secretary of Defense is unilaterally authorized 
        to declare any military activity a `contingency 
        operation;' in addition, national disaster declarations 
        made by the President also trigger the `contingency 
        operation' function. Hurricane Katrina was a military 
        `contingency operation.' Most of the homeland security 
        operations of the Defense Department's Northern Command 
        are considered `contingency operations.'

    In fact, section 101(13) of title 10, United States Code, 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to declare a military 
operation a ``contingency operation'' only if members of the 
military are or may become involved in ``military actions, 
operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United 
States or against an opposing military force.'' A national 
emergency may also trigger a ``contingency operation,'' but 
only if it results in the call or order to active duty (in 
federal status) of the reserve components. This authority was 
not used in the response to Hurricane Katrina and has never 
been used in the case of any other natural disaster. Moreover, 
section 802(a)(10) applies, by its terms, only to persons 
accompanying an armed force ``in the field.'' The phrase ``in 
the field'' has been consistently interpreted to mean in the 
face of an enemy force. None of the hypothetical situations 
raised by contractor groups meet any of these tests.
    The contractor groups have also expressed concern that the 
Department of Defense has yet to issue guidance or regulations 
as to which provisions of the UCMJ will apply to contractor 
employees accompanying an armed force in the field, and under 
what circumstances. This issue is appropriately addressed 
through revisions to the Manual for Courts Martial implementing 
the new legislation. The committee urges the Department of 
Defense to expeditiously issue such revisions. The committee 
expects that the Manual for Courts Martial will implement the 
provision in a manner that is consistent with the longstanding 
definitions of terms such as ``contingency operations'' and 
``in the field'' and mindful of U.S. Supreme Court precedent 
regarding the application of the UCMJ to civilians.

Report on programs assessing feasibility of hotlines and video 
        surveillance in recruiting stations

    In response to a requirement contained in the statement of 
managers accompanying the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
the Secretary of Defense submitted a report on programs 
designed to prevent recruiter misconduct. Two methods for 
preventing incidents of recruiter misconduct used by individual 
services include use of ``hotline'' numbers for recruits to 
call and report violations and employment of video surveillance 
in recruiting stations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
these programs to determine their efficacy in preventing 
recruiter misconduct, increasing safety and comfort of 
potential recruits visiting recruiting stations, and improving 
the performance and security of military recruiters. The 
Secretary should also assess the cost of the programs and their 
impact, if any, on recruiting success. The committee directs 
the Secretary to submit the results of this review and 
assessment, including findings, conclusions and 
recommendations, to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2008.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2008 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pay raise for the members of the uniformed services of 3.5 
percent effective on January 1, 2008. This across-the-board pay 
raise is 0.5 percent above the budget request.
    The committee believes that the 3 percent requested in the 
budget should be increased by half a percent in order to 
recognize the outstanding service and sacrifice of the men and 
women of the armed forces and their families.
Allowance for participation of Reserves in electronic screening (sec. 
        602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
new section 433a in title 10, United States Code, authorizing 
the military services to pay a member of the Individual Ready 
Reserve a stipend for participation in electronic screening 
performed pursuant to section 10149 of title 10, United States 
Code. The aggregate amount of the stipend paid to a member may 
not exceed $50 in any calendar year.
    The provision would also prohibit a member of the 
Individual Ready Reserve from receiving compensation under 
section 206 of title 37, United States Code, for screening for 
which the member received a stipend under the new section 433a. 
Finally, the provision would clarify that members may not 
receive retirement credit for participating in screening, 
regardless of whether the member received a stipend.
Midmonth payment of basic pay for contributions of members 
        participating in Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1014 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the 
Department of Defense to make twice monthly payments to the 
Thrift Savings Plan on behalf of participating service members.

           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 specialities; 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; the reenlistment bonus for active members; the 
enlistment bonus; the retention bonus for members with critical 
military skills or assigned to high priority units; the 
accession bonus for new officers in critical skills; the 
incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational 
specialty to ease personnel shortage; and the accession bonus 
for officer candidates.

Increase in incentive special pay and multiyear retention bonus for 
        medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 615)

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the authorized limits on incentive special pay and the 
multiyear retention bonus for medical officers from $50,000 to 
$75,000.

Increase in dental officer additional special pay (sec. 616)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 302b of title 37, United States Code, to increase the 
amount of additional special pay for dental officers. Under 
current law, a dental officer with less than 3 years of 
creditable service is eligible for a $4,000 bonus, and a dental 
officer with more than 3 but less than 10 years of creditable 
service is eligible for a $6,000 bonus. This provision would 
increase the maximum authorized amounts for those officers to 
$10,000 and $12,000, respectively.

Enhancement of hardship duty pay (sec. 617)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 305 of title 37, United States Code, to raise the 
maximum monthly amount of hardship duty pay to $1,500. The 
provision would also authorize the payment of hardship duty pay 
in a lump sum, subject to the member executing a written 
agreement.

Inclusion of service as off-cycle crewmember of multi-crewed ship in 
        sea duty for career sea pay (sec. 618)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 305a of title 37, United States Code, to authorize off-
cycle crewmembers of multi-crewed ships to be eligible for 
career sea pay.

Modification of reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected Reserve 
        (sec. 619)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 308b of title 37, United States Code, to provide the 
Department of Defense with more flexibility in administering 
the reenlistment bonus.
    The provision would eliminate the 3- and 6-year options 
currently in law, and require only that the period of 
reenlistment be at least 3 years. Similarly, the provision 
would eliminate the tiered bonus structure and require only 
that the bonus not exceed $15,000.

Increase in years of commissioned service covered by agreements for 
        nuclear-qualified officers extending periods of active duty 
        (sec. 620)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 312 of title 37, United States Code, to extend the 
eligibility for the nuclear officer continuation pay from 26 to 
30 years of commissioned service.

Authority to waive 25-year active duty limit for retention bonus for 
        critical military skills with respect to certain members (sec. 
        621)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 323 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of Homeland Security 
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a 
service in the Navy, to waive the 25-year service limitation on 
eligibility to receive the retention bonus for certain members 
with designated critical military skills.

Codification and improvement of authority to pay bonus to encourage 
        members of the Army to refer other persons for enlistment in 
        the Army (sec. 622)

    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
new section 331 in title 37, United States Code, that would 
codify section 645 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as amended by 
section 624 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), which authorized 
a bonus to encourage Army personnel to refer other persons for 
enlistment in the Army. The provision would extend the 
authority for the program to December 31, 2008.

Authority to pay bonus to encourage Department of Defense personnel to 
        refer other persons for appointment as officers to serve in 
        health professions (sec. 623)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 331a to title 37, United States Code, that would 
authorize the payment of up to $2,000, paid in two installments 
of not more than $1,000, to certain individuals who refer a 
person to a military recruiter, when such referral leads to an 
appointment as a commissioned officer in a health profession. 
The provision would authorize such payments through December 
31, 2008.

Accession bonus for participants in Armed Forces Health Professions 
        Scholarship and Financial Assistance program (sec. 624)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2127 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to pay an accession bonus of not more than 
$20,000 to participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions 
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (HPSP).
    The committee remains concerned that the Army and Navy 
continue to underfill their HPSP quotas, having failed to 
achieve recruiting goals in both fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 
This bonus, in conjunction with existing benefits, is intended 
to make the HPSP more attractive to prospective medical and 
dental school students who desire military service.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


Payment of expenses of travel to the United States for obstetrical 
        purposes of dependents located in very remote locations outside 
        the United States (sec. 641)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1040 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to pay travel expenses for purposes of 
childbirth to a location in the United States of a pregnant 
dependent of a service member assigned to a very remote 
location outside the United States.
    Under current law, payment of travel expenses is authorized 
for travel to the nearest medical facility in which adequate 
medical care is available. In many cases, dependents of service 
members assigned to very remote locations outside the United 
States are afforded travel expenses to Germany or Japan, but 
not to the United States where they might receive support from 
extended family during childbirth.

Payment of moving expenses for Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
        instructors in hard-to-fill positions (sec. 642)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Department of Defense to reimburse moving expenses for certain 
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) instructors. 
The instructor would receive reimbursement from the institution 
concerned, which would then receive reimbursement from the 
military department concerned. To be eligible to receive the 
reimbursement, an instructor must execute a written agreement 
to serve a minimum of 2 years.
    The committee supports the Department's efforts to maximize 
enrollment and enhance administrative efficiency in the 
management of the JROTC program. This provision is intended to 
attract highly qualified instructors to geographically or 
economically hard-to-fill positions.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


Modification of scheme for payment of death gratuity payable with 
        respect to members of the Armed Forces (sec. 651)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1477 of title 10, United States Code, to allow a 
service member to designate in writing any individual to 
receive the death gratuity benefit.
    The committee believes that service members must receive 
adequate pre-deployment counseling on survivor benefits, 
including counseling on the options available to them in order 
to ensure that their decisions with respect to beneficiaries 
are well informed and properly recorded. As service members 
prepare to deploy, their focus may understandably be drawn away 
from the long-term planning that is necessary to ensure their 
families are taken care of in the event of serious injury or 
death. The military departments must focus on providing 
accurate, timely, and effective pre-deployment counseling.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
pre-deployment counseling and services provided by the military 
departments to members of the armed forces and to identify best 
practices among such counseling and services. The committee 
directs the Secretary to review specifically the counseling and 
services directed toward unmarried service members with one or 
more dependent children. The review should include an 
assessment of counseling and services related to survivor 
benefits; dependency and indemnity compensation benefits; 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance; traumatic injury 
protection under section 1980A of title 38, United States Code; 
the Survivor Benefit Plan; and Social Security benefits. The 
committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on this 
review to the congressional defense committees by May 1, 2008.

Annuities for guardians or caretakers of dependent children under 
        Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 652)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1448 of title 10, United States Code, to allow an 
unmarried service member with a dependent child or children to 
elect a guardian or caretaker of that dependent child or 
children as the beneficiary of the service member's Survivor 
Benefit Plan annuity.

Expansion of combat-related special compensation eligibility for 
        chapter 61 military retirees (sec. 653)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, to expand 
eligibility of combat-related special compensation to all 
service members eligible for retirement pay who have a combat-
related disability, including service members who were retired 
under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code.

Clarification of application of retired pay multiplier percentage to 
        members of the uniformed services with over 30 years of service 
        (sec. 654)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1402 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize, in 
the case of a member who became a member of the armed services 
prior to September 8, 1980, and who was recalled to active duty 
for a period of more than 2 years, recomputation of that 
member's retirement pay according to the provisions of section 
1409 of title 10, United States Code.
    The provision would also amend section 6333 of title 10, 
United States Code, to conform that section to the provisions 
of section 1409 of title 10, United States Code.

Commencement of receipt of non-regular service retired pay by members 
        of the Ready Reserve on active Federal status or active duty 
        for significant periods (sec. 655)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
age at which a member of the Ready Reserve could draw retired 
pay below the age of 60 by 3 months for every aggregate 90 days 
of active duty performed under certain mobilization 
authorities. Under this provision, a member of the Ready 
Reserve could not reduce the age at which they draw retired pay 
below the age of 50. The provision would apply to service after 
the date of enactment.

                     Subtitle E--Education Benefits


Tuition assistance for off-duty training or education (sec. 671)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
authority to pay tuition and related expenses to members of the 
Ready Reserve, whether enlisted or officer, who agree to serve 
for 4 years after completion of the education or training for 
which tuition or expenses are paid. The provision would also 
authorize the secretaries of the military departments to pay 
tuition and related expenses of members of the Individual Ready 
Reserve, in designated military occupational specialties.

Expansion of Selected Reserve education loan repayment program (sec. 
        672)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 16301 of title 10, United States Code, to include 
additional types of loans incurred for educational purposes by 
members of the Selected Reserve that would be eligible for 
repayment by the Department of Defense. The provision would 
also make both officer and enlisted personnel eligible for loan 
repayment under this program.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Enhancement of authorities on income replacement payments for Reserves 
        experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for active-duty 
        service (sec. 681)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 910 of title 37, United States Code, to clarify the 
eligibility criteria for payments under the reserve income 
replacement program. The provision would change the method for 
measuring cumulative periods of qualifying service by counting 
cumulative days, rather than months.
    In order to qualify for income replacement payments under 
current law, a service member must complete 24 out of the 
previous 60 months. The provision would substitute the 
equivalent number of days for the number of months in current 
law. This would correct an inequity affecting reservists who 
serve a month's worth of days, but who do not actually complete 
an entire calendar month of service.
    The provision would also authorize the continuation of 
income replacement payments in the case of service members who 
are retained on active duty to receive authorized medical care 
or to be evaluated for disability.

Overseas naturalization of military family members (sec. 682)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 319 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1430), to allow certain permanent-resident spouses and children 
of members of the armed forces who reside in foreign countries 
to be naturalized. Under the provision, upon compliance with 
other requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the 
spouse or child's physical presence in a foreign country while 
accompanying the member would be treated as residence in the 
United States or any State for the purpose of satisfying the 
continuous presence requirements of the Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Implementation of limitations on terms of consumer credit extended to 
        service members and dependents

    The committee notes the progress of the Department of 
Defense in drafting rules to implement section 670 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), which provided protections for service 
members and their dependents against predatory lending. The 
rules were published on April 11, 2007, in the Federal Register 
(72 Fed. Reg. 18,157). Eliminating predatory lending is a 
complex problem, and the committee recognizes the need for 
sound discretion in ensuring service members have access to 
credit while also ensuring that barriers to predatory lending 
practices are implemented as Congress intended.
    The rules proposed by the Department excluded military 
installment loans, a form of predatory lending singled out in 
the Department's ``Report on Predatory Lending Practices 
Directed at Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents'' 
of August 9, 2006. The committee expects the Department to 
carefully consider the risks involved in its approach as it 
finalizes its rules, to make regulatory changes when 
appropriate, and to recommend statutory changes when needed to 
eliminate predatory lending.
    The committee is also concerned about the Department's 
heavy reliance on the States for enforcement in its proposed 
rules. The committee will look to the Department to monitor 
enforcement nationally to ensure consistent treatment of 
service members regardless of where they are stationed. The 
Department should continue to work with State legislatures to 
achieve fair and uniform enforcement for the benefit of 
military personnel and their dependents.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2008 on the 
Department's implementation of section 670 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), including any recommendations for regulatory or 
statutory change.

Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation recoupment 
        procedures

    The committee is concerned about reports that many 
survivors of deceased military personnel are experiencing 
inadequate service and adverse financial consequences 
associated with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's 
(DFAS) procedures for implementing offsets of Survivor Benefit 
Plan (SBP) annuities and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 
(DIC), including refunds of SBP premiums. Survivors have 
reported extended delays in notification by DFAS of the 
deduction requirement, resulting in larger than necessary 
recoupment amounts. Some beneficiaries report receiving 
virtually no explanation from DFAS of the complicated 
calculation process for the offset and no statements detailing 
the deductions recouped versus premiums refunded. They report 
receiving multiple different recoupment notices, while premium 
refunds have been processed separately, so that widows first 
had to pay one or two large recoupment bills and later received 
large premium refunds, rather than being allowed to deal with 
much more modest net payments or refunds that would have caused 
far less disruption to their finances.
    Of greatest concern, some beneficiaries report that their 
inquiries to DFAS have required extended waiting times that led 
to unhelpful and occasionally rude feedback from 
representatives who could not answer their specific questions 
about what was happening to their annuities and why. Many SBP 
beneficiaries believe they are subjected to an automated and 
impersonal process that imposes dramatic financial consequences 
on them at a time when they already are undergoing great 
emotional and financial stress.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
processes and resources in place for managing the collection of 
SBP/DIC recoupments and issuing refunds of SBP premiums. As 
part of this review, the committee directs the Secretary to 
survey annuitants who have experienced offsets of their SBP 
benefits by DIC in order to determine what shortcomings were 
experienced, what improvements can be made, and to perform an 
independent evaluation of the adequacy of the system in place 
for these dependents to receive timely, courteous assistance. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the 
results of this study to the congressional defense committees 
by March 1, 2008.
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Inclusion of TRICARE retail pharmacy program in Federal procurement of 
        pharmaceuticals (sec. 701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, stating that 
with respect to any prescription filled on or after October 1, 
2007, the TRICARE retail pharmacy network will be covered by 
the federal pricing limits applicable to covered drugs under 
section 8126 of title 38, United States Code.
Surveys on continued viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra 
        (sec. 702)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through 2011 the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct surveys to determine health care and mental health care 
provider acceptance of the TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra 
benefit. The provision would require surveys of beneficiaries 
in addition to surveys of health care and mental health care 
providers and would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish benchmarks for primary and specialty care providers, 
including mental health care providers, to determine the 
adequacy of providers available to TRICARE-eligible 
beneficiaries. The provision would also require the Comptroller 
General to review the processes, procedures, and analyses used 
by the Department of Defense (DOD) to determine the adequacy of 
the number of health care and mental health care providers 
available to TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries and to submit a 
report on the results of this review to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on a 
bi-annual basis.
    The committee is pleased that DOD surveys in 2005 and 2006 
have consistently found a high level of awareness by physicians 
of the TRICARE program, and relatively high acceptance of new 
TRICARE Standard patients in many areas. However, the committee 
believes that DOD needs additional information about the 
relationship between acceptance of TRICARE and Medicare, as 
required by section 711 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), to fully assess 
options for increasing provider participation in TRICARE. The 
committee remains concerned about reports by military families 
that mental health services are difficult to access under the 
TRICARE program.
    The committee is also concerned about the availability of 
TRICARE Standard to members of the Selected Reserve. According 
to DOD, more than 40 percent of eligible members of the 
Selected Reserve reside beyond TRICARE Prime service areas in 
the United States. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives on its implementation 
of the program known as TRICARE Reserve Select for members of 
the Selected Reserve, as authorized by section 706 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), with the first report due by March 1, 
2008. This report should describe programs and activities to 
inform members of the Selected Reserve of the option to enroll 
in TRICARE, the number of enrollees, and the actual DOD costs 
for implementation of TRICARE for members of the Selected 
Reserve in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The committee further 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit additional reports 
by March 1 of each subsequent year that update the original 
report and include the projected DOD costs for the TRICARE 
Reserve Select benefit for the next fiscal year.

                       Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General study of post-deployment health reassessment
    The committee commends the Department of Defense for 
directing the military departments, in March 2005, to conduct a 
post-deployment reassessment of health status, with a specific 
emphasis on mental health, between 3 and 6 months after a 
service member returns from deployment. However, the committee 
is concerned that there is a need for further evaluation of the 
effectiveness of this reassessment and its implementation by 
the military departments. In particular, the committee is 
concerned about the effectiveness of the web-based Post-
Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA), and whether the 
services are consistently providing face to face followup, 
referrals for further evaluation, and completion by the service 
members of follow-on evaluations if applicable. The committee 
is also concerned about the extent to which the PDHRA is 
included in the Department's quality assurance program for 
medical tracking, required by section 1074f of title 10, United 
States Code.
    The committee is aware that the Comptroller General intends 
to include analysis of the PDHRA in ongoing Comptroller General 
studies to assess compliance by the Department of Defense with 
requirements in law and policy concerning pre- and post-
deployment medical examinations of military personnel who 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee directs that the 
analysis of the PDHRA include members of the active and reserve 
components and those service members who served in Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and have 
subsequently separated from military service.
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Joint 
        Executive Council Strategic Plan and Joint Incentive Fund
    The committee believes that it is imperative that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) include in their joint strategic planning process 
the identification of specific goals, strategies, and 
initiatives designed to better understand effective ways to 
diagnose and treat traumatic brain injury and urges the 
Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work together 
toward this end.
    The committee strongly urges the Departments to revise the 
Joint Strategic Plan and guidelines for the DOD-VA Health Care 
Sharing Incentive Fund and to place a priority on programs to 
improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury. 
In particular, the Departments should consider a pilot program 
to assess the feasibility and advisability of using telehealth 
technology to assess cognitive functioning of members and 
former members of the armed forces who have sustained head 
trauma. In addition, the committee recognizes that there is a 
great need for clinical data on effective treatment approaches 
for brain-injured patients and strongly urges the Departments 
to establish a high priority for funding such projects under 
its Joint Incentive Fund program for fiscal years 2008 through 
2010.
Mental Health Advisory Team IV findings
    The committee commends the Army medical department for 
conducting a fourth assessment of the mental health and well-
being of soldiers and marines in Iraq, the Mental Health 
Advisory Team (MHAT) IV, and for including, at the request of 
the Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, uniquely 
developed questions addressing attitudes toward the treatment 
of insurgents and battlefield ethics.
    The committee is especially concerned over the MHAT 
findings that (1) multiple deployments directly correlate with 
higher levels of acute stress, and that lengthy deployments 
lead to higher rates of mental health and marital problems; (2) 
suicide rates for soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom from 
2003-2006 are 16.1 per 100,000 soldiers versus an Army average 
of 11.6 per 100,000; (3) approximately 10 percent of soldiers 
and marines reported mistreating non-combatants, or damaging 
their property unnecessarily; (4) soldiers who experienced high 
levels of combat, or screened positive for mental health 
problems, were nearly twice as likely to mistreat non-
combatants; and (5) although the majority of soldiers and 
marines surveyed reported receiving ethical training, nearly 
one third reported encountering ethical situations in Iraq in 
which they did not know how to respond.
    The committee urges the Department of Defense to continue 
to assess the mental health of the force and to explore ways to 
address mental health issues that arise from military service, 
including the impact on families. The committee is concerned 
that extending Army deployments to 15 months while failing to 
meet necessary dwell times for returning units may exacerbate 
the mental health issues facing our soldiers and marines. The 
committee also believes the Department should do more to 
address the risk of soldiers and marines under combat stress, 
or who are already at risk for mental health problems, to 
violate battlefield ethics.
    The committee directs the Department of Defense to study 
and develop a plan to address the MHAT IV findings, and their 
implications, on all Department policies concerning length and 
frequency of deployment, and resources needed to address the 
mental health issues the MHAT IV identified. The committee 
expects the Department's plan to include specific strategies to 
improve battlefield ethics and training. The committee directs 
the Department to report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2008 the results of this study and its 
plan to address the MHAT IV findings and recommendations.
    The committee notes with great concern that nearly 6 months 
elapsed from the date of completion of the report, November 17, 
2006, until public release of the report's findings on May 4, 
2007. During that period, on April 11, 2007, Secretary Gates 
announced that tours of duty for soldiers serving in Iraq would 
be extended from 12 to 15 months. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense 
committees by June 20, 2007 on the extent to which the MHAT IV 
findings that deployment length was related to higher rates of 
mental health and marital problems were taken into 
consideration by the Department in the decision to extend Army 
tours.
Reduction in Navy medical personnel and medical efficiency wedge
    The committee is deeply concerned about proposed reductions 
in Navy military medical end strength. The committee is aware 
that Navy military end strength is projected to decline in 
future years by approximately 30,000 personnel. However, the 
Department of Defense has announced an increase of 22,000 
personnel for the Marine Corps. As the Navy medical department 
will continue to have responsibility for medical care for Navy 
and Marine Corps personnel and their families, it is essential 
that the Navy medical military manpower authorization and 
funding for Navy hospitals be increased to ensure quality 
health care for the additional marines and their families. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to reevaluate its 
previous decision to eliminate more than 900 medical billets 
during fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The same formula used by 
the Department to calculate reduced requirements for downsizing 
the Navy should be used to determine new requirements to 
appropriately fund operation and maintenance for Navy medical 
treatment facilities and restore up to 900 billets in Navy 
medical end strength in support of the Marine Corps growth. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2007 on 
the results of that evaluation.
    The committee continues to be very concerned about the 
Department's policy of reducing Operation and Maintenance 
funding of military medical treatment facilities by use of an 
``efficiency wedge.'' According to the Department of Defense, 
an efficiency wedge of $486.0 million was assessed against the 
budgets of military hospitals and clinics for fiscal year 2008. 
Although the committee agrees that efficiency in health care 
delivery is desired, it strongly disagrees with an arbitrary 
reduction of funding for military hospitals and clinics during 
a time of war. Shortages of equipment, supplies, and personnel 
in military medicine cannot be alleviated by further funding 
reductions. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
reassess the validity of the proposed efficiency wedge and any 
other decrement in funding for fiscal year 2008 and to provide 
a report to the congressional defense committees by June 30, 
2007, on plans to fund military treatment facilities in fiscal 
year 2008.
TRICARE program cost sharing increases
    Section 711 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
established a Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of 
Military Health Care. The task force is required to assess and 
make recommendations on the beneficiary and Government cost 
structure required to sustain military health benefits over the 
long-term. An interim report addressing this issue is required 
by May 31, 2007.
    Section 713 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
required the Comptroller General to conduct audits of 
Department health care costs and cost saving measures proposed 
by the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 in an 
initiative known as ``Sustain the Benefit.'' The Comptroller 
General is required to submit a report on the audits conducted 
under this authority to the congressional defense committees no 
later than June 1, 2007.
    The Department of Defense requested that legislation be 
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 that would give the Department broad authority to 
increase TRICARE program cost sharing amounts for military 
retirees and their dependents, after first considering the 
recommendations of the Task Force on the Future of Military 
Health Care.
    During his nomination hearing to become the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs on March 27, 2007, S. 
Ward Casscells, M.D., acknowledged the concern that 
``increasing copays and deductibles, particularly at this time, 
runs the risk of making it harder for us to recruit and retain 
the very best.'' Dr. Casscells also stated his belief that 
``there are other efficiencies which can be sought,'' such as 
disease management and prevention.
    The committee concluded that this legislative proposal is 
premature and believes that any increase in TRICARE program 
cost sharing should be made on the basis of the comprehensive 
analyses required by Congress and after implementation of 
efficiencies in the health care program.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to consult 
with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House 
of Representatives on reasonable adjustments in TRICARE program 
cost sharing following receipt of the final reports required in 
Public Law 109-364 and following consultation with military 
beneficiary advocates.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

 Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Substantial savings under multiyear contracts (sec. 801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
term ``substantial savings'' for the purposes of authorizing 
multiyear contracts and require the Secretary of Defense to 
report to the congressional defense committees on an annual 
basis on the savings actually achieved under such contracts. 
The provision would also require the head of the agency seeking 
the multiyear contract to report to the congressional defense 
committees, prior to legislative authorization, the specific 
facts demonstrating that the statutory criteria for entering 
such a contract have been met.
    Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for 
the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria 
are met. One of these criteria is that the use of a multiyear 
contract must result in ``substantial savings'' compared to the 
anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual 
contracts.
    Under the provision recommended by the committee, savings 
that exceed 10 percent of total anticipated program costs would 
be considered to be substantial. Savings that exceed 5 percent 
of total anticipated program costs, but do not exceed 10 
percent of such costs could be considered substantial, but only 
if the agency head makes an exceptionally strong case that the 
statutory criteria have been met and a multiyear contract is in 
the interest of the Department and the taxpayers. Savings that 
do not exceed 5 percent of total anticipated program costs 
would not qualify as a basis for entering a multiyear contract.
Changes to Milestone B certifications (sec. 802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
program manager for a major defense acquisition program (MDAP) 
that has received Milestone B certification under section 2366a 
of title 10, United States Code, to immediately notify the 
milestone decision authority of any changes to the program that 
are: (a) inconsistent with such certification; or (b) deviate 
significantly from the material provided to the milestone 
decision authority in support of such certification. The 
provision would also require that the milestone decision 
authority receive a business case analysis prior to making a 
certification under section 2366a.
    Section 2366a prohibits Milestone B approval for an MDAP 
until the milestone decision authority certifies that the 
technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant 
environment and certain other key criteria have been met. 
However, many MDAPs undergo significant changes in technology, 
funding, or requirements after Milestone B approval. In some 
cases, such changes could result in the continuation of the 
program on a basis that would be inconsistent with the 
certification of the milestone decision authority.
    The provision recommended by the committee would ensure 
that the milestone decision authority is promptly notified of 
any such changes and is in a position to take appropriate 
action including, if necessary, withdrawal of the certification 
or rescission of Milestone B approval.
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense organization and 
        structure for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense 
committees on potential modifications to the organization and 
structure of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of 
major weapon systems.
Investment strategy for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 804)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense 
committees on Department of Defense organizations, procedures, 
and approaches for the allocation of funds and other resources 
under major defense acquisition programs.
    The Secretary's report should specifically address the 
Department's strategy for allocating funds in the cases of 
joint requirements and requirements that could be met by more 
than one military department or defense agency. In a March 2007 
report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended 
that the Department implement an enterprise-wide portfolio 
management approach to making weapon system investments that 
integrates the assessment and determination of warfighting 
needs with available resources and cuts across the services by 
functional or capability area. The GAO report recommends that 
the Secretary establish a single point of accountability at the 
department level with the authority, responsibility, and tools 
to ensure that portfolio management for weapon system 
investments is effectively implemented across the Department.
    In this regard, the committee notes that the Department has 
already developed a portfolio management process for certain 
capability areas, including Joint Command and Control, Joint 
Net Centric Operations, Battlespace Awareness, and Joint 
Logistics. In each area, the Department has designated an 
enterprise-wide capability portfolio manager, who is charged 
with developing strategic objectives, projected capability 
mixes, performance metrics, and actions required to meet 
objectives and mitigate risk. The capability portfolio managers 
have direct access to the Deputy's Advisory Working Group, the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the Defense 
Acquisition Board. They also provide input to the Concept 
Decision Tri-chair (which includes the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director, 
Program Analysis and Evaluation) on capability issues.
    The committee urges the Department to consider expanding 
the portfolio management process to include additional 
portfolios of joint requirements and requirements that could be 
met by more than one military department or defense agency. The 
committee expects the Secretary's report to specifically 
address GAO's recommendations regarding portfolio management.
Report on implementation of recommendations on total ownership cost for 
        major weapon systems (sec. 805)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense 
committees on the extent to which the Department of Defense has 
implemented the recommendations set forth in the February 2003 
report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled 
``Setting Requirements Differently Could Reduce Weapon Systems' 
Total Ownership Costs''.
    The GAO report states that some major weapon systems, such 
as the Apache helicopter and the Abrams tank, have experienced 
costly maintenance problems and low readiness rates, which 
persisted even after the systems were fielded. The report 
recommends that the Department address this problem by: 
incorporating operating and support costs and weapon system 
readiness rates as key performance parameters in the 
requirements development process; requiring product developers 
to establish firm estimates of a weapon system's reliability by 
no later than the end of the system integration phase; and 
structuring contracts for major weapon systems so that at 
Milestone B, the product developer has incentives to ensure 
that proper trades are made between reliability and performance 
prior to the production decision.
    The GAO report indicates that the Department ``partially 
concurred'' with each of these recommendations, but ``for the 
most part, found no further action was needed to lower total 
ownership cost.'' The elimination of readiness problems and the 
reduction of total ownership costs for major weapon systems 
would yield significant benefits for the Department. 
Accordingly, the provision recommended by the committee directs 
the Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees 
on specific measures taken to implement the GAO 
recommendations.

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

Enhanced competition requirements for task and delivery order contracts 
        (sec. 821)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) 
require that task or delivery order contracts for or on behalf 
of the Department of Defense (DOD) in excess of $100.0 million 
be awarded to multiple contractors, with certain exceptions; 
and (2) establish enhanced competition requirements (including 
requirements for debriefings and authorization of bid protests) 
for task or delivery orders in excess of $5.0 million under 
such multiple award contracts.
    At the committee's April 19, 2007 hearing on DOD's 
management of costs under the Logistics Civil Augmentation 
Program (LOGCAP) contract in Iraq, Senator Levin asked why the 
Army had waited 5 years to split the LOGCAP contract among 
multiple contractors, allowing for the competition of 
individual task orders. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics responded: ``I don't 
have a good answer for you.'' The provision recommended by the 
committee would ensure that future contracts of this type 
provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless 
there is a compelling reason not to do so.
    The committee notes that the enhanced task and delivery 
order competition requirements in the provision would implement 
the recommendations of the Acquisition Advisory Panel chartered 
pursuant to section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).
Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of commercial items 
        (sec. 822)
    The committee recommends a provision that would address 
recent Inspector General reports regarding the use of 
questionable commercial item designations to deny the 
Department of Defense information that it needs to determine 
price reasonableness for sole-source purchases. The provision 
would: (1) clarify the circumstances in which a subsystem, 
component, or spare part for a major weapon system may be 
purchased as a commercial item; (2) clarify that the terms 
``general public'' and ``nongovernmental entity'' do not 
include federal, state, local or foreign governments, or 
contractors acting on behalf of such governments for the 
purpose of determining whether an item qualifies as a 
commercial item; and (3) require the contractor offering a 
major weapon system, subsystem, component, or spare part as a 
commercial item to provide information other than certified 
cost or pricing data that is adequate for evaluating the 
reasonableness of the proposed price.
Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of commercial services 
        (sec. 823)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
use of time and materials contracts to purchase commercial 
services for or on behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD).
    Time and materials contracts for commercial services are 
potentially subject to abuse because the limited information 
the Department receives under commercial contracts makes it 
very difficult to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable. 
Section 1432 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) authorized the following 
categories of commercial services to be purchased under time 
and materials contracts: (1) commercial services procured in 
support of a commercial item; and (2) any other category that 
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP) based on a determination that the 
commercial services in such category are commonly sold to the 
general public through time and materials contracts and it is 
in the best interest of the Federal Government to use time and 
materials contracts for such purchases.
    OFPP determined that ``a few types of services are sold 
predominantly on a [time and materials] basis--specifically, 
emergency repair services.'' OFPP determined that other 
categories of commercial services are commonly sold to the 
general public on a time and materials basis only ``when 
requirements are not sufficiently well understood to complete a 
well-defined scope of work and risk can be managed by 
maintaining surveillance of costs and contractor performance.'' 
OFPP did not determine that these circumstances commonly occur 
in sales to the general public. Nonetheless, a final rule was 
published in the December 12, 2006 Federal Register, 
designating ``all categories of services (i.e., any service) as 
being available for acquisition on a [time and materials] 
basis.''
    The committee concludes that the December 12, 2006 rule 
exceeds the authority provided by Congress in section 1432. 
Accordingly, the provision recommended by the committee would 
authorize the purchase of only the following categories of 
commercial services under time and materials contracts: (1) 
services procured in support of commercial items; and (2) 
emergency repair services. Under the provision, other 
categories of services may be purchased under time and 
materials contracts for or on behalf of the Department of 
Defense only if such contracts are entered in accordance with 
rules applicable to non-commercial items.
Modification of competition requirements for purchases from Federal 
        Prison Industries (sec. 824)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
competition requirements for Department of Defense (DOD) 
purchases from Federal Prison Industries (FPI).
    Section 2410n of title 10, as added by section 811 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 
Law 107-107) and amended by section 819 of the Bob Stump 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314), gives DOD procurement officials discretion 
whether to purchase a product from FPI. If DOD officials 
conclude that an FPI product is not comparable to the best 
products available from the private sector in terms of price, 
quality, and time of delivery, the product may be purchased 
only on a competitive basis.
    Despite the enactment of this legislation, FPI officials 
continue to argue that DOD is required to purchase FPI products 
on a sole-source basis. The provision recommended by the 
committee would clarify the competition requirements in section 
2410n to ensure that DOD purchases from FPI are made on a 
competitive basis.
Five-year extension of authority to carry out certain prototype 
        projects (sec. 825)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
5 years the authority to carry out transactions other than 
contracts and grants in accordance with section 845 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public 
Law 103-160).
Multiyear procurement authority for electricity from renewable energy 
        sources (sec. 826)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts for a period 
not to exceed 10 years for the purchase of electricity from 
sources of renewable energy, as defined in section 203(b)(2) of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b)(2)).

             Subtitle C--Acquisition Policy and Management

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 841)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) 
establish that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) serve as advisors to the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council (JROC) on matters within their authority and 
expertise; and (2) require the Secretary of Defense to consult 
with the JROC on matters relating to program requirements 
before certifying a program to Congress under section 
2433(e)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
Management structure for the procurement of contract services (sec. 
        842)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military 
departments to establish Contract Support Acquisition Centers 
to serve as executive agents for the acquisition of contract 
services, should they choose to do so. The provision would 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to accept the transfer of 
all or part of any organizational unit from another department 
or agency that is primarily engaged in the acquisition of 
contract services on behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to help staff such centers.
    The committee understands that DOD has considered the 
possibility of accepting transfer of a unit of the Department 
of the Treasury engaged in the acquisition of contract services 
on behalf of DOD, but determined that it did not have the legal 
authority to do so. The provision recommended by the committee 
would provide the legal authority to accept such a transfer, if 
DOD determines that it is in the Department's best interest.
Specification of amounts requested for procurement of contract services 
        (sec. 843)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to clearly and separately identify in its 
budget justification materials the amounts requested in each 
budget account for the procurement of contract services.
Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 844)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish an Acquisition Workforce 
Development Fund (the ``Fund'') to ensure that the Department 
of Defense (DOD) has the workforce capacity, in both personnel 
and skills, needed to properly perform its mission, provide 
appropriate oversight of contractor performance, and provide 
the best value for the expenditure of public resources. The 
fund would be financed through quarterly remittances by the 
military departments and defense agencies, based on amounts 
spent for contract services in the previous fiscal quarter.
    Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel chartered 
pursuant to section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) reported that 
``curtailed investments in human capital have produced an 
acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and 
resources to function effectively.'' As a result, ``The Federal 
Government does not have the capacity in its current 
acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands that have 
been placed on it.'' The failure of DOD and other federal 
agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the 
Panel concluded, is ```penny wise and pound foolish,' as it 
seriously undermines the pursuit of good value for the 
expenditure of public resources.''
    During the same period in which the acquisition workforce 
has been allowed to atrophy, DOD contracts for services have 
grown without constraint. Over the last 5 years, DOD has almost 
doubled its spending on service contracts, while the number of 
procurement personnel available to oversee these contracts has 
dropped by more than 25 percent. As a result, the Department 
has become increasingly reliant upon contractors to help manage 
and oversee the work of other contractors. The provision 
recommended by the committee would endeavor to reverse this 
trend by taking money currently spent to hire service 
contractors and spending it instead to reinvigorate the DOD 
acquisition workforce.
Inventories and reviews of contracts for services based on cost or time 
        of performance (sec. 845)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
secretary of each military department and the head of each 
defense agency to maintain an inventory of activities performed 
pursuant to contracts for services (other than contracts that 
provide a fixed price for specific tasks to be performed). 
Within a reasonable time after an inventory is compiled, the 
military department or defense agency compiling the inventory 
would be required to review the inventory and develop a plan to 
ensure that the activities listed are performed in a manner 
consistent with the interests of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and the taxpayers.
    Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) required DOD to conduct 
spending analyses of its purchases of contract services. As 
explained in the committee's report on this provision: ``[T]he 
Department has never conducted a comprehensive spending 
analysis of its services contracts and has made little effort 
to leverage its buying power, improve the performance of its 
services contractors, rationalize its supplier base, or 
otherwise ensure that its dollars are well spent.'' Five years 
later, the Department's expenditures for contract services have 
nearly doubled, but DOD still has not conducted a comprehensive 
analysis of its spending on these services. The specific 
criteria and timelines established in this provision for the 
inventory and review of activities performed by contractors 
would ensure that such analyses are conducted.
    The committee notes that DOD and other federal agencies are 
already required to maintain inventories of activities 
performed by federal employees and to review those inventories 
and develop plans to conduct public-private competitions for 
appropriate activities on those lists. The provision 
recommended by the committee would require the Department to 
develop a comparable inventory, and conduct a comparable review 
and planning effort, for activities performed for the 
Department by service contractors.
Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of 
        Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 846)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) 
prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) from making purchases 
through a non-defense agency unless the head of the other 
agency certifies that the agency will comply with defense 
procurement requirements; and (2) require joint reviews to 
determine whether procurements conducted by 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), and section 817 of the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Public Law 109-364) required joint reviews by the DOD 
Inspector General and the inspectors general of non-defense 
agencies to determine whether procurements conducted by those 
agencies were conducted in compliance with defense procurement 
requirements.
    These joint reviews revealed significant deficiencies in 
interagency procurements conducted by other agencies on DOD's 
behalf. They also resulted in increased attention to these 
problems by both DOD and other agencies, leading to a number of 
improvements. The provision recommended by the committee would 
require follow-up reviews and certifications, to ensure 
continued progress in compliance with defense procurement 
requirements.
Subtitle D--Department of Defense Contractor Matters
Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of 
        certain information (sec. 861)
    The committee recommends a provision that would strengthen 
the statutory protections available to contractor employees who 
disclose fraud, waste, and abuse with regard to Department of 
Defense contracts. The provision would establish a private 
right of action for contractor employees who are subject to 
reprisal for their efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests.
Requirements for defense contractors relating to certain former 
        Department of Defense officials (sec. 862)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
contractors that receive defense contracts in excess of $10.0 
million, other than contracts for the procurement of commercial 
items, to report to the Department of Defense on an annual 
basis on certain former senior Department officials who receive 
compensation from the contractor.
Report on contractor ethics programs of major defense contractors (sec. 
        863)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General to report to the Armed Services Committees 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the internal 
ethics programs of major defense contractors. The report would 
address the extent to which major defense contractors have 
internal ethics programs in place, the content of such ethics 
programs, the extent to which the Department of Defense 
monitors or approves the programs, and the advantages and 
disadvantages of legislation requiring the implementation of 
such programs.
Report on Department of Defense contracting with contractors or 
        subcontractors employing members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 
        864)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on contracting with 
companies who employ members of the Selective Reserve. The 
report would address: (1) the extent to which companies 
contracting with the Department of Defense employ members of 
the Selective Reserve; (2) the extent to which such companies 
are disadvantaged when members of the Selective Reserve are 
mobilized as a part of U.S. military operations overseas; and 
(3) actions that could be taken by the Department to address 
any such disadvantage.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Contractors performing private security functions in areas of combat 
        operations (sec. 871)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations on the selection, 
training, equipment, and conduct of personnel performing 
private security functions in an area of combat operations. The 
provision would also require that the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation be revised to ensure that all contractors and 
subcontractors in a combat area are subject to such 
regulations.
    Section 1205 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) 
required the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance for 
contractor personnel who support deployed forces. This 
requirement was implemented through Department of Defense 
Instruction 3020.41, ``Contractor Personnel Authorized to 
Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,'' dated October 3, 2005. 
However, section 1205 and DOD Instruction 3020.41 apply only to 
Department of Defense contractors.
    Many contractors perform private security functions in Iraq 
and elsewhere under contracts or subcontracts with the 
Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International 
Development, and other federal agencies. The presence of armed 
contractor employees on the battlefield can have a direct 
impact on military operations, regardless of the agency that 
employs them. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, there have 
been several reported incidents in which contractor employees 
have exchanged fire, or threatened to exchange fire, with U.S. 
forces. Moreover, misconduct by even a few armed contractor 
employees may reflect badly on the United States and could 
undermine the chances of success for military missions.
    The provision recommended by the committee would address 
this problem by ensuring that the Department of Defense and its 
combatant commanders are in a position to regulate the conduct 
of all armed contractors in the battlespace, regardless whether 
they are employed under contracts of the Department of Defense 
or other federal agencies.

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Iraq 
        and Afghanistan (sec. 872)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for the 
acquisition of products and services that are produced in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, if the Secretary determines that: (1) the 
product or service is to be used by military forces, police, or 
other security forces in Iraq or Afghanistan; (2) the 
preference is necessary to provide a stable source of jobs and 
employment in Iraq or Afghanistan; and (3) the preference will 
not have an adverse effect on U.S. military operations or the 
U.S. industrial base.

Defense Science Board review of Department of Defense policies and 
        procedures for the acquisition of information technology (sec. 
        873)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to direct a Defense Science Board review 
of Department of Defense (DOD) policies and procedures for the 
acquisition of information technology.
    The Clinger-Cohen Act (Division E of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)) 
and the Paperwork Reduction Act (chapter 35 of title 44, United 
States Code) form the statutory framework for the management of 
information resources in the Federal Government. These statutes 
have not been significantly modified for more than 10 years. In 
addition, the DOD acquisition and testing regulations for major 
defense acquisition programs do not always allow for the most 
effective acquisition of information technology systems. The 
committee believes that it is appropriate to reexamine these 
statutes and regulations in light of rapid advances in 
commercial information technology and evolving Department of 
Defense requirements.
    At the same time, the Department's structure and 
organization do not always appear to be well-suited to the 
effective planning and administration of information technology 
acquisition programs. The committee is particularly concerned 
about the roles and responsibilities of the acquisition 
executives and chief information officers of the Department in 
the acquisition of information technologies that are embedded 
in weapon systems. The Defense Science Board review should 
specifically examine the issue of whether the acquisition 
officials who have overall responsibility for the acquisition 
of weapons and weapon systems might be better able to develop 
and implement information technology policies for such weapons 
and weapon systems than the Department's chief information 
officers.
    The committee is also concerned about future policies and 
procedures for ensuring information security in commercial 
microelectronics, software, and networks. While it would be 
prohibitively expensive for the Department to rely upon 
defense-unique suppliers to replicate commercially available 
technologies, there may be some applications for which it is 
necessary for the Department to develop ``trusted'' suppliers. 
The Defense Science Board study should specifically examine the 
trade-offs between the Department's needs for information 
security and its continued reliance upon commercial sources for 
information technology.

Enhancement and extension of acquisition authority for the unified 
        combatant command for joint warfighting experimentation (sec. 
        874)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
acquisition authority provided to the U.S. Joint Forces Command 
(JFCOM) by: (1) providing for both the acquisition and 
sustainment of equipment; and (2) extending the authority for 
an additional 2 years.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
requested that JFCOM acquisition authority be made permanent. 
In April 2007, however, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) reported that shortly after Congress provided JFCOM 
acquisition authority, the Secretary of Defense created the 
Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC). According to GAO, JRAC and 
JFCOM acquisition authority may be redundant. By a letter dated 
April 11, 2007, the Director of Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy concurred with the GAO recommendations and 
agreed to ``reassess JFCOM acquisition authority in light of 
the expanding Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell process.''
    The provision recommended by the committee would extend 
JFCOM acquisition authority to ensure that the authority does 
not expire before DOD completes its reassessment and Congress 
has an opportunity to consider the results of that 
reassessment.

Repeal of requirement for identification of essential military items 
        and military system essential item breakout list (sec. 875)

    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.

                       Items of Special Interest


Exceptional circumstance waivers under the Truth in Negotiations Act

    Section 817 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) permits the use 
of an ``exceptional circumstances'' waiver to the Truth in 
Negotiations Act (section 2306a of title 10, United States 
Code) only if the property or services could not reasonably be 
obtained without the waiver. Under section 817, the 
Department's belief that sufficient information could be 
obtained to support the contractor's prices without complying 
with the Truth in Negotiations Act is not sufficient to support 
a waiver.
    Earlier this year, the Department of Defense reported that 
the Navy had exercised an exceptional-circumstances waiver for 
a multi-year contract, valued at more than $8.0 billion, for 
the procurement of F/A-18E/F and EA-18G airframes. The report 
did not indicate that the Navy would not have been able to 
obtain F-18 air frames without a waiver, as required by section 
817. As a result, the Navy failed to obtain cost or pricing 
data and put itself at risk of paying higher prices on an $8.0 
billion contract because of its failure to obtain the most 
recent and relevant cost and pricing information.
    On March 23, 2007, the Director for Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum addressing exceptional-
circumstances waivers under the Truth in Negotiations Act. The 
memorandum states that ``it is DOD policy to apply this waiver 
authority only to situations where the Government could not 
otherwise obtain the needed product or service without the 
waiver.'' In addition, the memorandum also establishes a 
schedule of regular meetings within the Department to assist in 
the early identification of potential waiver issues and to 
ensure that the policy is applied appropriately.
    The committee concludes that the March 23, 2007 memorandum 
appropriately addresses the use of exceptional-circumstances 
waivers and, if consistently applied throughout the Department, 
should preclude the need for further legislation on this issue.

Guidance on award and incentive fees

    Section 814 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
required the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations linking 
award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes.
    On April 24, 2007, the Director of Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum for the secretaries of 
the military departments and directors of the defense agencies 
requiring that, whenever possible, the Department use objective 
criteria to measure contract performance. The memorandum 
establishes specific criteria for linking award fees to 
performance. The memorandum states that the policies included 
in the memorandum will be incorporated into the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).
    The committee concludes that the Director's memorandum, 
together with guidance previously issued by the Department of 
Defense on award and incentive fees, appropriately reflects the 
requirements of section 814. Accordingly, the incorporation of 
the principles reflected in section 814, the Director's 
memorandum, and previously issued guidance into the DFARS 
should preclude the need for further legislation on this issue.

Program manager empowerment and accountability

    Section 853 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive 
strategy for enhancing the role of Department of Defense 
program managers in carrying out defense acquisition programs.
    Section 853(c) requires that the Secretary issue guidance 
on, among other things, the authority available to program 
managers to object to the addition of new program requirements. 
The statement of managers accompanying the conference report 
states the conferees' view that the Secretary's guidance should 
include ``the assurance that program requirements will not be 
modified in a way that would be inconsistent with the business 
case, the Milestone B decision, and any performance agreement 
entered without a written determination by a senior Department 
official that the modifications are necessary in the interest 
of the national defense'' and ``program manager authority to 
make trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance or to 
redirect funding within the program, provided that such 
tradeoffs or redirections of funds are consistent with the 
parameters established for the program and with applicable 
requirements of law.''
    A September 4, 2001 memorandum signed by the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) 
states that ``Program Managers are responsible for developing 
budgets that fully fund their programs, and reasonably reflect 
the projected cost of incorporating necessary contract 
modifications.'' The memorandum states that change proposals 
have introduced unplanned new scope and capability improvements 
on shipbuilding programs, contributing to unbudgeted cost 
growth on those programs. The memorandum seeks to address this 
problem by requiring program managers to reject change orders 
that would increase program cost, except in narrowly defined 
circumstances.
    The committee believes that this memorandum may serve as a 
helpful model for the Department of Defense as it implements 
the requirements of section 853. The committee directs the 
Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees on 
how the guidance required by section 853(c) addresses the 
matters discussed in the memorandum.

Protection of strategic materials critical to national security

    Section 842 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
modified statutory requirements for the procurement of 
specialty metals from domestic sources and codified these 
requirements in a new section 2533b of title 10, United States 
Code. Section 2533b contained a non-availability exception to 
address circumstances in which compliant materials are not 
available in the required form when and as needed for the 
national defense.
    On January 17, 2007, the Director of Defense Procurement 
and Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum implementing the 
non-availability exception in section 2533b. The January 17, 
2007 memorandum states:

          Several factors can and should be taken into 
        consideration in making a determination that compliant 
        specialty metal is not available. Are compliant parts, 
        assemblies or components available in the required form 
        as and when needed? What are the costs and time delays 
        if requalification of certain parts of the system is 
        required? What will be the impact on the program's 
        delivery schedule, program costs and mission needs?

    On April 10, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics applied this exception 
to make a determination of non-availability of specialty metals 
in fasteners in certain federal stock classes. The April 10, 
2007 determination states:

          [The Defense Contract Management Agency] verified 
        that lead times for compliant material is long, ranging 
        in length from 50 weeks for stainless steel to over 100 
        weeks for titanium. The lead times for procuring 
        compliant fasteners are similarly lengthy . . . . These 
        delays are impacting the Department's ability to meet 
        requirements.

    The committee expects the Department to take advantage of 
the flexibility provided in section 2533b, including the non-
availability exception in that provision, when and as needed to 
ensure that it can purchase weapon systems and parts in a 
timely manner for the national defense. For this reason, the 
committee supports the interpretation of this provision in the 
January 17, 2007 memorandum of the Director of Defense 
Procurement and Acquisition Policy and the application of the 
exception in the April 10, 2007 determination of non-
availability.

Regulations on excessive pass-through charges

    Section 852 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
required the Secretary of Defense to modify Department of 
Defense (DOD) regulations to prohibit excessive pass-through 
charges on contracts or subcontracts that are entered into for 
or on behalf of the Department.
    On April 26, 2007, DOD published an interim regulation in 
the Federal Register to implement this requirement. The interim 
regulation: (1) prohibits the payment of excessive pass-through 
charges; (2) requires contractors to identify in its proposal 
the percentage of work it intends to perform and the percentage 
it expects subcontractors to perform; (3) requires the 
contractor to demonstrate that its charges are consistent with 
the amount of value-added in any case where the contractor 
expects subcontractors to perform more than 70 percent of the 
work on the contract; (4) provides for these requirements to 
apply at the subcontractor level; and (5) provides for the 
recovery of excessive pass-through charges in appropriate 
cases.
    The committee concludes that the interim regulation 
appropriately reflects the requirements of section 852 and, if 
effectively implemented, should protect DOD against the payment 
of excessive pass-through charges. The committee notes that the 
Department received approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to implement this rule until the end of the fiscal 
year. Should DOD fail to request, or OMB fail to grant, an 
extension of this approval, further legislation may be 
required.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

Repeal of limitation on major Department of Defense headquarters 
        activities personnel (sec. 901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 130a of title 10, United States Code, which imposes a 
limitation on the number of Department of Defense (DOD) 
headquarters activities personnel.
    Section 130a, which limits the number of DOD headquarters 
personnel to 85 percent of the number of such personnel as of 
October 1, 1999, was enacted in section 921 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65). Since that time, the events of September 11, 2001 and the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in a doubling of the 
defense budget and substantial new demands on DOD headquarters 
personnel.
    Because section 130a precludes DOD from meeting these new 
demands by increasing the number of headquarters personnel, the 
Department has turned to contractor employees to meet these 
demands. The administration's legislative proposal notes that 
section 130a limits the Department's ability to ``manage its 
workforce based upon workload'' and ensure that it has ``the 
most cost-effective workforce'' to respond to the challenges 
posed by the current security environment. The committee 
concludes that section 130a is outdated and should be repealed.
Chief management officers of the Department of Defense (sec. 902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense the Chief Management Officer 
(CMO) of the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would 
also: (1) establish a new position of Under Secretary of 
Defense for Management (Deputy Chief Management Officer); and 
(2) designate the under secretaries of the military departments 
the CMOs of those departments.
    The Comptroller General has testified on numerous occasions 
that DOD is unlikely to successfully address the management 
challenges facing it without a CMO to lead the effort. In 
November 2006, the Comptroller General told the Subcommittee on 
Readiness and Management Support:

          DOD lacks the sustained leadership at the right level 
        needed to achieve successful and lasting 
        transformation. Due to the complexity and long-term 
        nature of DOD's business transformation efforts, we 
        continue to believe DOD needs a chief management 
        officer (CMO) to provide sustained leadership and 
        maintain momentum.

    Section 907 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) required DOD to provide 
for one or two independent studies of the feasibility and 
advisability of establishing a CMO to oversee the Department's 
business transformation process. In May 2006, the Defense 
Business Board endorsed the concept of a CMO. In January 2007, 
the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) recommended that the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense be designated as CMO, with a full-
time deputy devoted to management issues. The provision 
recommended by the committee would take the approach 
recommended by IDA.

Modification of background requirement of individuals appointed as 
        Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
        Logistics (sec. 903)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
background requirement for the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to delete the 
requirement that a nominee have extensive management background 
``in the private sector.'' The committee concludes that 
management experience in the Department of Defense and other 
federal agencies can be as valuable as management experience in 
the private sector.

Department of Defense Board of Actuaries (sec. 904)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
the Department of Defense Retirement Board of Actuaries and the 
Department of Defense Education Benefits Board of Actuaries 
into the Department of Defense Board of Actuaries.

Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition 
        matters; principal military deputies (sec. 905)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
appointment of a three-star principal military deputy for the 
service acquisition executive in each of the military 
departments. The provision would require that the principal 
military deputy be appointed from among officers who have 
significant experience in the areas of acquisition and program 
management and that they keep the respective chiefs of staff 
informed of the progress of major defense acquisition programs.
    At present, the acquisition executives for the Army and the 
Air Force have military deputies. However, the officers 
selected to serve in these positions often lack significant 
experience in the key areas of acquisition and program 
management. The acquisition executive for the Navy does not 
have a military deputy.
    The appointment of qualified principal military deputies 
for the service acquisition executives should: (1) strengthen 
the performance of the service acquisition executives; (2) 
improve the oversight provided to military officers serving in 
acquisition commands; and (3) strengthen the acquisition career 
field in the military.

Flexible authority for number of Army Deputy Chiefs of Staff and 
        Assistant Chiefs of Staff (sec. 906)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3035(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to determine the number of Deputy 
Chiefs of Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff on the Army 
Staff, not to exceed eight total positions. Current law 
provides for up to five Deputy Chiefs of Staff and three 
Assistant Chiefs of Staff.

Sense of Congress on term of office of the Director of Operational Test 
        and Evaluation (sec. 907)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the term of office of the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation should be not less than 5 
years. The committee believes that this minimum term will 
strengthen the statutorily intended independence of the 
position, ensuring adequate operational testing of weapons 
systems and thereby saving lives and resources.

                       Subtitle B--Space Matters


Space posture review (sec. 921)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation 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 on December 1, 2009.
    The committee is concerned that most military space 
capabilities are being modernized simultaneously. 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 its space situational awareness 
capabilities, and the military and commercial 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 the space situational awareness and satellite 
protection programs and the satellite modernization programs.

Additional report on oversight of acquisition for defense space 
        programs (sec. 922)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
due date for the report on the oversight of defense space 
acquisition programs required by section 911 of the Bob Stump 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314).

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Department of Defense consideration of effect of climate change on 
        Department facilities, capabilities, and missions (sec. 931)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to assess the risks of projected climate 
change to the Department's facilities, capabilities, and 
missions.

Board of Regents for the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
        Sciences (sec. 932)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to appoint the members of the Board of 
Regents for the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences (USUHS) without a requirement for the advice and 
consent of the Senate. The provision would also redesignate the 
Dean of USUHS as the President of USUHS, consistent with 
current practice, and would amend section 2114 of title 10, 
United States Code, to remove the $100 per day limit on per 
diem for members of the Board of Regents when they perform 
their duties.
    The committee believes that the Board of Regents should 
play a key advisory role to the Secretary of Defense through 
the President of USUHS and the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Health Affairs. There is a need for a rapid and flexible 
process for the identification and appointment of highly 
qualified civilian experts in fields relating to military 
medicine and medical education who are willing to voluntarily 
serve. This requirement would be better accomplished by giving 
the Secretary of Defense the authority to appoint the members 
of the Board.

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 933)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a United States Military 
Cancer Institute in the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences. The center would be authorized to establish a 
data clearinghouse on the incidence of cancer among members and 
former members of the armed forces, and to conduct research 
that contributes to early detection or treatment of cancer 
among military personnel. The committee recognizes that the 
United States Military Cancer Institute is currently operated 
and funded by the Department of Defense. In the committee's 
view, this institution should be authorized in statute in order 
to ensure its continued viability and service to military 
members and their families.

Western Hemisphere Center for Excellence in Human Rights (sec. 934)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a Western Hemisphere 
Human Rights Center to continue and expand the work begun under 
U.S. Southern Command's Human Rights Initiative.
    The U.S. Southern Command established a human rights policy 
in 1990, a human rights office in 1995, and began to promote a 
human rights initiative, ``Measuring Progress in Respect for 
Human Rights,'' with the military forces of the nations in its 
area of responsibility in 1997. By 2002, every Western 
Hemisphere nation except Cuba had contributed to the 
initiative's consensus statement that respect for human rights 
is a fundamental component of a democracy and a precondition 
for true security. Since then, the ministers of defense of 
eight Western Hemisphere nations have committed to implement 
the Human Rights Initiative within their military forces.
    The Department of Defense requested this authority. The 
committee understands that this center would not duplicate any 
work that the Command or the U.S. Government is already 
conducting.

Inclusion of commanders of Western Hemisphere combatant commands in 
        Board of Visitors of Western Hemisphere Institute for Security 
        Cooperation (sec. 935)

    The Board of Visitors (BOV) of the Western Hemisphere 
Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), established in 
2001 as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) includes in its 
membership the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which 
has responsibility for the countries of Latin America and the 
Caribbean. On October 1, 2002 the United States Northern 
Command (NORTHCOM) was established. This command has 
responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, 
Mexico, and adjoining waters to approximately 500 nautical 
miles (including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Cuba, 
and the Bahamas). NORTHCOM is also responsible for theater 
security cooperation with Canada and Mexico. Participation by 
Mexican military personnel in classes at WHINSEC is part of the 
military-to-military contact between the United States and 
Mexico, and since NORTHCOM was established, a component of the 
command's security cooperation with Mexico.
    In order to reflect the fact that there are now two 
geographic commands with responsibility in the Western 
Hemisphere, the committee recommends a provision that would 
ensure that all combatant commanders with responsibility for 
the Western Hemisphere are members of the WHINSEC BOV.

Comptroller General assessment of proposed reorganization of the office 
        of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (sec. 936)

    Last year the committee was informed that the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy had approved a reorganization 
of his office. In support of his reorganization, the Department 
of Defense (DOD) requested authority from Congress to establish 
an additional Assistant Secretary position. In section 901 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), Congress granted this 
authority. However, the conference report noted the committee's 
concerns regarding several components of the proposed 
reorganization.
    These concerns included: (1) the role of a global war on 
terrorism task force that reports directly to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy; (2) the placement of 
``Strategic Capabilities'' under the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (ASD) for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict 
(SOLIC); (3) the placement of ``Forces Transformation and 
Resources'' under the ASD for SOLIC; (4) the very large span of 
responsibilities for a Deputy ASD (DASD) for 
``Counternarcotics, Counterproliferation, and Global Threats''; 
(5) the potential impact on the counternarcotics program 
execution; (6) the unique placement of both functional and 
regional issue responsibilities under one ASD for Homeland 
Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; and (7) the role of the 
DASD for ``Building Partnership Capacity Strategy,'' relative 
to a DASD for ``Security Cooperation Operations.'' The 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 
defense committees by February 1, 2007, a report on the 
reorganization.
    On February 1, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy provided the report mandated by the conferees. Although 
the report provides additional detail on the background and 
rationale for the reorganization, it does not fully address the 
committees' concerns about whether the reorganization will 
improve oversight of issues within the purview of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy, nor does it dispel all of the 
specific concerns enumerated in the conference report regarding 
section 901.
    On March 26, 2007, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities held a briefing on the reorganization, focusing 
primarily on the impact on the Office of the ASD SOLIC and U.S. 
Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The briefing raised further 
questions regarding whether the Department's policy management 
of special operations and low intensity conflict activities is 
currently consistent with the intent, if not the letter, of 
section 138(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, which 
mandates the principal duty of the ASD SOLIC.
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Governmental Accountability Office to assess the impact of the 
reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy. This report should assess:
          (1) Whether the reorganization furthers its stated 
        purpose, in the short- and long-term--namely the 
        Department's ability to address current security 
        priorities including the war in Iraq and the global war 
        on terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the 
        management of geopolitical defense relationships, and 
        to anticipate future strategic shifts;
          (2) Whether, and to what extent, the proposed 
        reorganization adheres to generally accepted principles 
        of effective organization such as establishing clear 
        goals, identifying clear lines of authority and 
        accountability, and developing an effective human 
        capital strategy;
          (3) The extent to which DOD has developed detailed 
        implementation plans, and the status of the 
        implementation of all aspects of the reorganization;
          (4) The extent to which DOD has worked to mitigate 
        congressional concerns and address other challenges 
        that have arisen since the reorganization was 
        announced;
          (5) How the Department plans to evaluate progress in 
        achieving the stated goals of the proposed 
        reorganization and what metrics, if any, it has 
        established to assess results;
          (6) the impact on the ability of the ASD SOLIC to 
        carry out his/her principal duty as mandated by title 
        10; and
          (7) the impact of the seven issues identified in the 
        conference report for the John Warner National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Conference 
        Report 109-702).
                      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 proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget 
request. Transfers of funds between military personnel 
authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar 
limitation in this provision.
Authorization of additional emergency supplemental appropriations for 
        fiscal year 2007 (sec. 1002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional supplemental appropriations for operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and for other purposes, for fiscal year 2007.
Modification of fiscal year 2007 general transfer authority (sec. 1003)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
transfer authority provided in section 1001 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) by exempting the transfer of funds previously 
approved by the committee for the training of Iraqi security 
forces (FY07-07-R PA) and for the Joint Improvised Explosives 
Defeat Device Fund (FY7-11 PA), and the future transfer of 
funds to restore the sources used in those two reprogrammings, 
from the dollar limitation in that provision. The transfers of 
funds in these reprogrammings were intended to advance funding 
for these purposes pending the passage of a supplemental 
appropriations act.
United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 
        2008 (sec. 1004)
    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 to authorize 
the U.S. contribution to NATO common-funded budgets for fiscal 
year 2008, including the use of unexpended balances from prior 
years.
Financial management transformation initiative for the Defense Agencies 
        (sec. 1005)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to carry out an initiative for financial 
management transformation in the defense agencies.
    The Department initiated a Defense Agencies Initiative 
(DAI) for this purpose in October 2006. The provision 
recommended by the committee would codify the DAI, to ensure 
that this effort does not lapse at the end of the current 
administration.
Repeal of requirement for two-year budget cycle for the Department of 
        Defense (sec. 1006)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145) for the Department of 
Defense to submit a biennial budget as part of the President's 
budget request for even-numbered fiscal years.
    While the committee remains supportive of the concept of 
biennial budgeting and the potential it has to improve 
congressional oversight, the committee also recognizes that for 
biennial budgeting to deliver these potential benefits, there 
must be a comprehensive biennial federal budget process, 
including biennial budget resolutions and appropriations acts. 
Although the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives have produced biennial defense 
authorization bills, most notably in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 
100-180), no progress has been made on the conversion of the 
entire federal budget process to biennial budgeting during the 
two decades since the enactment of this requirement for a 
biennial defense budget. Under these circumstances the 
committee believes the existing requirement no longer serves a 
useful purpose.
Extension of period for transfer of funds to Foreign Currency 
        Fluctuations, Defense account (sec. 1007)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend from 
2 to 5 fiscal years the length of time by which funds can be 
transferred back to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, 
Defense'' (FCFD) appropriation account to offset losses caused 
by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. This would 
better align the time frame for the transfer of funds to the 
FCFD appropriation with the time frames needed for the 
completion or close-out of contracts and projects.
    Section 2779 of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Department of Defense to transfer funds to the FCFD account 
to offset losses caused by fluctuations in foreign currency 
exchange rates. Funds previously transferred out of the FCFD 
account to pay such obligations may be transferred back into 
the FCFD when those funds are not needed. Unobligated amounts 
of funds appropriated for operation and maintenance and 
military personnel also may be transferred to the FCFD account. 
Current law authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer 
funding for no more than 2 years prior to the current fiscal 
year.
    Projects and contracts may take longer than 2 years to 
complete. As a result, it may not be possible to determine, 
with any degree of certainty, that funds previously transferred 
out of the FCFD account will no longer be needed to meet 
obligations associated with foreign currency fluctuations. This 
provision would expand the time frame to 5 years, thus allowing 
additional time for the completion or close-out of projects and 
contracts and the identification of funds available for return 
to the FCFD account.
    Similarly, because more than 2 years may be needed to 
complete contracts and liquidate claims, 2 years may not be 
sufficient to identify unobligated amounts of funds 
appropriated for operation and maintenance and military 
personnel funds that would be available for transfer to the 
FCFD account. Therefore, this provision would also extend the 
transfer time frame to 5 years for these funds. This would 
allow for more certainty in the identification of funds 
available for transfer and reduce the risk that there will be 
insufficient funds to cover foreign currency fluctuation 
requirements.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

Expansion of Department of Defense authority to provide support for 
        counter-drug activities to certain additional foreign 
        governments (sec. 1011)
    The committee recommends a provision to extend authority to 
the Department of Defense to provide support to Mexico and the 
Dominican Republic for their counterdrug activities.
    According to the Department of Defense, over 90 percent of 
the drugs entering the United States come from or via Mexico. 
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has made fighting the drug 
cartels and corruption a focus of his administration. The 
Mexican military lacks the ability to monitor and control air, 
maritime, and land approaches to Mexico and the security forces 
need better intelligence-sharing capabilities, among other 
things.
    The Dominican Republic has become, over the last 2 years, a 
more significant transshipment point for cocaine traveling to 
the United States from Venezuela. The Dominican security forces 
lack air, land, and sea mobility, as well as communications and 
information processing.
    The committee, therefore, recommends that counterdrug 
training and equipment be provided for Mexico and Venezuela 
under the existing law governing such Department of Defense 
activities.

         Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

Enhancement of authority to pay rewards for assistance in combating 
        terrorism (sec. 1021)
    The committee recommends a provision that would increase, 
for 1 year, the amounts of the monetary rewards that are 
available to the Department of Defense for assistance in 
combating terrorism. The maximum reward amount available to the 
Secretary of Defense or a delegated Under Secretary of Defense 
would be $5.0 million, and the maximum amount available to 
combatant commanders would increase to $1.0 million. The 
Secretary of Defense would be required to consult with the 
Secretary of State regarding a reward over $2.0 million.
Repeal of modification of authorities relating to the use of the Armed 
        Forces in major public emergencies (sec. 1022)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) and revive the 
provisions amended by that section as they were in effect prior 
to the effective date of that act. Section 1076 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act clarified the 
Insurrection Act, section 333 of title 10, United States Code; 
authorized the provision of supplies, services, and equipment 
necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property 
under chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code; and amended 
section 12304(c) of title 10, United States Code, to remove a 
restriction on the use of the Presidential Selected Reserve 
Callup Authority in chapter 15 or natural disaster situations.
    The intent of section 1076 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act was to clarify and update the so-
called Insurrection Act. Section 1076 was never intended to 
provide additional authority to the President to employ the 
armed forces inside the United States to restore public order 
when domestic violence occurred to such an extent that State 
authorities were not able to enforce the laws and protect the 
legal rights of its people beyond what existed under the 
provisions of title 10, United States Code, that were updated. 
However, concerns have been expressed by governors of the 
States and others that this provision expanded the President's 
authority to federalize the National Guard during certain 
emergencies and disasters. The committee recommends repeal of 
this provision to allow further examination of this issue.
    The committee directs the Commission on the National Guard 
and Reserves to examine the clarity of section 333 of title 10, 
United States Code, and the related provisions of law amended 
by section 1076, as they would be restored by this provision, 
and assess whether section 1076 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act inadvertently expanded this authority 
in any way. The Commission should include its findings and any 
recommendations in its final report to Congress, which is due 
no later than January 31, 2008.
Procedures for Combatant Status Review Tribunals; modification of 
        military commission authorities (sec. 1023)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of Public Law 109-148) 
by requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct Combatant 
Status Review Tribunals to determine the status of detainees 
who have been held by the Department of Defense as unlawful 
enemy combatants for more than 2 years. The provision would 
establish requirements for the procedures to be used by such 
tribunals.
    In addition, the provision recommended by the committee 
would amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-366) 
to clarify: (1) the definition of the term ``unlawful enemy 
combatant''; (2) the rules regarding statements in which the 
degree of coercion is disputed; and (3) the admissibility of 
hearsay evidence.
Gift acceptance authority (sec. 1024)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) make 
permanent the gift acceptance authority in section 2601(b) of 
title 10, United States Code; and (2) require the Secretary of 
Defense to prescribe regulations prohibiting the solicitation 
of any gift by the Department of Defense (DOD) if the nature or 
circumstances of the solicitation would compromise the 
integrity or the appearance of integrity of any DOD program or 
official.
    Section 374 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) added a new subsection 
(b) to section 2601, authorizing DOD to accept gifts on behalf 
of wounded members of the military, civilian employees, and 
their dependents. This authority is scheduled to expire on 
December 31, 2007. The provision recommended by the committee 
would make the new gift acceptance authority permanent, while 
requiring the issuance of regulations regarding the 
solicitation of gifts to ensure that the authority is not 
abused.
Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for management of cultural 
        resources (sec. 1025)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
that the authority of the Secretary of Defense or the secretary 
of a military department to enter into a cooperative agreement 
for the preservation, management, maintenance, and improvement 
of cultural resources extends to cultural resources located off 
a military installation, if the cooperative agreement would 
relieve or eliminate current or anticipated restrictions on 
military training, testing, or operations.
Minimum annual purchase amounts for airlift from carriers participating 
        in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1026)
    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). Awarding sufficient guaranteed amounts of the 
Department's peacetime business has been an essential method of 
strengthening the Department's partnership with industry 
participants in the CRAF program. Opportunities to increase the 
long-term viability of the CRAF program are possible through 
low risk increases to guaranteed minimum levels of business. 
This provision would authorize the Department to guarantee a 
minimum level of peacetime business for the CRAF participants, 
based on annual forecast needs, capped at a maximum of 80 
percent of the annual average expenditures of peacetime airlift 
for the prior 5-year period.
Provision of Air Force support and services to foreign military and 
        state aircraft (sec. 1027)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of the Air Force permanent authority to provide 
supplies and services to military and state aircraft of a 
foreign country. Supplies and services would be provided to a 
foreign country on a reimbursable basis without an advance of 
funds if similar supplies and services are furnished to U.S. 
military or other state aircraft by that country. The provision 
would provide that routine airport services may be provided on 
a non-reimbursable basis at no cost to the foreign country if 
providing those services does not result in any direct costs to 
the Air Force, or the services are provided under an agreement 
by which the foreign country has agreed to provide on a 
reciprocal basis routine airport services to U.S. military or 
other state aircraft without reimbursement. The provision would 
stipulate that if routine airport services are provided by a 
working capital fund activity of the Air Force to a foreign 
country on a non-reimbursable basis under an agreement with 
that country, the working capital fund activity will be 
reimbursed for the costs of those services out of Air Force 
Operation and Maintenance funds.
Participation in Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership (sec. 1028)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to enter into a multilateral 
memorandum of understanding authorizing the Strategic Airlift 
Capability Partnership for the purposes of acquiring, 
operating, and supporting strategic airlift aircraft. The 
provision would permit the Secretary of Defense to pay the U.S. 
share of the costs of the activities and operations of the 
Partnership from funds available to the Department of Defense 
for this purpose. The provision provides that the Secretary of 
Defense, in carrying out the terms of the memorandum of 
understanding, is authorized to waive reimbursement of the 
United States for the cost of certain functions performed by 
Department personnel for the Partnership and waive imposition 
of surcharges for administrative services provided by the 
United States that otherwise would be charged to the 
Partnership. The provision would also authorize the payment of 
salaries and other expenses of Department personnel assigned to 
the Partnership without reimbursement or cost sharing for those 
expenses. The provision provides for the crediting of amounts 
received by the United States in carrying out the memorandum. 
The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer one strategic airlift aircraft to the Strategic 
Airlift Capability Partnership under the terms and conditions 
to be agreed to in the memorandum of understanding. The 
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees not later than 
30 days before transferring a strategic airlift aircraft to the 
Partnership. The report would include information on the type 
and tail number of the aircraft to be transferred.
    The committee notes the growing strategic airlift 
requirements of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
members and coalition partners, including those resulting from 
NATO's International Security Assistance Force mission in 
Afghanistan. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe's Minimum 
Military Requirements study for the NATO Response Force (NRF) 
identifies an NRF requirement for the equivalent of eight C-17 
aircraft to meet airlift needs. The committee expects the 
Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership to give priority to 
meeting airlift requirements associated with NATO missions.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees evaluating the 
alternatives for strategic airlift aircraft to be transferred 
to the Partnership not later than 30 days prior to the transfer 
of a strategic airlift aircraft under this section. The report 
should include the extent to which each aircraft would meet the 
Partnership requirements, and the total cost to the United 
States Government associated with the transfer of each 
aircraft. The committee believes that total cost should be 
determined based on procurement, operating, and support costs. 
The committee further believes that for aircraft that are 
excess to United States Transportation Command inventory 
requirements, procurement costs should be limited to those 
costs necessary to refurbish and upgrade the aircraft to meet 
the Partnership's requirements.
    The committee notes that establishment of the Strategic 
Airlift Capability Partnership would require the creation of 
new organizational structures within NATO. The committee 
expects to be kept informed on the progress of negotiating and 
concluding the memorandum of understanding authorized under 
this provision and any agreement establishing a subsidiary body 
within NATO to carry out that memorandum.
Responsibility of the Air Force for fixed-wing support of Army intra-
        theater logistics (sec. 1029)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, to prescribe directives or instructions to 
provide that the Air Force will be responsible for the missions 
and functions of fixed-wing support for Army intra-theater 
logistics.
    The budget request included $157.0 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA, line 1) for buying the Joint Cargo 
Aircraft (JCA). The budget request also included $42.4 million 
in PE 41138F for Air Force activities related to joint Live 
Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) and Initial Operational Test 
and Evaluation (IOT&E) programs, initiating an Air Force 
mission equipment integration design/development program, 
buying test aircraft, and engineering, training, and logistics 
support studies and analysis. The budget request did not 
include any funding in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) 
for the JCA program.
    The Army and the Air Force established the JCA program to 
correct operational shortfalls to cargo mission requirements, 
provide commonality with other aviation platforms, and replace 
multiple retiring aircraft systems. In the Senate report 
accompanying S. 2744 (S. Rept. 109-254) of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), the committee noted that the appropriate aircraft 
mix and the number of intra-theater aircraft assets required 
for this mission had not been determined and had not been 
addressed in the Mobility Capabilities Study. The Department of 
Defense has been conducting an Intra-Theater Lift Capability 
Study and Force Mix Study to identify the right mix and number 
of intra-theater aircraft assets required, but has not yet 
produced any results from those efforts.
    Whatever those analyses show, however, the more fundamental 
question is whether this should be a joint program between the 
Army and the Air Force, or whether this fixed-wing, intra-
theater lift mission should be assigned solely to the Air 
Force.
    The committee has heard frequent anecdotes from Army 
officials about the lack of logistics support they feel has 
been provided by the Air Force operating the C-130 aircraft in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. However, when invited to provide concrete 
examples that would give substance to the assertions, the Army 
was not forthcoming. Without concrete examples, there is no way 
to tell if the perceived shortage of support was due to other 
Air Force priorities, or whether the Air Force operators were 
fully engaged in supporting the priorities of the overall 
ground component commander. If there were a pattern of the 
joint forces air component commander (JFACC) providing support 
that did not match the priorities of the joint forces land 
component commander (JFLCC), that would certainly argue for 
intervention of the joint forces commander to correct the 
situation. It would not be a persuasive argument that the JFLCC 
should have his own air force.
    Unfortunately, these arguments have a familiar ring--``I 
can't count on it in wartime if I don't own it all the time.'' 
These were among the loudest arguments against making the 
reforms included in the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
    The committee believes that the Air Force is better 
positioned to provide this type of support in wartime and in 
peacetime, and believes that the Army would be better served to 
focus its scarce resources on those missions and functions for 
which it is uniquely qualified and which are demonstrably 
underfunded.
    The committee, therefore, recommends this provision, a 
decrease of $157.0 million in APA, and an increase of $157.0 
million in APAF to continue the JCA program in the current 
schedule.
Prohibition on sale of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft (sec. 1030)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the sale of F-14 fighter aircraft parts, with an exception for 
sales to museums or other such organizations involved in 
restoring F-14 aircraft for historical purposes.
    The provision would also prohibit the issuance of any 
export license for such parts.

                          Subtitle D--Reports

Renewal of submittal of plans for prompt global strike capability (sec. 
        1041)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
3 fiscal years--2007, 2008, and 2009--the annual report on 
prompt global strike capabilities required by section 1032 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
(Public Law 108-136).
Report on threats to the United States from ungoverned areas (sec. 
        1042)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, in 
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to 
report on the threat posed to the United States by ungoverned 
areas, especially as they relate to terrorist groups and 
individuals who aim their activities at the United States and 
its allies.
    The report should describe the intelligence capabilities 
and the skills that the U.S. Government must have to support 
U.S. policy aimed at managing these threats, the extent to 
which the Departments of Defense and State already have these 
capabilities, and what if anything needs to be done to improve 
the two departments' capabilities in this area.
    The committee notes, on a related subject, that section 
1035 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) directed the President to 
submit a report on improving interagency civil-military support 
for U.S. national security missions, including peace and 
stability operations. The report was due on April 1, 2007, but 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services has not received it.
Study on national security interagency system (sec. 1043)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with an 
independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization to conduct a 
study on the national security interagency system.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Revised nuclear posture review (sec. 1061)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy, to conduct a review of the nuclear posture of the 
United States for the next 5 to 10 years. The new nuclear 
posture review (NPR) would be submitted to Congress in December 
2009.
    The last NPR was conducted at the outset of the Bush 
administration in December 2001. The committee believes that it 
is imperative that the next administration clearly articulate 
its nuclear policy at the outset of its tenure. The new NPR 
would include a review of the policy objectives with respect to 
nuclear forces and weapons and include the relationship among 
United States nuclear deterrence policy, targeting strategy, 
and arms control objectives. In addition the new NPR would look 
at the role that missile defense capabilities and conventional 
strike forces play in determining the size and role of nuclear 
forces.
    The elements in the provision recommended by the committee 
are identical to the elements that were required to be 
addressed in the December 2001 NPR. The committee notes that 
the provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to 
submit the new NPR in an unclassified form with a classified 
annex as necessary. Although the Secretary of Defense was 
directed to submit the December 2001 NPR in an unclassified 
form, unfortunately this never happened.

Termination of Commission on the Implementation of the New Strategic 
        Posture of the United States (sec. 1062)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). The provision directed 
the Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with a 
federally funded research and development center to provide for 
the organization, management, and support of the commission on 
the implementation of the new strategic posture. The commission 
was charged with looking at the programmatic requirements of 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to achieve the goals of the 
December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), including the 
requirements process, and the ability of the current nuclear 
stockpile to address the evolving strategic threat environment 
through 2008. The commission's report was originally due on 
June 30, 2007, and in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) the 
due date was extended to November 2007.
    The DOD has not yet entered into this contract. The 
committee believes that the intended scope and focus of the 
report, which are actions of this administration and threats 
through 2008, the fact that the commission has not yet started 
its work, and the short time remaining until the term of the 
commission expires, means that the commission's report would no 
longer be timely or meaningful. In lieu of this commission the 
committee has recommended a provision that would direct the 
next administration to prepare a new NPR. This document will 
provide forward-looking policy guidance for the actions of the 
next administration.

Communications with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
        the House of Representatives (sec. 1063)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the organizations within the U.S. intelligence community 
provide timely responses to requests by the Armed Services 
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives for 
intelligence assessments, reports, estimates, legal opinions, 
and other information. The provision would also require that 
intelligence officials be able to provide testimony before the 
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives without having to seek approval or clearance of 
such testimony as a way of ensuring that Congress receives the 
independent views of such officials.

Repeal of standards for disqualification from issuance of security 
        clearances by the Department of Defense (sec. 1064)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 986 of title 10, United States Code, which establishes 
mandatory standards for the disqualification of individuals 
from the issuance of security clearances. The Department of 
Defense requested the repeal of this provision on the basis 
that the mandatory standards ``unduly limit the ability of the 
Department to manage its security clearance program and may 
create unwarranted hardships for individuals who have 
rehabilitated themselves as productive and trustworthy 
citizens.''

Advisory panel on Department of Defense capabilities for support of 
        civil authorities after certain incidents (sec. 1065)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory panel to carry 
out a 12 month assessment of the capabilities of the Department 
of Defense to provide support to civil authorities in the event 
of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield 
explosive (CBRNE) incident.
    The committee notes that although the Department has met 
the U.S. Northern Command requirements for forces to be made 
available to support civil authorities should a domestic CBRNE 
incident occur, the Department acknowledges that it has become 
increasingly difficult to meet all expected requirements 
because of the high pace of current military operations 
overseas. These operations may include the forces that would be 
directed to support civil authorities for CBRNE incidents. In 
addition, the Government Accountability Office recently 
reported that even though 12 of the 15 National Planning 
Scenarios issued by the Homeland Security Council involve CBRNE 
response, the ability of Army chemical and biological units, 
especially National Guard and reserve units, to concurrently 
perform both their original warfighting mission and their 
homeland defense mission is doubtful.

Sense of Congress on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security 
        Cooperation (sec. 1066)

    The committee recommends a provision that expresses the 
sense of Congress that the Western Hemisphere Institute for 
Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) is an invaluable training and 
education facility.
    WHINSEC was established in 2001 by the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 
Law 106-398) to provide training and education for eligible 
military personnel, law enforcement officials, and civilians 
from the United States and other nations of the Western 
Hemisphere. The primary language of instruction is Spanish, 
which makes the institute potentially accessible to a broader 
group of officials in Latin America and the Caribbean than most 
other U.S. professional military education institutions. The 
institute supports military-to-military and political-military 
relations between the United States and the governments of the 
Western Hemisphere, which today, with the exception of Cuba, 
are all democratic. The new institute, established when the 
School of the Americas closed in December 2000, incorporates 
issues of human rights and democracy in its curriculum, and has 
a Board of Visitors providing oversight, as mandated by the 
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398).

Technical amendments to title 10, United States Code, arising from 
        enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
        Act of 2004 (sec. 1067)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical amendments to title 10, United States Code, to 
reflect changes made in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004.

Establishment of National Foreign Language Coordination Council (sec. 
        1068)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
National Foreign Language Coordination Council to develop and 
monitor the implementation of a comprehensive national foreign 
language strategy. The strategy shall include: (1) an 
identification of priorities to expand foreign language skills 
in the public and private sectors; (2) recommendations for 
improving coordination of foreign language programs and 
activities among federal agencies, enhancing foreign language 
programs and activities, and allocating resources appropriately 
to maximize the use of resources; (3) effective ways to 
increase public awareness of the need for foreign language 
skills and career paths in the public and private sectors that 
can employ those skills; (4) recommendations for incentives for 
developing related educational programs, including foreign 
language teacher training; and (5) effective ways to coordinate 
public and private sector efforts to provide foreign language 
instruction and acquire foreign language and area expertise. 
The Council shall prepare and transmit the strategy to the 
President and the relevant committees of Congress not later 
than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
    The committee recognizes that deficits in foreign language 
and regional expertise undermine U.S. national security. On 
January 5, 2006, the President launched the National Security 
Language Initiative (NSLI) to increase the number of Americans 
learning critical foreign languages through new and expanded 
programs from kindergarten through university and into the 
workforce. The committee acknowledges that the NSLI is a 
positive step toward immediately expanding critical foreign 
language skills to strengthen national security. However, the 
committee believes that a longer-term strategic effort is 
needed to increase language and cultural competency in the 
United States, and that NSLI needs to be administered by a 
formalized council in order to ensure continued progress.

Qualifications for public aircraft status of aircraft under contract 
        with the Armed Forces (sec. 1069)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of Defense the flexibility to determine whether an 
operational support mission can be conducted as a civil 
operation in compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations. 
The applicable part of the current definition of public 
aircraft under section 40102 of title 49, United States Code, 
would be expanded to include such operational missions. These 
could include flights involving activities such as parachute 
training, carriage of sling loads, or target towing.
    The provision would also amend section 40125 of title 49, 
United States Code, to reference such missions. The Secretary 
of Defense currently has the authority to determine when 
chartered transportation is a civil or public aircraft 
operation through a designation under section 40125(c)(1)(C).
    With adoption of this provision, the Secretary of Defense 
would have the same authority regarding operational support 
missions. If the Secretary were not to designate an aircraft 
chartered to provide operational support as being in the 
national interest (and thus a public aircraft operation), such 
operation would be a civil operation and would have to comply 
with applicable Federal Aviation Administration civil safety 
regulations.

                       Items of Special Interest


Certification of no pecuniary interest

    The committee notes that the Legislative Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2007 (S. 1) would require a Senator who 
requests an earmark to certify that neither the Senator (nor 
his spouse) has a pecuniary interest in such earmark in 
violation of Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Although S. 1 has not yet 
been enacted, the committee has requested that each member 
requesting funds in this bill provide the certification that 
would be required by S. 1. The committee has received the 
requested certification from each Senator requesting funding 
for a program, project, or activity that is provided in this 
bill.
    The committee takes no position as to which of these items, 
if any, constitute earmarks under the definition in S. 1 or any 
other definition. 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.

Intelligence community operations

    In March 2005, and April 2006, respectively, the Department 
of Defense (DOD) established the Joint Functional Component 
Command for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 
(JFCC-ISR) and the Defense Joint Intelligence Operations Center 
(DJIOC). These organizations are co-located at the Defense 
Intelligence Agency's (DIA) headquarters and are becoming 
highly integrated. Together they serve as a ``J-3'' 
(operations) for DOD intelligence. They perform collection 
management, asset allocation, situational awareness, 
intelligence campaign planning, assessments of intelligence 
operations, tasking, and coordination with the Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and other elements of 
the U.S. Government.
    The capabilities of these organizations appear to be 
maturing rapidly, but there is a major impediment to the full 
realization of their potential: the lack of any similar 
organization under the DNI. The DNI has tasking authority by 
law and executive order for both collection and analysis of 
national intelligence, but has limited and fragmented resources 
for exercising this vital role.
    As a result of intelligence reforms since 9/11, the DNI has 
established additional community centers and a series of 
``mission managers'' to focus resources on specific missions or 
targets and to integrate activities and capabilities across the 
intelligence agencies and disciplines (e.g., signals 
intelligence, human intelligence, and imagery intelligence). 
However, there does not appear to be a structure or a process 
for allocating scarce resources among these joint entities. 
Analysis and collection similarly only come together at the 
level of the DNI himself. Single-discipline tasking 
organizations are located within individual agencies, and in 
some cases are further fragmented.
    The Commander of United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) 
has expressed concern that the absence of a coherent and 
integrated operations structure on the DNI side makes the job 
of the DJIOC and JFCC-ISR more difficult.
    The DNI now has representation at the DJIOC, and his staff 
is gaining an understanding of the value of such structures and 
the role they are playing. However, much more needs to be done 
to enable the national intelligence community to operate more 
efficiently, effectively, and jointly, both across the national 
intelligence community and with the Department of Defense.
    The committee requests that the DNI, in coordination with 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the 
Commander of STRATCOM, examine ways to enhance the 
effectiveness of the DNI's tasking authorities by creating a 
joint operations organization that centralizes and integrates 
community tasking operations, resource allocations, situational 
awareness, collection management, and crisis response. This 
operations organization could build on the DOD DJIOC/JFCC-ISR 
model and organization. The committee requests that a summary 
of the DNI's conclusions on this matter be provided to the 
congressional defense and intelligence oversight committees by 
January 15, 2008.

Language and cultural awareness initiatives review

    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
received testimony which highlighted the growing need for our 
operational forces to have improved language and cultural 
awareness capabilities. The committee is aware that the 
Department of Defense has undertaken a set of high level 
studies on this issue, including through the Defense Science 
Board, and established initiatives in this area--including the 
Defense Language Roadmap and a number of training and 
technology development programs. The committee is supportive of 
these efforts in general and believes that a combination of 
training and education and research and technology will have 
the best chance of producing deployable forces with the 
requisite language and cultural awareness skills. The committee 
remains concerned that the Department's efforts are not as 
effective as they could be and may be underresourced.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
review Department plans for the development of language and 
cultural awareness capabilities and report to the congressional 
defense committees no later than December 31, 2008. The review 
should include an assessment of Department long- and short-term 
programs and plans; funding allocations; establishment and use 
of metrics for success; and plans for training, acquisition, 
and research programs to address needs in current operations. 
The review should examine the consistency of Department efforts 
with high level vision and mission statements and validated 
requirements, as well as recommendations by major independent 
studies of the Department's language and cultural awareness 
capabilities.

Nuclear cruise missiles

    In fiscal year 2007 the Department of Defense decided to 
retire the Air Force's Advance Cruise Missile (ACM) and a 
portion of the Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM). These are 
two of three types of cruise missiles that carry the same 
nuclear warhead. The third nuclear cruise missile is the Navy's 
nuclear Tomahawk (TLAM-N). The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to conduct a review of the remaining nuclear cruise 
missiles and submit a plan with a time line to retire these 
remaining missiles. The plan should be submitted with the 
budget request for fiscal year 2009.

Reporting and remediation of Anti-Deficiency Act violations

    On January 17, 2007, the Acting Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) testified before the Subcommittee 
on Readiness and Management Support that his office had 
identified 107 potential Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) violations 
in DOD contracting through four non-defense agencies. As of the 
date of the hearing, a follow-up audit of DOD contracting 
through the Department of the Interior had identified at least 
250 additional potential ADA violations, 189 of which occurred 
after officials had been warned against the continued use of 
expired funds.
    The committee is concerned about the volume of potential 
ADA violations in these interagency transactions, the pace and 
transparency of investigations of these potential violations, 
and the procedures used to elevate findings of initial 
investigations. For example, the committee understands that the 
preliminary investigation of a potential violation may be 
carried out by personnel within the organizational unit 
responsible for the violation.
    The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to review DOD procedures for identifying, reporting, 
preventing, and investigating potential ADA violations, 
including: (1) the adequacy of current procedures utilized for 
preliminary and formal investigations of potential ADA 
violations; (2) the transparency both inside and outside DOD of 
the investigation process; (3) the independence and 
qualifications of personnel utilized at each stage of an 
investigation of potential ADA violations; (4) the timeliness 
of investigations of potential ADA violations; (5) the adequacy 
of ADA training provided to the Department's military and 
civilian personnel; (6) the effectiveness of existing measures 
for the prevention of ADA violations; and (7) the use and 
adequacy of available disciplinary measures for ADA violations. 
The committee expects GAO to report its findings and 
recommendations to the congressional defense committees not 
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

Ship disposal

    Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, requires that 
the Secretary of Defense submit an annual report on the long-
range plan for Navy shipbuilding. This naval vessel 
construction plan is to include a description of the necessary 
naval vessel force structure to meet the requirements of the 
national security strategy of the United States. The ``Annual 
Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels'' report to 
Congress submitted with the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2008, describes the Department of the Navy's 
requirements for a force of ``about 313 ships.'' The report 
identifies that the Navy will experience shortfalls to 
expeditionary warfare, aircraft carrier, attack submarine, and 
surface combatant ship classes for various durations throughout 
the 30-year period of the long-range plan.
    Section 7308 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Chief of Naval Operations to certify, prior to disposal of a 
combatant vessel of the Navy, that the combatant vessel to be 
disposed is not essential to the defense of the United States. 
In calendar year 2006, the Navy conducted sinking exercises on 
two recently-decommissioned major combatant ships, the ex-
Valley Forge (CG-50) and the ex-Belleau Wood (LHA-3). The 
decision for decommissioning these ships reflected the Navy's 
determination that the operating and support cost for 
maintaining these ships in the active fleet could not be 
justified based on their respective contributions to national 
security requirements. However, the Navy's decision to sink 
these ships, each with relatively significant remaining service 
life and measurable mission relevance, while older and less 
relevant combatant ships are maintained as mobilization assets, 
raises concerns regarding the decision process used to manage 
the Navy's inactive ships.
    In view of these concerns, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to include, as an addendum to the annual 
report on the construction of naval vessels, commencing with 
submission of the report for fiscal year 2009, the future-years 
defense program for the Navy's inactive ships. The addendum 
shall address: (i) hull numbers of ships that are to be 
disposed by dismantling or sinking within the future-years 
defense plan; (ii) hull numbers of ships that are to be 
decommissioned within the future-years defense program; (iii) 
gaps in capability that will occur upon the decommissioning of 
each ship, including duration of that capability gap; and (iv) 
disposition proposed for each ship upon decommissioning.
    In view of the Navy's current inability to meet amphibious 
lift requirements in support of the Marine Corps, the committee 
directs the Navy to maintain decommissioned LHA-1 class 
amphibious assault ships in a reduced operating status until 
such time that the active fleet can deliver 2.0 Marine 
Expeditionary Brigade forcible entry lift capability in 
response to a national emergency. Total forcible lift entry 
capability shall be assessed under the assumption that no less 
than 10 percent of the force will be unavailable due to 
extended duration maintenance availabilities.

Transparency of earmarks for additional funding

    The committee notes that section 2304(k) of title 10, 
United States Code, states that it is the policy of Congress 
that any new contract for a program, project, or technology 
identified in legislation be entered into through merit-based 
selection procedures. Section 2374 of title 10, United States 
Code, establishes the same policy for the award of any new 
grant for research, development, test, or evaluation to a non-
federal entity. Under each statute, the presumption in favor of 
competitive, merit-based awards may only be overcome by a 
provision of law that specifically refers to section 2304 or 
section 2374, that specifically identifies the particular non-
Federal Government entity involved, and that specifically 
states that award to the entity is required notwithstanding the 
policy favoring merit-based selection.
    Although the statutory policy requiring the Department of 
Defense to use merit-based selection processes and the 
presumption in favor of competitive awards for new contracts 
and grants date from 1989 and 1994, respectively, these 
statutes have done little to stem the growing number of 
earmarked projects requested by Congress since their enactment. 
Moreover, these statutes do not address a common form of 
earmark, which is additional funding for existing procurement 
or research and development programs beyond what was requested 
in the President's budget or included on the unfunded 
priorities lists of the military services.
    Therefore, the policy of this committee shall be one of 
disclosure of additional funding for projects and items that 
were not requested in the President's budget, in supplemental 
requests for emergency funding, or on the unfunded priorities 
lists of the military services that are included in the bill 
and conference report. Disclosure shall not be required for 
additional funding that is consistent with the criteria for 
additional funding for military construction projects in 
section 2856 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) or for additional funding 
directed to pay, bonuses, pensions, or other personnel or 
health care benefits for service members or that have a direct 
benefit for service members' families. Information on such 
additional funding shall be provided in the committee report on 
the bill and in the conference report, by electronic means 
easily accessible by the public, and shall include, if 
applicable: the budget account, a description of the project or 
item, the authorized amount, and the name of the requesting 
member for any funding included in the bill as reported by the 
committee, or agreed to by the conferees. Such information 
shall be made available to the general public in an 
electronically searchable format at least 48 hours before 
consideration of the bill or conference report.
    The information provided in this report does not include 
the intended location or intended recipient of such additional 
funding because the committee does not have a complete database 
of that information at this time. It is the committee's intent 
to collect such information from members and to provide it with 
regard to items funded in the conference report on this Act and 
for future years' National Defense Authorization Acts.
    By collecting and reporting information on the locations 
and recipients intended by requesting members, the committee 
does not intend in any way to require that funding be directed 
to such locations or entities. The committee intends that the 
Department comply with all applicable competitive and merit-
based procedures.
                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Compensation for Federal wage system employees for certain travel hours 
        (sec. 1101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5544(a) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize 
compensation of federal wage system employees for hours spent 
traveling while returning from an event that cannot be 
scheduled or controlled administratively. Under current law, 
these employees can be compensated for time spent traveling to 
the event, but not for the return because return travel can be 
scheduled.
Retirement service credit for service as cadet or midshipman at a 
        military service academy (sec. 1102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 8331(13) and 8401(31) of title 5, United States Code, 
to clarify an existing practice of awarding retirement service 
credit for time in service as a cadet or midshipman at a 
military service academy.
Continuation of life insurance coverage for Federal employees called to 
        active duty (sec. 1103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 8706(b) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize 
federal civilian employees who are members of a reserve 
component of the armed forces called or ordered to active duty 
to continue coverage under Federal Employees Group Life 
Insurance for a period not to exceed 24 months.
Department of Defense National Security Personnel System (sec. 1104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would revise the 
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) authorized by section 
1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 (Public Law 108-136) by: (1) excluding wage-grade 
employees of the Department of Defense from NSPS; (2) 
accelerating by 2 years the expiration of the Department's 
authority to modify statutory labor relations requirements; and 
(3) clarifying the treatment of rates of pay established or 
adjusted in accordance with the requirements of the statute.
Authority to waive limitation on premium pay for Federal civilian 
        employees working overseas under areas of United States Central 
        Command (sec. 1105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the head of an executive agency to waive limitations on total 
compensation to an employee who performs certain work while in 
an overseas location within the area of responsibility of the 
Commander of the United States Central Command. The total 
compensation payable to an employee pursuant to such a waiver 
would be limited to $212,100 per calendar year.

Authority for inclusion of certain Office of Defense Research and 
        Engineering positions in experimental personnel program for 
        scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1106)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) to 
utilize more flexible hiring practices to recruit and retain 
high quality scientific talent. The committee notes that this 
authority has been used very successfully by the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency to preserve a world-class 
technical government workforce. The committee notes that the 
Defense Science Board (DSB) in its study entitled ``Roles and 
Authorities of the Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering'' noted that its ``serious concern . . . about 
DDR&E being able to fulfill its responsibilities stems . . . 
from the thinness of the staff.'' The DSB recommended fostering 
``an initiative to improve the technical competence and 
industrial management experience of the leadership and staff in 
the office . . .,'' and recommended that this could be 
accomplished by using the authority created by the recommended 
provision, as well as other mechanisms.

                       Items of Special Interest


Increase in authorized number of employees in the Defense Intelligence 
        Senior Executive Service

    Section 1102 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
required the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan 
to shape and improve the senior management, functional, and 
technical workforce of the Department of Defense (DOD), 
including persons serving in the Defense Intelligence Senior 
Executive Service (DISES). The provision required DOD to submit 
a report on this strategic plan to the congressional defense 
committees no later than March 1, 2007. The required report has 
not yet been provided.
    The DOD legislative proposal for fiscal year 2008 included 
a provision that would increase by 100 the number of DISES 
billets. The requested legislation was justified by the 
observation that civilian personnel levels in the defense 
intelligence components have increased substantially since 
September 11, 2001, while the number of DISES billets has not.
    The assertion that the ratio between DISES billets and 
overall civilian employment numbers should be closer to former 
levels is not alone sufficient to justify the increase. The 
committee notes that the ratio of DISES billets to civilian 
employees on September 11 may not be the appropriate benchmark. 
The increase in civilian employment in the defense intelligence 
components since September 11 followed a decade of decline in 
such employment, but DOD has provided no figures about ratios 
between DISES billets and civilian employment during that 
period.
    In addition, there is a wide variation across the 
intelligence components in the ratio of DISES billets to 
civilian employees. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency 
(NGA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), with civilian 
populations comparable to that of the National Security Agency, 
have only two-thirds the number of DISES that NSA does. NSA has 
a far higher percentage of DISES than any other component, and 
yet would receive a majority of the additional billets 
requested by DOD.
    Moreover, civilian employment has increased throughout DOD 
since September 11, 2001. The number of contractor employees 
performing functions that have previously been performed by 
federal employees has increased even more dramatically. Yet, 
DOD has not proposed any significant increase in the number of 
senior executive personnel outside the intelligence community. 
The committee believes that any increase in the senior 
management, functional, and technical workforce of the 
Department should be made on the basis of sound data and 
strategic planning, not on a piecemeal basis with limited data.
    Accordingly, the committee concludes that it would be 
premature to approve the Department's request for additional 
DISES billets until the Department: (1) provides the strategic 
plan required by section 1102; (2) presents a comprehensive 
proposal that addresses the need for senior personnel 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.

Recruitment, hiring, and retention of Department of Defense civilian 
        medical personnel and faculty and staff of the Uniformed 
        Services University of the Health Sciences

    The committee recognizes that the total force capability of 
military medicine is a combination of uniformed medical 
personnel needed for medical readiness, government civilian 
health care providers, and civilian providers under Department 
of Defense contracts. Military hospital staff at numerous 
locations report that their goal of hiring government civilian 
employees whenever possible is frequently frustrated by low 
salaries and antiquated hiring procedures. For example, one 
Navy facility reported that, while waiting more than 7 months 
for approval to hire a civilian medical professional, qualified 
candidates sought private sector employment elsewhere. This 
pattern, which is repeated throughout military hospitals in the 
United States, hurts military medical readiness and compounds 
shortfalls in uniformed medical personnel. The committee is 
concerned that in many cases, hospital commanders are not aware 
of the civilian hiring tools available to them. The committee 
commends the Office of Personnel Management for promptly 
responding to the Department's request for direct hiring 
authority for certain positions at Walter Reed Army Medical 
Center, but believes that the need for such authority is 
greater than one facility.
    The committee is also concerned by reports that the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) is 
experiencing significant challenges in recruitment and 
retention of high quality faculty and staff because of a cap on 
civilian salaries. The committee believes that recruitment and 
retention of high quality faculty and staff for USUHS is 
essential to ensure that future military physicians are 
adequately prepared to provide quality medical care and 
services for military members and their families, in peacetime 
and in war.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Director, Office of Personnel Management, 
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, not later than September 15, 
2007, on all hiring authorities currently available to the 
Department of Defense for the hiring of government civilian 
medical personnel and faculty and staff for USUHS. The report 
should identify specific salary, allowance, and bonus levels 
that can be offered for each skill level and provide an 
analysis of the appropriateness of such compensation levels 
when compared to compensation offered by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
and private sector employers. In particular, the report should 
address the appropriateness of amounts available for physicians 
comparability allowances under section 5948 of title 5, United 
States Code, and whether expansion of such allowance to 
additional categories of health care professionals and to 
faculty and staff at USUHS would be beneficial to the 
Department of Defense. The report should include an analysis of 
hiring challenges at USUHS, its impact on the mission of the 
University, how USUHS salary caps compare to other federal 
agency salaries for medical faculty and staff, and 
recommendations for addressing the recruiting and retention 
challenges USUHS is experiencing. The report should assess 
whether additional direct hiring authority for certain medical 
and related positions is needed and include a plan to inform 
medical leadership and human resource personnel in the military 
departments of all available hiring authorities and best 
practices in efficient hiring of civilian medical personnel.
             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Authority to equip and train foreign personnel to assist in accounting 
        for missing United States personnel (sec. 1201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
of State, to equip and train foreign personnel to assist in the 
recovery of, and accounting for, missing U.S. personnel.
    The U.S. Pacific Command's Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command 
(JPAC) is an operational agency responsible for worldwide 
research, investigation, evacuations, and remains 
identifications relating to those unaccounted for from past 
conflicts. Since 2001, JPAC has identified the remains of over 
400 missing service members from previous conflicts. Of the 
approximately 88,000 missing from World War II to Vietnam, 
about 19,000 can be recovered. In some instances, foreign 
governments will not allow U.S. personnel to conduct recovery 
and identification missions on their territory. In these cases, 
foreign nations are asked by the United States to assist in 
recovery and accounting efforts, provided the nations have 
trained and equipped personnel.
    No more than $1.0 million in assistance may be provided per 
fiscal year for this purpose.
Extension and enhancement of authority for security and stabilization 
        assistance (sec. 1202)
    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). 
That section authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide the 
Secretary of State with services, defense articles, or funding 
to facilitate the provision by the Secretary of State of 
reconstruction, security, or stabilization assistance to a 
foreign country.
    The provision recommended by the committee would extend the 
authority of section 1207 for 1 year until September 30, 2008, 
and increase the aggregate value of all services, defense 
articles, and funds that may be provided or transferred under 
this section to $200.0 million. The provision would also add a 
requirement for the Secretary of State to coordinate with the 
Secretary of Defense in the formulation and implementation of 
assistance programs that involve the provision of services or 
transfer of defense articles or funds under the authority of 
this section.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has the 
authority to build the capacity of partner nations' military 
forces 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). Section 1206 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of 
the Secretary of State, to use up to $300.0 million of 
Operation and Maintenance funds to conduct or support a program 
to build the capacity of foreign nations' military forces to 
conduct counterterrorism operations or to participate in or 
support military or stability operations in which the United 
States is a participant.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
stated a need to build the capacity of foreign security forces 
other than military forces, such as gendarmerie, constabulary, 
and internal defense forces. The committee notes that the 
Department of State has existing authority to provide 
assistance for these purposes. To date, the Department of 
Defense and the Department of State have failed to coordinate 
in using the authority provided in section 1207 except in a 
limited number of programs. The committee believes that 
assistance for foreign countries to build the capacity of their 
security forces other than military forces could be facilitated 
by the authorities provided in section 1207, and encourages the 
Department of Defense and Department of State to improve 
coordination between the departments to use this authority more 
effectively in the future.
    The committee notes that the authorities of sections 1206 
and 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 were provided in the spirit of a pilot program. 
Consistent with the statement of managers accompanying the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 
the committee intends to review the implementation of these 
authorities carefully to determine whether, and if so, in what 
manner, to re-authorize these or provide other authorities at 
the conclusion of the pilot program.
    The committee stresses that an important factor in its 
consideration of these matters will be the report required by 
subsection 1206(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006. That report addresses recommended 
changes, if any, to current laws governing the provision of 
capacity building assistance; any organizational or procedural 
changes required to improve the conduct of such assistance 
programs; and the resources and funding mechanisms required to 
adequately fund such programs. The committee emphasizes that 
this report is overdue and directs that it be provided 
expeditiously.
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (sec. 1203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $977,441,000 in Operation 
and Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2008 for the Commanders' 
Emergency Response Program (CERP), under which commanders in 
Iraq receive funds for use in small humanitarian and 
reconstruction projects in their areas of responsibility that 
provide immediate assistance to the Iraqi people, and for a 
similar program in Afghanistan. The provision would require the 
Secretary to provide quarterly reports to the congressional 
defense committees on the source, allocation, and use of funds 
pursuant to this authority. The committee expects the quarterly 
reports to include detailed information regarding the amount of 
funds spent, the recipients of the funds, and the specific 
purposes for which the funds were used.
    The committee directs that funds made available pursuant to 
this authority be used in a manner consistent with the CERP 
guidance issued by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
in a memorandum dated February 18, 2005. This guidance directs 
that CERP funds be used to assist the Iraqi and Afghan people 
in the following representative areas: water and sanitation; 
food production and distribution; agriculture; electricity; 
healthcare; education; telecommunications; economic, financial 
and management improvements; transportation; irrigation; rule 
of law and governance; civic cleanup activities; civic support 
vehicles; repair of civic and cultural facilities; and other 
urgent humanitarian or reconstruction projects. The provision 
would require the Secretary to submit to the congressional 
defense committees any modification to the February 18, 2005, 
guidance.
Government Accountability Office report on Global Peace Operations 
        Initiative (sec. 1204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Government Accountability Office, not later than March 1, 2008, 
to examine the President's Global Peace Operation Initiative 
(GPOI). The report would include an assessment of whether, and 
to what extent, the initiative has met the goals set by the 
President at the inception of the program in 2004, and 
recommendations as to any additional measures that could be 
taken to enhance the program in terms of: (1) achieving its 
stated goals; and (2) ensuring that GPOI-trained individuals 
and units are regularly participating in peace operations.
    The GPOI is a 5-year presidential initiative that was 
unveiled at the June 2004 G-8 summit at Sea Island, Georgia and 
is aimed at increasing the number of capable peacekeepers and 
stability police units, to develop means to help countries 
deploy to peace operations. The goal was to train, over 5 
years, 75,000 personnel from various countries--initially 
focused on Africa. At its inception, the committee was informed 
that for each year about 10 battalions would be trained in 
Africa and about five in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and 
Asia. Follow-on training to maintain skills would also be 
planned, a new transportation and logistics support arrangement 
would be created, and a constabulary training center would be 
established. Fifty-six to seventy percent of the funding would 
come from non-U.S. international resources, solicited via the 
G-8.
    In 2005 the existing African Contingency Operations 
Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program (a successor program to 
the African Crisis Response Initiative, or ACRI) was subsumed 
into GPOI and the Italian Government established an 
international training center--the Center of Excellence for 
Stability Police Units--in Vincenza, Italy. As of December 
2006, about 15,000 peacekeepers had been trained under the 
program, and according to the Department of State about 21,000 
have been trained as of April 2007. An additional 54,000 must 
be trained by the end of 2009, when authority for the program 
will expire.
    It is unclear whether the readiness of these troops is 
being monitored or maintained. No depot for caching equipment 
has been established, though this was a program objective and 
there is no transportation logistics support arrangement, as 
originally planned. GPOI appears to remain heavily U.S.-funded, 
focused on the old ACRI-ACOTA program. Participation among the 
G-8 members is uneven and there appears to be no effort to 
solicit partnership with non-G-8 countries such as India, which 
has rich peacekeeping experience and the resources to 
participate in training and other activities. One possible 
challenge to obtaining greater contributions or participation 
in GPOI may be the fact that at the Department of State, GPOI 
appears to be mainly administered by the Africa Bureau, rather 
than the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
    Given the increasing demand for peacekeeping troops--
especially for the United Nations Mission in Sudan--and the 
likelihood that new missions will emerge in the near future, it 
is especially critical to have trained forces in Africa ready 
to respond. The committee's expectation is that troops trained 
by the United States and its partners under GPOI should be 
volunteered by their states to the United Nations, and that 
they would be trained and equipped to deploy, with GPOI 
partners ready to assist via a transportation-logistics support 
arrangement. When the Department of Defense originally sought 
authority and funding for GPOI from the committee, its 
officials asserted that past U.S. training programs--mainly 
focused on African militaries--have resulted in better-trained 
militaries who are also more likely to participate in 
subsequent peace operations. The committee hopes to strengthen 
the likelihood that GPOI will be administered in such a fashion 
and that there will be an expectation, if not a requirement, 
that GPOI training recipient countries contribute troops to 
U.N. missions in the near-term, and that GPOI will increase the 
number of peacekeepers who can remain ready via sustained 
training and equipping programs.

             Subtitle B--Other Authorities and Limitations

Cooperative opportunities documents under cooperative research and 
        development agreements with NATO organizations and other allied 
        and friendly foreign countries (sec. 1211)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical corrections to the statute governing the development 
of international cooperative research and development 
agreements. The committee notes that the provision would make 
the statutory language more consistent with current acquisition 
program terminology and enable the Department of Defense to 
evaluate appropriate international cooperative opportunities at 
an early stage in an acquisition program.
Extension and expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition and 
        cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for 
        personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1212)
    The committee recommends a provision that would expand and 
extend the authority provided under section 1202 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364). Under current law, section 1202 provides 
the Secretary of Defense temporary authority to treat certain 
significant military equipment as logistical support, supplies, 
and services under Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements 
in order to lend such equipment to military forces of foreign 
nations participating in combined operations with the United 
States in Iraq or Afghanistan. The military equipment provided 
under the authority of that section may be used by the foreign 
military forces solely for personnel protection or to aid in 
the personnel survivability of those forces.
    The provision would expand the temporary authority provided 
by that section to permit the use of such equipment by military 
forces of a nation participating in combined operations with 
the United States as part of a peacekeeping operation under the 
Charter of the United Nations or another international 
agreement, such as the Multinational Force and Observers under 
the Treaty of Peace Between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the 
State of Israel of March 26, 1979. The provision would also 
extend the authority provided under that section until 
September 30, 2008.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
expressed an interest in making the temporary authority 
provided under section 1202 permanent. The committee does not 
believe it is desirable to change the definition of the term 
``logistic support, supplies, and services'' as that term 
applies to Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements, which 
are not intended to facilitate the transfer of significant 
military equipment.
Acceptance of funds from the Government of Palau for costs of military 
        Civic Action Teams (sec. 1213)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to accept from the Government of Palau 
$250,000 to defray Department of Defense (DOD) Civic Action 
Team costs, provided it is credited to the specific 
appropriation or account available for the DOD Civic Action 
Teams.
    Under current law, the United States makes available U.S. 
military Civic Action Teams to help Palau and the Marshall 
Islands, in recognition of their development needs. 
Additionally, the Government of Palau was authorized to use 
$250,000 annually of the current account funds provided under 
section 211, title 2 of the Compact of Free Association with 
the Marshall Islands to defray expenditures attendant to the 
operation of the Civic Action Teams. This $250,000 is currently 
returned, annually, to the U.S. Treasury. This provision would 
ensure that the funds would be returned to the DOD Civic Action 
Team account.
Extension of participation of the Department of Defense in 
        multinational military centers of excellence (sec. 1214)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2008 the authority provided under section 
1205 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), permitting Department of 
Defense civilian and military personnel to participate in North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) multinational military 
centers of excellence. The provision would also modify the 
reporting provisions under that section to require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the Armed Services Committees 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives an annual report 
on the use of this authority not later than October 31 of each 
of 2007 and 2008.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
proposed expanding the authority to participate in 
multinational centers of excellence beyond those accredited and 
approved by NATO. To further consider this request, the 
committee urges the Department to provide additional 
information regarding what would constitute a ``center of 
excellence'' outside the NATO context; where such centers exist 
or would be established; what their purpose would be; and what 
additional amount of funds would be required to facilitate U.S. 
participation in such centers.

Limitation on assistance to the Government of Thailand (sec. 1215)

    On September 19, 2006, the Royal Thai Commander-in-Chief 
led a bloodless coup against the democratically elected prime 
minister. The new leaders of Thailand declared their intent to 
hold parliamentary elections in December 2007.
    The coup automatically triggered section 508 of the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-102), which suspends 
U.S. Department of State assistance to ``the government of any 
country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by 
military coup or decree.'' Department of Defense (DOD) funds 
for operations appropriated under section 1206 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) were also suspended, because the 
limitations on that funding include a ban on funding to any 
country that is otherwise prohibited from receiving military 
assistance under any other provision of law. These programs can 
be reinstated after the President determines and certifies that 
a democratically elected government has again taken office.
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
DOD funding to Thailand in fiscal year 2008 until the President 
certifies to the defense committees that a democratically 
elected government has taken office in Thailand. The provision 
would exclude humanitarian or emergency assistance to Thailand, 
and provide a national security interest waiver to the 
President.

Presidential report on policy objectives and United States strategy 
        regarding Iran (sec. 1216)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from obligating more than 75 percent 
of the funds available for fiscal year 2008 to the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy until the report on 
United States policy for Iran, required by section 1213(b) of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), is submitted to Congress.

Limitation on availability of certain funds pending implementation of 
        requirements regarding North Korea (sec. 1217)

    Section 1211 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
directed by the President to appoint a senior coordinator on 
U.S. policy towards North Korea by December 16, 2006. The 
President has not made this appointment. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 
Secretary of Defense from obligating or expending any funds 
authorized to be appropriated under section 1207 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163) until the administration has fully implemented 
section 1211 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

                          Subtitle C--Reports


Reports on United States policy and military operations in Afghanistan 
        (sec. 1231)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report on U.S. policy and military operations in Afghanistan 
not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, and every 
180 days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 2009.
    The provision would require each report to include detailed 
information on: (1) a comprehensive, interagency strategy for 
achieving the objectives of U.S. policy and military operations 
in Afghanistan; (2) efforts to train and equip Afghan Security 
Forces, including key criteria for measuring the capability and 
readiness of such forces; (3) efforts by the United States to 
strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led 
International Security Assistance Force; (4) efforts to improve 
governance and expand economic development in the provinces of 
Afghanistan, including through Provincial Reconstruction Teams; 
(5) current counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, including 
a description of the U.S. counternarcotics plan for Afghanistan 
and a statement of priorities among U.S. counterdrug activities 
within that plan; (6) efforts to aid the Government of 
Afghanistan in fighting public corruption and strengthening the 
rule of law; and (7) diplomatic and other efforts to encourage 
and assist the Government of Pakistan in eliminating safe 
havens for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other violent extremists 
within the territory of Pakistan which threaten the stability 
of Afghanistan. Each report would be submitted in unclassified 
form to the maximum extent practicable, but may include a 
classified annex.

Strategy for enhancing security in Afghanistan by eliminating safe 
        havens for violent extremists in Pakistan (sec. 1232)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President to submit to the congressional defense committees, 
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a report 
describing the U.S. strategy for engaging with the Government 
of Pakistan to prevent the movement of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and 
other violent extremist forces across the Afghanistan-Pakistan 
border and to eliminate their safe havens on the territory of 
Pakistan. The provision would, for each fiscal quarter of 
fiscal years 2008 and 2009, prohibit reimbursement of the 
Government of Pakistan for logistical, military, or other 
support provided to the United States unless the President 
certifies to the congressional defense committees that for that 
fiscal quarter the Government of Pakistan is making substantial 
and sustained efforts to eliminate safe havens for the Taliban, 
Al Qaeda, and other violent extremists in areas under 
Pakistan's sovereign control. The certification would be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
annex. The provision would allow the President to waive the 
limitation on reimbursements under this section if the 
President determines and certifies to the congressional defense 
committees that doing so is important to U.S. national security 
interests.

One-year extension of update on report on claims relating to the 
        bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 1233)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
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, regarding resolution of their claims. 
The reporting requirement is an extension of section 1225 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163).
    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. Libya's agents 
selected the Labelle Discotheque because it was known to be 
frequented by large numbers of U.S. military personnel. Libya's 
agents placed a bomb in the discotheque 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 
soldiers were severely injured.
    In 2002, the 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 Libyan Government 
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.
    The committee continues to closely monitor the details 
surrounding the case of Labelle claimants against the Libyan 
Government.

                       Items of Special Interest


Iraqi refugee crisis

    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 1.9 
million Iraqis displaced internally and 2.0 million more in 
neighboring states, particularly Jordan and Syria.
    The committee notes that the continuing violence across 
much of Iraq is forcing thousands more to leave their homes 
every month. Shiites in Sunni controlled areas, Sunnis in 
Shiite controlled areas, and non-Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan are 
particularly susceptible to displacement, and stateless 
individuals and Iraqi Christians are vulnerable throughout the 
country. Given its role and its stake in the conflict, the 
committee believes the United States must play an international 
leadership role to promote a responsibility sharing approach to 
address the plight of displaced Iraqis. As noted by the Iraq 
Study Group (ISG), events in Iraq were set in motion by U.S. 
decisions and actions. The committee concurs with the ISG's 
conclusion which stated that if this refugee crisis is not 
addressed, Iraq and the region could further destabilize.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense has a 
special responsibility in the case of Iraqis that have assisted 
the United States to sustain and manage its presence. To date, 
the Department has not provided any information to the 
committee to quantify the size of this group, but the committee 
remains interested in learning how many Iraqis are currently 
working for the United States, how many Iraqis are currently 
working for contractors and subcontractors on U.S. contracts, 
and how many Iraqis have served in either capacity but who no 
longer work with the United States or its contractors. The 
committee fears these groups are particularly vulnerable given 
their support of the United States.
    Further, the committee directs the Department, in 
coordination with the U.S. Department of State and UNHCR, to 
report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on: 
(1) what work, if any, has been done with the Government of 
Iraq and neighboring countries to protect internally displaced 
people that were forced to flee their homes; (2) how it is 
working with the Department of State to promote safe passage 
and resettlement to protect those refugees in the region who 
remain vulnerable, as well as to promote family reunification 
for those refugees with parents, sons, daughters, grandparents, 
grandchildren, and siblings who are lawfully residing in the 
United States; and (3) what contingency planning is being done 
to promote refugee protection in the region once there has been 
a draw down of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Joint Forces Command support to NATO International Security Assistance 
        Force

    The committee recognizes that the United States Joint 
Forces Command has developed advanced capabilities, including 
innovative technologies that may enhance battle management, 
command and control, intelligence analysis, and communications. 
Many of these capabilities would be useful to the U.S. forces 
assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led 
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF-X) in 
Afghanistan, including modeling and simulation tools and the 
ability to conduct operational net assessments. The committee 
urges the Secretary of Defense, to the maximum extent 
practicable, to provide the NATO-led ISAF-X in Afghanistan with 
these capabilities and, on a temporary basis, to provide 
appropriate training support to ensure fielded forces sustain 
these capabilities, as required by the Commander of ISAF-X.

United States Africa Command

    The committee supports the efforts of the Department of 
Defense to stand up a new United States Combatant Command for 
the continent of Africa (AFRICOM). The committee commends the 
Department for its acknowledgment of the strategic and 
humanitarian importance of Africa to the interests of the 
United States. Currently, three U.S. regional commands--U.S. 
European Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Pacific 
Command--share responsibility for U.S. security issues in 
Africa. The committee agrees that one combatant command for 
Africa will promote greater unity of effort across the 
Government.
    The committee understands that the Department is still in 
the process of determining the allocation of military and civil 
functions within AFRICOM. It is the committee's understanding 
that AFRICOM will be led by a four star general officer, but 
that the Department may also seek to designate a Department of 
State official at a senior level within the command.
    While the Department has discussed with the committee its 
plans for incorporating staff from other agencies into the new 
command, the Department has not provided the committee with 
details on the planned staffing levels and funding mechanisms 
for interagency staff, or on the authorities to be exercised by 
such staff. The committee urges the Department to inform it if 
new authorities will be needed to stand up and staff AFRICOM. 
The committee also expects to be consulted early and often on 
the matter of potential locations for the command's 
headquarters and the anticipated costs associated with 
establishing the command.
  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 
$448.0 million, an increase of $100.0 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 30 days 
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 
year 2008 funds, and require notification to Congress 15 days 
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 
year 2008 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for 
each CTR program element.
    The committee recommends an additional $25.0 million for 
strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $50.0 million 
for biological threat reduction, $14.0 million for weapons of 
mass destruction proliferation prevention to support the Black 
Sea Initiative, $10.0 million for new activities in states 
outside the former Soviet Union, and $1.0 million for 
additional expenses associated with Russian chemical weapons 
destruction activities.
    The committee recommends an additional $25.0 million for 
strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia to accelerate 
the completion of activities at sites in Russia where the 
materials and weapons are stored--and to address potential 
threats while these materials are moving to facilitate 
consolidation, dismantlement, and disposition.
    The committee recommends an additional $50.0 million for 
biological threat reduction to support threat reduction 
programs throughout the former Soviet Union and accelerate the 
highest priority programs. One of the key efforts is to 
consolidate, or destroy as appropriate, various strain 
collections and provide safe and secure storage of the 
consolidated collection. The committee notes the expansion of 
this work is one area where the Department of Defense (DOD) 
would like to expand its work beyond the former Soviet Union. 
The committee expects DOD to provide a cost-effective plan for 
this expansion with the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
    The committee recommends an additional $14.0 million for 
proliferation prevention initiative efforts to support the 
Black Sea and other regional initiatives to detect and prevent 
weapons of mass destruction that might be smuggled across 
international borders. Smuggling across remote and unprotected 
borders is particularly difficult and must involve the joint 
efforts of many nations to stop. The proliferation prevention 
effort must also be coordinated with other elements of the DOD 
as well as other agencies of the U.S. Government. The committee 
is interested in the plan that will coordinate the CTR efforts 
with other activities and directs the Secretary to include in 
the CTR annual report for fiscal year 2008 DOD's plan for 
synchronizing the various areas of activity.
    The committee believes that one of the highest priorities 
in the CTR programs is to ensure that the facility to destroy 
Russian chemical munitions in Shchuch'ye, Russia is completed, 
the workforce is adequately trained, and the new facility 
successfully passes initial systems integration and startup 
testing. Once startup is successful, the Russian Government 
will assume all responsibility for completing destruction of 
the chemical munitions. To reach the goal of facility hot 
startup in 2009, the committee urges the Secretary to ensure 
the project is appropriately managed and funded, and to report 
promptly to the congressional defense committees any indication 
that the 2009 startup date will not be met.
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in states 
        outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1501 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) by adding a new 
subsection that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs in states 
outside of the former Soviet Union. The programs authorized 
would include elimination, transportation, and storage of 
biological or chemical weapons or materials, or related 
materials or components; nuclear, chemical, or biological 
weapons proliferation prevention programs; and programs to 
facilitate detection and reporting of certain pathogenic 
diseases that could impact the armed forces of the United 
States or its allies.
    The committee believes that the CTR program has been key to 
preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and 
biological weapons within and from the states of the former 
Soviet Union and that the CTR model should be expanded to 
address threats beyond the states of the former Soviet Union. 
The committee recommends $10.0 million in section 1302 of this 
Act to allow the Secretary to begin to address emerging threats 
through cooperative programs with new state partners. The 
committee notes that this new authority would be subject to the 
CTR notification requirements, which require the Secretary to 
notify Congress 30 days in advance of obligation of any fiscal 
year 2008 funds.
Modification of authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds 
        outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) to allow the Secretary of 
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to 
exercise the emergency authority to use prior year balances in 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR) for a 
proliferation threat reduction project or activity outside of 
the former Soviet Union. Section 1308 currently requires a 
presidential certification. The committee believes that 
secretarial certification would allow a more rapid response in 
an emergency situation.
Repeal of restrictions on assistance to states of the former Soviet 
        Union for cooperative threat reduction (sec. 1305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
certain provisions of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act 
of 1991 (Public Law 102-228), the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Act of 1993 (22 U.S.C. 5952), and section 1305 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) that require a number of annual certifications before any 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds can be obligated in 
any fiscal year. In addition, the provision would also repeal 
section 1303 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000, which authorized the President to waive the 
annual certification requirements.
    These certifications are no longer meaningful and serve 
only to delay the implementation of the CTR programs.
National Academy of Sciences study of prevention of proliferation of 
        biological weapons (sec. 1306)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into an arrangement with the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) under which the NAS would 
carry out a study to identify areas for cooperation with states 
other than states of the former Soviet Union under the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to prevent the 
proliferation of biological weapons and dual-use materials. A 
report on the study would be due to the United States Senate 
and House of Representatives Committees on Armed Services on 
December 31, 2008. The report would also include the 
Secretary's assessment of the study and any recommendations for 
action. If the Secretary determines that legislation is 
necessary to implement any actions, the committee urges the 
Secretary to include in the report a description of the 
necessary legislation.
    The NAS study recommended in this provision would be a 
follow-on study to the NAS study required by section 1304 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The original study focused on 
actions under the CTR program that could be taken to address 
biological weapons and dual-use materials in the states of the 
former Soviet Union.
                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of table
    This title contains funding authorizations for working 
capital and revolving funds, the Defense Health program, the 
destruction of chemical munitions, drug interdiction and 
counter-drug activities, and funding for 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 2008 budget request for these 
programs, and indicates those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the 
past, the Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the table 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

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from lower inflation 
        (sec. 1407)
    The Office of Management and Budget assumed an inflation 
rate of 2.4 percent in its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. 
However, the Congressional Budget Office's March 2007 estimate 
of inflation for 2008 is 1.8 percent, or 0.6 percentage points 
lower than the administration's estimate. The Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. Con. Res. 21) 
adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives on May 
17, 2007, was based on the economic assumptions of the 
Congressional Budget Office. The committee recommends a 
provision that would reduce the amounts authorized in division 
A of this Act by $1.6 billion to bring the inflation 
assumptions applicable to purchases by the Department of 
Defense for fiscal year 2008 in line with the economic 
assumptions previously adopted by the Senate.

                 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

Disposal of ferromanganese (sec. 1411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would place 
limitations on the amount of ferromanganese that can be sold by 
the Department of Defense from the Defense National Stockpile. 
The provision grants the Secretary of Defense authority to sell 
ferromanganese beyond specified limitations, provided that the 
United States Senate and House of Representatives Committees on 
Armed Services receive certification that certain national 
security and market conditions were met. The committee believes 
that this provision would ensure steady and predictable prices 
on global markets, while continuing stockpile sale levels that 
are in keeping with the mission and goals of the Defense 
National Stockpile.
Disposal of chrome metal (sec. 1412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would place 
limitations on the amount of chrome metal that can be sold by 
the Department of Defense from the Defense National Stockpile. 
The provision grants the Secretary of Defense authority to sell 
chrome metal beyond specified limitations, provided that the 
United States Senate and House of Representatives Committees on 
Armed Services receive certification that certain national 
security and market conditions were met. The committee believes 
that this provision would ensure steady and predictable prices 
on global markets, while continuing stockpile sale levels that 
are in keeping with the mission and goals of the Defense 
National Stockpile.
Modification of receipt objectives for previously authorized disposals 
        from the national defense stockpile (sec. 1413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3402(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) to increase the Department 
of Defense's stockpile commodity disposal authority from $600.0 
million to $729.0 million. The committee understands that the 
National Defense Stockpile Center anticipates that under 
current market conditions, it will exceed its current authority 
before the end of fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2009 for 
various commodities. Without these additional authorizations, 
the Department will stop selling from the stockpile and no 
longer generate revenues. Moreover, uncertainty about the 
Department's reliability as a supplier of materials will drive 
buyers to other sources, thereby jeopardizing future revenue 
goals. Uncertainty about whether or not the Department will be 
able to remain in the market could also lead to market 
disruption and instability.

                       Subtitle C--Civil Programs

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$61,624,000 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 from the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation and 
maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

             Subtitle D--Chemical Demilitarization Matters

Modification of termination requirement for Chemical Demilitarization 
        Citizens' Advisory Commissions (sec. 1431)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
requirements for terminating the chemical demilitarization 
Citizens' Advisory Commissions that were authorized in section 
172(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). Instead of terminating a 
commission after the chemical weapons stockpile in a State has 
been destroyed, the provision would allow a commission to 
remain in existence, at the discretion of the Governor of the 
State, until after completion of closure activities of that 
State's chemical agent destruction facility, or upon the 
request of the Governor, whichever is earlier. The provision 
would also provide a technical correction to an outdated 
reference to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
    The committee notes that the Citizens' Advisory Commissions 
have served an important purpose in permitting public 
involvement in the issues related to chemical demilitarization 
in their States. This provision would allow such citizen 
involvement to continue until the closure of each chemical 
demilitarization facility.
Repeal of certain qualifications requirement for director of chemical 
        demilitarization management organization (sec. 1432)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement that the Army's Director of the Chemical Materials 
Agency must be trained in chemical warfare defense operations. 
The committee believes this requirement is no longer essential 
to the position of managing the chemical demilitarization 
program for the Army, acting as executive agent for the 
Department of Defense. It is important to allow the best 
qualified individuals to be considered for this critical 
position, which requires senior program management and 
acquisition experience. Perpetuating the requirement for 
training in chemical warfare defensive operations would limit 
the ability of the Secretary of the Army to select from among 
the most qualified individuals.
Sense of Congress on completion of destruction of United States 
        chemical weapons stockpile (sec. 1433)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the United States is, and must remain, 
committed to making every effort to safely dispose of its 
entire chemical weapons stockpile by the Chemical Weapons 
Convention extended deadline of April 29, 2012, or as soon 
thereafter as possible, and that the Secretary of Defense 
should request adequate funding for chemical demilitarization 
to complete the elimination of the United States chemical 
weapons stockpile in accordance with U.S. obligations under the 
Chemical Weapons Convention. The provision would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a biannual report to Congress 
providing: (1) the anticipated schedule for completion of 
chemical weapons destruction at each of the chemical 
demilitarization facilities in the United States; (2) a 
description of options and alternatives for accelerating the 
completion of chemical weapons destruction, particularly to 
meet the Chemical Weapons Convention destruction deadline; (3) 
a description of the level of funding that would be required to 
achieve those accelerated options; and (4) a description of 
steps being taken to accelerate the completion of destruction 
of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical agents, 
munitions, and materiel.
    The committee is disappointed that the administration does 
not expect to meet the United States' obligation under the 
Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy all its chemical weapons 
by even the extended deadline of April 29, 2012. In order to 
meet the destruction deadline under the Chemical Weapons 
Convention at most of its chemical demilitarization facilities, 
the United States would need to consider options for 
accelerated destruction and increased funding levels.
    It appears that Department of Defense funding limits for 
the chemical demilitarization program currently preclude the 
possibility of meeting the destruction deadline at facilities 
that might be able to meet the deadline with additional 
funding. Furthermore, shortly before submitting the President's 
budget request to Congress, the Department of Defense reduced 
the planned level of funding for the Chemical Materials Agency 
in the fiscal year 2008 budget request by $53.6 million, thus 
risking further delay to the destruction schedule. This calls 
into question the priority the Department places on meeting, or 
making every reasonable effort to meet, United States treaty 
obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
    The committee notes that in a letter to Congress dated 
April 10, 2006, the Secretary of Defense made a commitment 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 2012 as practicable.'' The committee urges 
the Department to fulfill this commitment by requesting 
increased funding in future budget requests to accelerate the 
chemical weapons stockpile destruction schedule to meet the 
United States' legal obligations under the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.

                              Budget Items

LHA(R) research and development
    The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $96.6 million 
within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various 
research and development activities, including $67.8 million 
for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), MPF(F). This 
amount includes $4.9 million for amphibious assault replacement 
ships which are to be assigned to the MPF(F), designated MPF(F) 
LHA(R).
    The Navy's concept for MPF(F) operations indicates that 
these ships will be multi-mission vessels capable of afloat 
prepositioning, sea basing operations in support of amphibious 
assault, and routine operations in support of lesser 
contingencies. MPF(F) ships are planned to be operated by a 
Military Sealift Command crew. However, the MPF(F) concept of 
operations differs sharply from current maritime prepositioning 
ships as a result of the MPF(F) contribution to the Navy's sea 
basing capability.
    The MPF(F) role to embark and deploy marines ashore while 
sustaining expeditionary warfare operations potentially exposes 
these ships and embarked marines to hostile fire. The Navy 
plans to protect the MPF(F) ships through employment of the 
naval ``sea shield,'' and therefore the Navy does not plan to 
outfit MPF(F) ships with self defense features. The committee 
has expressed concern regarding the Navy's MPF(F) survivability 
concept and, in particular, the Navy's proposal to eliminate 
the self defense features for the MPF(F) LHA(R). The 
restoration of the ship's combat system would allow the MPF(F) 
LHA(R) to fill current shortfalls to the Navy's forcible entry 
lift capability.
    The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy is 
continuing to review the military features for the MPF(F), and 
that the Navy expects to present the program plan to the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) later in fiscal year 
2007. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees within 30 days of the JROC MPF(F) decision outlining 
the findings of the JROC. The report shall include a detailed 
vulnerability assessment of MPF(F) for major combat operations.
    The committee has been advised by the Navy that the 
Department of the Navy will need to rephase into fiscal year 
2009 certain MPF(F) research and development efforts. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million 
for MPF(F) research and development. Furthermore, the committee 
does not agree with funding development and procurement for 
amphibious assault ships within the NDSF.
    This ship type is specifically not included within the 
scope of sealift vessels eligible for NDSF, defined within 
section 2218 of title 10, United States Code. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $4.9 million in PE 48042N, 
and a corresponding increase of $4.9 million in PE 64567N for 
MPF(F) LHA(R).
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $32.9 
million in PE 48042N for MPF(F).
Defense health program research
    The budget request included $34.8 million in PE 63115HP for 
medical development within Defense Health program research, 
development, test, and evaluation activities. The committee 
notes that these programs are vitally important in their 
development of new processes, technologies, and systems that 
improve combat casualty care capabilities, as well as care for 
injured service members, retired military personnel, and the 
general populace.
    The committee understands that motor vehicle crashes are 
the leading cause of non-combat accidental deaths in theater, 
and the leading cause of accidental death for active-duty 
personnel in the continental United States. The committee 
recommends an additional $2.0 million to study military motor 
vehicle crashes and resulting injuries for the purpose of 
developing new safety technologies, tactics, techniques, and 
operational procedures.

Funding for chemical weapons demilitarization

    The budget request included $1.5 billion for chemical 
agents and munitions destruction, defense, including $1.2 
billion for operation and maintenance; $274.8 million for 
research, development, test, and evaluation; and $18.4 million 
for procurement. The committee notes its disappointment that 
funding for the Chemical Materials Agency was reduced by $53.6 
million shortly before the submission of the budget request. 
This reduction will increase the risk of delaying the 
destruction of chemical weapons, which are required under the 
terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention to be destroyed no 
later than April 29, 2012. In order to increase the possibility 
of maintaining the best possible destruction schedule, and thus 
to meet United States obligations under the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, the committee recommends an increase of $36.0 
million for the Chemical Materials Agency, including $24.0 
million in operation and maintenance, and $12.0 million in 
procurement.
    The committee notes that in a letter to Congress dated 
April 10, 2006, the Secretary of Defense committed 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 2012 as practicable.'' The budget request 
calls into question the priority assigned by the Department of 
Defense to meeting the commitment of the Secretary. The 
committee urges the Department to fulfill this commitment by 
planning and budgeting sufficient funds to maintain the most 
timely chemical weapons destruction schedule, consistent with 
the requirement to protect public health, safety, and the 
environment, in order to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention 
destruction deadline, or to come as close thereto as possible. 
This issue is also addressed elsewhere in a separate 
legislative provision.

Counterdrug advanced concept technology demonstration

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $936.8 million 
for Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug 
Activities. However, it did not include any funding for an 
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) to support 
drug interdiction efforts in the Western Hemisphere. The 
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for Drug 
Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities for a counterdrug ACTD. 
The ACTD would have the following capabilities: (1) electro-
optical/infrared/radar to detect and identify small high-speed 
craft in open water; (2) an extended dwell time of more than 10 
to 12 hours; (3) detection of small-to-medium craft wake 
patterns or variances; (4) geo-location of high frequency and 
very high frequency low power emitters and other special 
communications devices; (5) detection and monitoring of semi-
submersibles; (6) tracking and monitoring; (7) long-range 
detection and monitoring of mother-ship operations; (8) on-
station airborne early warning for 1,280 hours; and (9) on-
station maritime patrol aircraft for 1,420 hours. A successful 
counterdrug ACTD with these capabilities will allow the U.S. 
Government to get closer to achieving its goal of disrupting 40 
percent of the drugs headed to the United States in the Western 
Hemisphere transit zone.

Project Athena

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $936.8 million 
for Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug 
Activities, including $2.5 million for Project Athena, a domain 
awareness system that provides a common operational picture 
(COP) to national, regional, and local users.
    Project Athena fuses real-time downlinks from surveillance 
sensors, multiple databases, and other sources of intelligence 
reporting into a COP that can be unclassified, or tailored to 
multiple security levels. It is therefore capable of providing 
a COP to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland 
Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, first responders, and partnered 
nations in a relatively timely and simultaneous manner. The 
Department of Defense Counternarcotics Technology Program 
Office is responsible for the project and has successfully 
tested Project Athena in maritime tracking in the United 
States. In fiscal year 2006, Project Athena was used at the 
Joint Interagency Task Force South in Florida and jointly with 
the Colombian Navy and the Sri Lankan Navy.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million to 
Defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities for 
Project Athena.

Department of Defense Inspector General

    The budget request included $214.9 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Inspector General (OIG). This is slightly less than the $216.3 
million requested and the $218.0 million provided for fiscal 
year 2007. The committee is concerned that funding levels for 
this important independent audit and investigative function is 
not keeping pace with the demands for the Inspectors' General 
services in the global war on terror.
    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. For the last 3 years, the OIG has 
achieved $27.5 billion in savings and $1.7 billion in recovery 
for the nation. The committee notes that in that same 3 years 
the exponential growth in the number and cost of Department 
contracts for operations, procurement, research, and 
construction within the United States and around the world. The 
nation's annual defense costs have crossed the $500.0 billion 
mark, well beyond the annual budgets of just over $200.0 
billion before the start of the global war on terror in 2001. 
Despite this growth, the personnel strength of the OIG has 
remained nearly constant. The committee is concerned that the 
capabilities of the OIG are not keeping pace, in terms of 
qualified personnel, with the growth in the size of the defense 
budget and the numbers of contracts.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in OMDW for the OIG to start and accelerate the growth 
of the OIG. The committee directs the Inspector General to 
provide to the defense committees, by March 31, 2008, an 
analysis of the current and future personnel, organization, 
technology, and funding requirements of the OIG. This report 
shall also include a comprehensive and detailed master plan, 
with annual objectives and funding requirements, that will 
provide the fastest possible increase in audit and 
investigative capabilities.

                        Item of Special Interest


National Defense Sealift Fund report

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $96.6 million 
within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various 
research and development activities. The Navy could use this 
Fund to conduct research and development for investigating 
promising technologies or developing capabilities, such as:
          (1) agile port, rapid deployment and distribution, 
        and agile sustainment process transformation;
          (2) high speed strategic sealift mobility;
          (3) advanced cargo and passenger vessel hull design, 
        alternative propulsion systems, and construction 
        employing national defense features;
          (4) global logistics network and expeditionary 
        warfare security;
          (5) net-centric warfare and logistics, including 
        sense and respond logistics; and
          (6) dual use technologies, including information 
        management technology and security employing best 
        practices from the commercial sector.
    The committee also understands that there may be 
opportunities to join with industry or academia to explore or 
develop these technologies. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense, not later than January 1, 2008, to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
future viability and availability of defense-related 
university-based research and development capabilities and the 
future opportunities for industry collaboration in support of 
military strategic sealift mobility.
    TITLE XV--OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

   Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional War-Related Appropriations

Overview
    The President's budget requested $141.8 billion in 
emergency funding in the National Defense budget function for 
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom 
(OEF), and for other purposes, including some of the ``grow the 
force'' costs of increasing Army and Marine Corps active-duty 
personnel levels.
    The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 
2008 adopted by the Senate on March 23, 2007, fully funded 
these requested amounts. However, the budget resolution adopted 
by the Senate concurred with the committee's recommendation to 
the Committee on the Budget that these costs no longer be 
treated as ``emergency'' spending.
    The administration's budget proposal met the requirements 
of section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
which required an estimate of the full-year costs to be 
incurred during the fiscal year to support these operations. 
The committee believes that subjecting these expenditure 
requests to the full authorization and appropriation process 
will improve the effectiveness and the accountability of 
spending on these operations.
    The committee believes that treating these requests as non-
emergency funding complies with both the spirit and the letter 
of section 1008. The committee's views and estimates letter to 
the Committee on the Budget stated the committee's intent to 
differentiate carefully between the cost of war and the so-
called ``base budget''. That letter stated, in part:

          Because we intend to keep the ``base'' budget clearly 
        delineated from the ``war'' budget, it is important 
        that costs be accurately assigned to these categories.

    The bill reported by the committee carries out this 
commitment. Where appropriate, the committee has transferred 
funding requested in the base budget that is directly related 
to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (for example, the costs 
of running the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization) to this title. As described later in this title, 
the committee has also transferred funding (for example, the 
funds for Army and Marine Corps personnel that were requested 
as a cost of war but which reflect the cost of personnel that 
are intended to become part of the permanent force) structure 
back into the base budget where appropriate. The detailed 
funding tables contained in this report identify such 
transfers.
    The summary table that follows summarizes the funding 
requested as emergency spending for these operations, together 
with the committee's action on these requests. Funding for 
Department of Defense operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with 
the exception of funding for military construction projects to 
support these operations, is included in title XV of this Act. 
Funding for military construction projects in Iraq and 
Afghanistan is included in title XXIX of this Act.
Explanation of tables
    The following tables provide the program-level detailed 
guidance for the funding authorized in title XV of this Act. 
The tables also display the funding requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2008 budget request for war-
related programs, and indicate those programs for which the 
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 
As in the past, 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.



Army procurement (sec. 1501)

    This section would authorize an additional $17.7 billion 
for fiscal year 2008 procurement of war-related items for the 
Army.



Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1502)

    This section would authorize an additional $9.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2008 procurement of war related items for the Navy 
and the Marine Corps.



Air Force procurement (sec. 1503)

    This section would authorize an additional $6.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2008 procurement of war related items for the Air 
Force.



Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1504)

    This section would authorize an additional $593.8 million 
for fiscal year 2008 procurement of war related items for the 
defense agencies and the United States Special Operations 
Command.



Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1505)

    This section would authorize an additional $2.0 billion for 
fiscal year 2008 war-related research and development expenses.



Operation and maintenance (sec. 1506)

    This section would authorize an additional $72.9 billion 
for fiscal year 2008 war-related operation and maintenance 
expenses of the military services, the defense agencies, and 
the United States Special Operations Command.



Military personnel (sec. 1507)

    This section would authorize an additional $12.9 billion 
for fiscal year 2008 war-related military personnel expenses of 
the active and reserve components, including mobilization costs 
for reserve and National Guard forces.



Defense Health Program (sec. 1508)

    This section would authorize an additional $1.0 billion for 
fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the Defense Health 
program.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1509)

    This section would authorize an additional $257.6 million 
for fiscal year 2008 war-related drug interdiction and 
counterdrug expenses.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1510)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$4.5 billion for the fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 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, require a plan for the 
use of these funds, and require quarterly reports on the 
specific use of the funds.

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1511)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an additional $2.0 billion for the fiscal year 2008 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.

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$2.7 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Afghanistan Security 
Forces Fund transfer account. These funds would be available to 
the Secretary of Defense for the provision of equipment, 
supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure 
repair, renovation, construction, and for the Afghanistan 
Security Forces. The provision would require the concurrence of 
the Secretary of State for the provision of assistance under 
this section. The provision would also authorize the Secretary 
of Defense to receive contributions of funds from any person, 
foreign government, or international organization for the 
purposes of the fund. The provision would require the Secretary 
of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees in 
writing 5 days prior to the use or transfer of funds from the 
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and to provide quarterly 
reports summarizing the details of the use or transfer of 
funds.

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1513)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an additional $107.5 million for the fiscal year 2008 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.

Defense Working Capital Funds (sec. 1514)

    This section would authorize an additional $1.7 billion for 
the fiscal year 2008 war-related working capital fund expenses 
of the Department of Defense.

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1515)

    This section would authorize an additional $5.1 million for 
the fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the National 
Defense Sealift Fund.

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1516)

    This section would authorize an additional $4.4 million for 
the fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the Defense 
Inspector General.

       Subtitle B--General Provisions Relating to Authorizations


Purpose (sec. 1521)

    This section states the purpose of this title which is to 
authorize additional appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and Operation Enduring Freedom for the Department of Defense 
for fiscal year 2008.
    Additional war-related authorizations for military 
construction programs are contained in title XXIX of this Act.

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1522)

    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. 1523)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to $3.5 billion of war-related funding 
authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. 
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.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to 
        Iraq (sec. 1531)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations in 
this Act to establish permanent bases in Iraq or to exercise 
United States control over the oil resources of Iraq. This 
provision would effectively extend the prohibition already in 
effect during fiscal year 2007.

Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to 
        United States military operations (sec. 1532)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating 
nation for logistical and military support provided by that 
nation to, or in connection with, U.S. military operations in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
total amount of payments made under the authority of this 
section during fiscal year 2008 may not exceed $1.2 billion. 
The provision would prohibit the Secretary from entering into 
any contractual obligation to make a reimbursement under the 
authority provided by this section. The provision would require 
the Secretary to prescribe standards for determining the kinds 
of logistical support that could be reimbursed under this 
section, and to submit those standards to the congressional 
defense committees no less than 15 days before those standards 
take effect. The provision would also require the Secretary to 
notify the congressional defense committees no less than 15 
days before making any reimbursement under this section, and to 
report to those committees quarterly on reimbursements made 
during the reporting period under the authority provided by 
this section.

Logistical support for coalition forces supporting operations in Iraq 
        and Afghanistan (sec. 1533)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the use of Operation and Maintenance funds for fiscal year 2008 
to provide supplies, services, transportation, and other 
logistical support to coalition forces supporting U.S. military 
and stabilization operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
Secretary of Defense may provide logistical support under the 
authority of this section only if he makes a determination that 
the coalition forces to be supported are essential to the 
success of the U.S. military or stabilization operation and 
that those forces would not be able to participate in the 
operation without the provision of that support. The provision 
would also require that logistical support provided under this 
section comply with the Arms Export Control Act and other U.S. 
export control laws. The total amount of logistical support 
provided under this section during fiscal year 2008 may not 
exceed $400.0 million. The provision would require the 
Secretary to submit quarterly reports to the congressional 
defense committees on the recipients of logistical support 
provided under the authority of this section and the type and 
value of support provided.

Competition for procurement of small arms supplied to Iraq and 
        Afghanistan (sec. 1534)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
full and open competition for procurement of small arms 
(pistols and other weapons less than 0.50 caliber) supplied to 
Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring that no responsible U.S. 
manufacturer is excluded and that products manufactured in the 
U.S. are not excluded from the competition.
    The Multi-National Security Transition Command--Iraq 
(MNSTC-I) is the principal Department of Defense (DOD) activity 
which supports the training and equipping of Iraqi Security 
Forces (ISF). DOD awards contracts, using U.S. appropriated 
Iraq Security Forces Funds (ISSF) in support of the Iraqi 
Government, specifically, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior 
(police forces) and Ministry of Defense (military forces). 
According to DOD, the Iraqi Government, with MNSTC-I advice, 
has determined that the Glock Model 19 and Beretta 9m pistols 
are the weapons of choice for the ISF. DOD has awarded five 
Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity contracts for these 
pistols. U.S. manufactured weapons are not available under 
these contracts.
    The committee believes that U.S. manufacturers should not 
be excluded from competing for contracts funded by the American 
taxpayers for procurement of small arms supplied to Iraq and 
Afghanistan.

                              Budget Items


105MM high explosive rocket assisted artillery ammunition

    The fiscal year 2008 budget requested $10.0 million in war-
related funding in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for 
105MM High Explosive Rocket Assisted (HERA) artillery 
ammunition. The committee notes that this is a new, 
developmental program for artillery ammunition that the Army 
has not procured since fiscal year 1999. Army budget materials 
lack justification for a new start and fails to explain this 
ammunition's relationship to war costs or any plans for 
procurement of this ammunition in the future. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in war-related PAA for 
the procurement of 105MM HERA artillery ammunition.

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicles

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $441.0 million 
in the war-related budget request and no funding in the base 
budget request for the procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected (MRAP) vehicles. Based on the most current 
information provided by the military services, the Department 
of Defense has an unfunded requirement of approximately $4.1 
billion to procure 7,700 MRAP vehicles.
    A May 2007 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense to the 
Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Navy identifies the 
procurement of MRAP vehicles as the Department's highest 
priority. The Department's failure to include any funding in 
the fiscal year 2008 base budget request and a minor percentage 
of the requirement in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget 
request for the procurement of MRAPs is very troubling in view 
of the criticality of rapidly fielding this force protection 
system.
    Further, the committee is concerned with the separate and 
diverging paths the Army and Marine Corps have taken regarding 
the fielding of MRAP vehicles. At present, the Army projects a 
requirement of roughly one MRAP for every seven Up-armored High 
Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (UAH) in theater, while 
the Marine Corps intends to replace UAHs with MRAPs. The 
Department has not provided an adequate explanation for these 
divergent fielding strategies.
    The committee recognizes the challenges the Department 
faces with regard to this matter given the number of 
contractors manufacturing MRAP vehicle variants. However, the 
committee is concerned that the service has not formulated its 
long-term plan for logistic support to maintain the MRAPs. The 
committee expects the Army and Marine Corps to evaluate the 
effectiveness of continuing contractor logistic support and 
develop a transition plan to assume the logistics and 
sustainment of these systems.
    Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remain the number one 
threat to troops in theater. For this reason, it is critical 
that the Department deploys the survivability enhancements to 
our warfighters afforded by MRAPs as quickly as possible.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 billion in 
title XV, including: $1.6 billion in Other Procurement, Army 
(OPA); $2.0 billion in Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC); $430.0 
million in Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF); $21.0 million 
in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN); and $124.0 million in 
Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for MRAP vehicles. Additional 
guidance is contained in the classified annex to this report.

Night vision advanced technology

    The budget request included $35.9 million in PE 63710A for 
night visions advanced technology. The committee recognizes the 
benefits of night vision devices, including the improved 
situational awareness it provides soldiers and soldiers' 
enhanced ability to operate at night. The committee funded the 
Army's $33.0 million unfunded requirement for over 11,000 
monocular night vision devices. In addition to procuring these 
critical devices, the Army must continue to develop more 
technologically capable and agile night vision devices. To 
accelerate these developments, the committee recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million in PE 63710A, including $7.5 million 
for research and development of short-range electro-optic 
sensors, and $2.5 million for the continued research and 
development of intelligence surveillance and detection sensors.

Night vision devices

    The budget request included $278.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for night vision devices. The committee 
recognizes the benefits of night vision devices, including the 
improved situational awareness it provides soldiers and their 
enhanced ability to operate at night. According to the Chief of 
Staff of the Army's unfunded requirement list submitted to the 
committee, the Army has an unfunded requirement for over 11,000 
monocular night vision devices. These additional night vision 
goggles would permit the Army to fulfill the equipment 
shortages of military police and combat engineer units. The 
additional funding would also provide the Stryker force with a 
night vision capability, thereby increasing its mobility and 
situational awareness in times of low light and at night. The 
committee recommends an increase of $33.0 million in OPA for 
night vision devices to fulfill the Army's remaining unfunded 
requirement.

Single Army Logistics Enterprise

    The Army's fiscal year 2008 base budget request included 
$53.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Single 
Army Logistic Enterprise (SALE). The fiscal year 2008 war-
related budget request included $602.8 million in OPA for the 
SALE. Over the next several years, the Army plans to invest 
billions of dollars to develop and field the General Fund 
Enterprise Business System (GFEBS), the Global Combat Support 
System-Army, Field/Tactical (GCSS-Army), and the Logistics 
Modernization Program (LMP). The Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) determined that these three systems will replace 
about 120 legacy logistics information management systems.
    The committee is not satisfied by the Army's progress in 
implementing these three systems. Last year, based upon its 
concerns about the cost performance and schedule delays, 
Congress prohibited the expenditure of funds on LMP until the 
Secretary of Defense certified that the LMP had addressed its 
many shortcomings. While the Department of Defense did approve 
the LMP for further development, the GAO continues to raise 
concerns that the Army is investing in systems without the 
benefit of an overarching Army business enterprise 
architecture. The committee shares the GAO's concerns. The 
Army's attempt to implement major information technology 
modernization efforts absent a guiding enterprise architecture 
could result in systems that are duplicative, are not well 
integrated, and do not effectively optimize mission 
performance.
    Additionally, the GAO has reported that GCSS-Army and LMP 
have already experienced significant delays and, as currently 
structured, there is no certainty that additional delays will 
not occur. The GAO has determined that GFEBS and LMP will not 
be fully fielded until fiscal year 2010, and GCSS-Army will not 
be fully deployed until fiscal year 2014. Further, budget 
justification materials provided in the fiscal year 2008 war-
related budget request fail to relate the costs associated with 
these information technology modernizations to the current 
global war on terror. Similarly, the Army's Grow the Force 
budget request contains an additional $159.0 million for these 
information technology upgrades, without sufficient 
justification. Attempts to have the Army provide further 
detailed justification materials have gone unheeded.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $552.5 
million in title XV, OPA for SALE.

UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters

    The budget request included $518.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN) to procure 20 UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters 
and $123.4 million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related 
APN to procure six more UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters. Total 
production orders in fiscal year 2007 consisted of 11 UH-1Y/AH-
1Z helicopters.
    The Marine Corps has been developing upgrades and 
replacements for its existing fleet of attack (AH-1) and 
utility (UH-1) helicopters. These programs, the AH-1Z and UH-
1Y, are being conducted by the same manufacturer. 
Unfortunately, both programs have experienced delayed 
deliveries and increasing costs. These problems appear, at 
least in part, to have been caused by deficient cost control 
and cost accounting procedures by which the contractor manages 
the programs and through which Department of Defense 
acquisition officials can manage the Government's equities in 
the programs.
    This raises concerns with the committee, since these same 
procedures have been used on other existing programs and could 
be used on future programs as well. The Marine Corps' MV-22, 
U.S. Special Operations Command's CV-22, and the Army's Armed 
Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) programs will all be acquired 
in whole or in part from the same contractor.
    The committee strongly supports modernizing the forces with 
the UH-1Y and AH-1Z, but doubts that the contractor team will 
be able to expand production rapidly enough to more than double 
production in 1 year given these recent problems. Therefore, 
the committee recommends a decrease in war-related APN of six 
aircraft and $123.4 million.

Radio systems

    The budget request included $644.4 million for procurement 
of radios for the Marine Corps in the base budget, the war-
related budget, and the ``Grow the Force'' initiative. For 
fiscal year 2007, between the base budget and supplementals, 
the Marine Corps is slated to receive $1,294.3 million for 
radio procurement. The Marine Corps, like the Army, faces a 
serious shortage of radios due in part to delays in developing 
the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). The Marine Corps also 
urgently requires new versions of current radios that are 
resistant to self-jamming in operations against radio-
controlled improvised explosive devices.
    Obligations of funds have been delayed because the Marine 
Corps temporarily reprogrammed significant amounts from radio 
procurement to production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
vehicles, which the committee agrees was a wise decision. In 
addition, the Marine Corps will not receive the funds to repay 
these borrowed funds and for additional radio procurement until 
almost the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2007, which will 
further impact budget execution. The committee therefore 
recommends a reduction of $165.0 million to the request for 
fiscal year 2008.
    The committee believes that the roughly $1.9 billion 
budgeted for legacy radio system procurement across fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008 is driven by continued delays in developing 
and fielding the JTRS. The committee is aware that this joint 
program was restructured in fiscal year 2006 to improve cost 
and schedule performance, which seems to have successfully 
stabilized the program. However, some concerns still persist 
regarding the JTRS program's ability to achieve a series of 
critical milestones scheduled in 2008 and 2009, which will lead 
to operational testing and production. The committee is also 
concerned about the availability of resources for both the 
sustainment of legacy radio systems and development of JTRS, 
and intends to closely monitor the program's progress in 
achieving upcoming critical milestones.
    Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is directed to ensure 
that detailed quarterly updates are provided to the 
congressional defense committees, commencing in the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2008, that describe the JTRS program 
schedule and progress in completing the critical design, 
technical, integration, test, and production milestones leading 
to initial operational capability.

Joint Strike Fighter

    The budget request included $1,421.7 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to purchase six Air Force Joint 
Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft in fiscal year 2008 and a budget 
request of $230.0 million in war-related APAF funding to 
purchase an additional JSF aircraft. In addition, the budget 
request included $1,232.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy 
(APN) to purchase six Marine Corps JSF aircraft.
    The committee believes that producing 12 aircraft in fiscal 
year 2008 would be adequate to support the planned production 
expansion and subsequent deliveries to the JSF testing and 
training activities, and that there are higher priorities for 
using these funds for other programs in the war-related budget. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $230.0 
million in the fiscal year 2008 war-related APAF budget.

C-130J aircraft

    The budget request included $686.1 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to procure nine C-130J tactical 
airlift aircraft and $1,356.3 million requested in fiscal year 
2008 war-related APAF to procure 17 C-130Js. The budget request 
also included $256.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy 
(APN) to procure four KC-130J aerial refueling aircraft, and 
$495.4 million in war-related APN to procure seven KC-130Js. 
This would result in procuring a total of 37 C-130J aircraft 
for all Department of Defense requirements.
    The committee notes that production of the C-130 aircraft 
has not been at those levels in recent years. In fiscal year 
2006, the Air Force and the Navy bought 18 C-130Js and, in 
fiscal year 2007, the total will be 15 aircraft at most.
    The committee strongly supports modernizing the forces with 
the C-130J, but doubts that the contractor team will be able to 
expand production rapidly enough to more than double production 
in 1 year after several years of producing at current rates. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease in war-related 
APAF of four aircraft and $468.0 million.

CV-22 Osprey aircraft

    The budget request included $495.0 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to procure five CV-22 aircraft 
and $492.5 million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related 
APAF to procure five more CV-22 aircraft. The budget request 
also included $1,959.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy 
(APN) to procure 21 MV-22 aircraft, and $140.5 million in war-
related APN to procure two more MV-22 aircraft. This would 
result in procuring a total of 33 V-22 aircraft in fiscal year 
2008 for all Department of Defense requirements.
    The committee notes that the budget request would cause 
production of the V-22 to increase dramatically. In fiscal year 
2006, the Navy and the Air Force bought 14 V-22s and, in fiscal 
year 2007, the total will be 17 aircraft at most.
    The committee strongly supports modernizing the forces with 
the V-22, but doubts that the contractor team will be able to 
expand production rapidly enough to more than double production 
in 1 year after several years of producing at current rates. 
The committee has expressed similar concerns elsewhere in this 
report about the production rate increase for the Marine Corps' 
UH-1Y and AH-1Z helicopters, which are built in the same 
facility.
    Additionally, CV-22 initial operational test and evaluation 
is scheduled for the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Ramping 
up production from two or three aircraft in fiscal year 2007 to 
a level of five aircraft in fiscal year 2008 would show a 
strong commitment to the program, while avoiding any risk of 
unpleasant surprises in testing. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a decrease in war-related APAF of five aircraft and 
$492.5 million.

F-15 modifications

    The budget request included $19.2 million for modifications 
to the F-15 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, 
line 28) and $152.9 million in fiscal year 2008 war-related 
APAF for F-15 modifications, including $22.0 million for 
tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) upgrades.
    The Air Force request for $22.0 million to buy and install 
TTNT is premature. According to the budget justification 
material, the Air Force would not place these procurement funds 
on contract until fiscal year 2010. The TTNT system development 
for the F-15 program is a 3-year effort, expected to begin in 
fiscal year 2008. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $22.0 million for the TTNT modification.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system modifications

    The budget request included $79.7 million for modifications 
to the E-8 joint surveillance target attack radar system 
(JSTARS) aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, 
line 55) and $41.3 million in fiscal year 2008 war-related APAF 
for JSTARS modifications. The war-related request would be used 
to replace components of the JSTARS system affected by 
vanishing vendors, sometimes known as a diminishing 
manufacturing sources (DMS) problem.
    The Air Force budget justification material indicates that 
the Air Force could award a research and development contract 
for the JSTARS DMS program by the end of the third quarter of 
fiscal year 2008 or at the latest, the beginning of the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2008. Given that circumstance, awarding 
procurement contracts in fiscal year 2008 would be premature. 
The committee recommends a decrease of $41.3 million for JSTARS 
DMS procurement.

Joint light tactical vehicle

    The budget request included $82.3 million in PE 64642A for 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army (RDTEA) for 
Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles. The war-related budget request 
for fiscal year 2008 also included $20.0 million for the same 
program element. This $20.0 million is requested for 
acceleration of the development of the Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicle (JLTV). The JLTV development program has nothing to do 
with ongoing military operations and should be funded 
exclusively in the base budget. The committee recommends a 
reduction to the war-related JLTV request of $20.0 million and 
an increase of $20.0 million for JLTV development in the base 
budget.

F-16 research and development

    The budget request included $90.6 million in PE 27133F for 
research and development projects for the F-16 and $55.3 
million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related research and 
development for the F-16 to develop secure, beyond-line-of-
sight (BLOS) capability. The F-16 needs a BLOS capability to 
communicate over long distances with command and control nodes 
and ground forces in mountainous terrain.
    In the near-term, to develop a capability to fill an urgent 
need, the Air Force plans to modify 72 aircraft with ARC-210 or 
equivalent radios and associated hardware to provide the secure 
line-of-sight (SLOS) capability using funds from the fiscal 
year 2006 budget. The F-16 BLOS program would build on that 
effort. The committee supports achieving this BLOS capability. 
However, only $7.7 million of the war-related request is needed 
in fiscal year 2008 to support the BLOS effort. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $47.6 million for F-16 BLOS 
development.

Military satellite communication terminals

    The fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request included 
$79.8 million in PE 33601F for military satellite 
communications terminals. No justification was provided by the 
Air Force for this request. The committee recommends that no 
funds for military satellite communication terminals be 
included in the war-related request.

Operation and maintenance funding transfers

    The budget request included $689.4 million in operation and 
maintenance funding for the Army as emergency funding to 
support modular conversions and the so-called ``overstrength'' 
personnel levels above the levels contained in the Quadrennial 
Defense Review of 482,000 active-duty Army personnel.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget now proposes a permanent 
increase in the Army's personnel level. Under these 
circumstances the committee does not believe it is appropriate 
to continue to budget for the costs of personnel we know we 
will have and intend to retain as emergency war costs. Funding 
for these support costs has been transferred to the base budget 
and is included in title III of this Act.
    The funding tables for this title and for title III reflect 
these transfers.

Military personnel funding transfers

    The budget request included $3.4 billion in military 
personnel funding for the Army and an additional $784.4 million 
for the Marine Corps in emergency funding for the cost of so-
called ``overstrength'' personnel levels above the levels 
contained in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 482,400 active-
duty Army personnel and 175,000 active-duty Marine Corps 
personnel. Both services have maintained and funded personnel 
ceilings above these levels for the past several years, on a 
recurring year-to-year ``temporary'' basis, using emergency 
funding.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget now proposes a permanent 
increase in these personnel levels. Under these circumstances 
the committee does not believe it is appropriate to continue to 
budget for personnel we know we will have and intend to retain 
as an emergency war cost. Funding for these personnel, 
including funding for bonuses that apply to the entire force 
and not specifically to personnel serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, has been transferred to the base budget and is 
included in title IV of this Act.
    The following table lists the specific amounts transferred.

Joint improvised explosive device defeat office

    The budget request included $500.0 million in the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund and the war-
related budget request included $4.0 billion in OPA for the 
Joint IED Defeat Fund.
    The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office 
(JIEDDO) was created by the Department of Defense in February 
2006 to defeat the IED threat, train the force in tactics and 
techniques to defend against the IED threat, and to attack the 
networks that enable IEDs to be used against American service 
members. In its first year, the organization undertook a number 
of counter-IED initiatives costing approximately $2.8 billion, 
as well as hiring staff, establishing a financial management 
function, and developing performance metrics.
    The committee is aware of the Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) March 2007 assessment of the JIEDDO which stated 
that it has not developed a strategic plan to clearly 
articulate its mission and, as a result, JIEDDO cannot 
effectively assess whether it is making the right investment 
decisions or whether it has effectively organized itself to 
meet its mission. The Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
Subcommittee on Defense has expressed similar concerns.
    The committee is also concerned that JIEDDO does not have 
full visibility over all of the services' counter-IED efforts, 
which has resulted in duplication of efforts. Moreover, 
according to the GAO, JIEDDO has not finalized guidance for how 
and when sustainment costs for all proven counter-IED 
initiatives will be transitioned to the services.
    In addition to concerns about JIEDDO's investment strategy 
and organizational structure, the committee is concerned about 
the gaps that exist in training the force. According to the 
GAO, training efforts do not reach all deploying personnel who 
may be exposed to the IED threat. This training gap is a 
serious force protection issue that must be addressed by 
JIEDDO.
    The committee awaits the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task 
Force on IEDs' next quarterly report on the ongoing program and 
activities in the context of a strategic campaign to address 
the IED threat. The committee expects that the DSB will address 
the matter of duplication of effort among the services' 
respective research and development communities, relevant 
defense agencies, and JIEDDO. Further, the committee expects 
the DSB will examine JIEDDO's approach to short- and long-term 
investments in technology development.
    The committee expects that JIEDDO will implement the 
recommendations already provided to it by the GAO and will 
implement quickly the recommendations of the DSB Task Force 
once the report has been completed. Additional directive 
guidance to JIEDDO is contained in the classified annex.
    The committee views JIEDDO as a war-related expense and, 
therefore, recommends transferring the funding provided in the 
base budget to title XV of the bill. To accomplish this, the 
committee recommends a reduction of $500.0 million in the base 
budget for the Joint IED Defeat Fund, and an increase of $500.0 
million in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request for 
the Joint IED Defeat Fund.

Blast injury research

    Blast injury from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) 
continues to be the most significant cause of American 
casualties in Iraq. The committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense has not appropriately allocated resources 
provided for the defeat of IEDs to the ``full range of efforts 
necessary to defeat the IED threat,'' including much needed 
research and training on the prevention, mitigation, and 
treatment of blast injuries. Section 256 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) established a Department of Defense-wide program to 
prevent, mitigate, and treat blast injuries. The committee 
expects that the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Office (JIEDDO), in accordance with the 2006 Act, will be a 
partner in the Department-wide efforts to coordinate, manage, 
and fund research efforts for medical blast research.
    To support these efforts, the committee directs that JIEDDO 
fund blast-related medical research, training, and programmatic 
activities which have been identified as high priorities by the 
DOD executive agent at a level of not less than $50.0 million 
in fiscal year 2008. These include: research and development of 
diagnostics, training, and treatment for traumatic brain 
injury; collection, storage, and integration of operational, 
medical, and protective equipment performance data associated 
with wounding and non-wounding events; body surface wound 
mapping for investigation of wounding patterns to be included 
in body armor design; research and training to prevent 
traumatic eye injury, cranial-facial injury, and burns; and 
enhanced research on hemorrhage control.
    Further, the committee directs JIEDDO to report to the 
executive agent and to the congressional defense committees on 
actions, including funding, to fulfill these requirements, no 
later than March 1, 2008.

Counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device electronic warfare

    The Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded requirements list 
included a request for $152.9 million in Other Procurement, 
Army for the acquisition of counter radio-controlled improvised 
explosive device electronic warfare (CREW) systems. According 
to the budget request submitted to the committee by the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO), the 
JIEDDO's budget includes over $745.0 million to assist the 
military services with urgent requests from in theater. In 
light of these funds, the committee directs the JIEDDO to 
provide the Army with the funds necessary to procure 1,000 
CREW-2 systems and 8,131 CREW trainers.

Counter-remote controlled improvised explosive device systems

    The committee is concerned that the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Defeat (IED) Office has become too dependent on a 
single source of supply for counter-Remote Controlled IED 
(RCIED) jamming systems and system components, thereby limiting 
innovation and potentially preventing more effective systems 
from being fielded. The committee further believes the Joint 
IED Defeat Office (JIEDDO) should consider identifying and 
qualifying additional sources for counter-RCIED systems. The 
committee therefore directs the JIEDDO and the military 
departments to identify and, as appropriate, qualify additional 
sources for counter-RCIED systems and system components.

Directed energy for improvised explosive device defeat

    The committee is heartened that the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is starting to 
invest significant resources in research, development, and 
production of technologies to counter a broader spectrum of 
electronics used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The 
committee is concerned that JIEDDO has taken a short-term view 
of this technology area, looking for off-the-shelf solutions. 
Not finding fully mature technologies or properly engineered 
prototypes, JIEDDO has chosen not to invest, expecting the 
services or the private sector to make the necessary 
investments. For their part, service advocates have not 
persuaded their management to invest because the prevailing 
view is that JIEDDO has the responsibility.
    The IED problem is obviously severe and our exposure in 
Iraq has endured. These devices are almost certainly here to 
stay as a threat to U.S. and allied military forces. It is 
incumbent on the Department of Defense to develop robust 
solutions even if that takes considerable time and resources. 
JIEDDO, the services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, and 
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics should be working together to develop 
a rational investment strategy.
    More specifically, the committee is persuaded that 
technology advances in photonic switches and transformers 
provide potential pulse-power/directed energy capabilities far 
better than what is currently available. On behalf of JIEDDO, 
the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) is rapidly maturing 
technology for compact, single-cycle, very high peak power, 
ultra-wideband, extremely short pulse, very fast discharge, and 
high pulse rate from low prime power sources. The possibility 
exists that a multiple cycle terawatt system could be built for 
fielding on an airborne platform. The committee directs that, 
of the amounts authorized and appropriated for JIEDDO, $20.0 
million be used for a competitive award through the TSWG to 
accelerate ongoing projects and to develop multiple cycle 
technology.
            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 and summarize that funding by 
account. Funding for base closure projects is explained in 
additional detail in the table included in title XXVII of this 
report.
    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 included 
authorization of appropriations for military construction and 
housing programs totaling $21.2 billion. Of this amount, $9.8 
billion was requested for military construction, $2.9 billion 
for the construction and operation of family housing, and $8.4 
for base closure activities, including $8.2 billion to 
implement the results of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC) round.
    The budget also proposed an additional $907.9 million in 
emergency spending for Army military construction projects in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and Navy military construction projects in 
the United States related to the administration's proposal to 
grow the size of the Marine Corps. Additional funding for the 
Army projects is contained in title XXIX of this Act. The 
funding requested for Marine Corps projects has been included 
in title XXII of this Act.
    Including all funding in division B of this Act, the 
committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 
military construction and housing programs totaling $22.6 
billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations 
reflects this committee's continuing commitment to invest in 
the recapitalization of Department of Defense facilities and 
infrastructure. The committee recommends an increase of $600.0 
million for additional construction projects, and a reduction 
of $139.1 million in unjustified or lower priority projects, 
for a net increase of $460.9 million to the amount requested 
for military construction and family housing.



Budget justification material for incrementally funded and phased 
        military construction projects

    The committee defines an incrementally funded military 
construction project as having received an authorization for 
the full amount of the requirement in the first year, but only 
a partial authorization of appropriation for the project to 
provide funds for expected outlays against the project for that 
specific year. In contrast, a phased project receives 
authorization for a complete and useable facility or facilities 
as part of a total requirement, which may need more than one 
military construction project to complete.
    The committee notes that the military departments and 
defense agencies do not always use the same format to submit 
budget justification material to the Congress. With respect to 
each phased requirement, or each incrementally funded military 
construction project, the committee requests that the budget 
justification documents for military construction projects 
(known as the DD1391 form) include, with respect to a phased 
requirement or any increment of an incrementally funded 
project, the entire cost of the requirement as well as the 
cost, by fiscal year, of each past and future phase or 
increment, in addition to the amount requested for the phase or 
increment contained in the budget request.
    In the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the DD1391 forms 
for incrementally funded Army and Air Force projects generally 
contained all this information, while those for the Navy and 
certain defense agencies, such as the National Security Agency, 
did not. The committee suggests the table included in the 
justification material provided by the Air Force for increment 
3 of the Main Base Runway project at Edwards Air Force Base, 
California as a model for presenting this information.

Budget justification material for military construction

    The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) prepares and 
transmits budget justification material to the Congress 
describing the budget request of the Department of Defense. 
Among these documents are line item level descriptions of the 
budget request for military personnel, operation and 
maintenance, procurement, research and development, and 
military construction accounts, known respectively as the M-1, 
O-1, P-1, R-1, and C-1. With the exception of the C-1 for 
military construction, all of these documents include a listing 
of the funding amounts by program for the prior year as well as 
the current year and the budget year. The C-1 includes 
information only for the current year and the budget year. 
However, prior to the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the C-1 
also included information for the prior year. The committee 
believes a public record of the amounts actually obligated as 
of the end of the fiscal year serves a useful purpose and 
requests that beginning with the budget request for fiscal year 
2009 the C-1 once again include information on the prior year 
amounts for each line item.

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 2008.
                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $4.0 billion for military construction and $1.2 billion for 
family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$4.1 billion for military construction and $1.2 billion for 
family housing for fiscal year 2008.
    The budget request included ``placeholders'' in the Army's 
military construction and family housing budget accounts of 
$2.4 billion related to facilities to support the 
administration's ``Grow the Force'' proposal to increase the 
size of the Army. On March 30, 2007, the Army provided a 
detailed breakout and supporting budget justification materials 
to the committee requesting a specific allocation of these 
funds. While this was not an official administration budget 
amendment, the committee has reviewed this request and included 
these proposed changes in the committee recommendation. These 
projects are identified in the State list table included in 
this report.
    The committee recommends the following reductions and 
modifications to projects requested by the Army. The committee 
has deleted $1.0 million included in a defense access road 
project at Fort Carson, Colorado which was unrelated to the 
project for which funds were requested.
    The committee has also reduced the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for two projects requested to 
support the stationing of a full brigade complex at Vicenza, 
Italy. The budget requested $86.0 million for a barracks and 
community facilities project and an additional $87.0 million 
for an operations support complex. The committee values the 
strong relationship between the United States and Italy, but 
notes with concern that the proposal to expand into these 
facilities at Dal Molin has yet to receive the required 
approvals from the Government of Italy. Therefore, the 
committee recommends these projects be incrementally funded at 
$50.0 million each in fiscal year 2008. Should host nation 
approval not be forthcoming in a timely manner, further 
reductions in this funding may be warranted.
    The congressional defense committees and the Department of 
Defense have traditionally analyzed requirements and funding 
for mission projects and quality of life projects as important 
and distinct categories. Several projects requested by the Army 
blur these traditional distinctions. The funding requested for 
a headquarters facility for the U.S. Southern Command in Miami 
included funding for a child development center inside the 
overall project cost for the headquarters. Funding requested 
for a brigade complex maintenance facility at Fort Drum, New 
York combined funding for a dining facility with funding for 
mission-oriented projects such as vehicle maintenance shops. 
The committee has separated these mission and quality of life 
requests into separate projects. The committee accepts the 
practice of combining dining facilities with other quality of 
life projects such as unaccompanied housing. However, the 
committee directs the Army, and the other elements of the 
Department of Defense, to refrain from combining mission 
facilities and quality of life facilities into single project 
requests in future budget submissions.
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 2008. 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 2008. 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 2008 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 2008 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.

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Army projects 
        for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2105)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for 
military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 
for which no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were 
provided in fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized 
but were not included in the President's original budget 
request. The entire list of fiscal year 2007 active Army 
projects for which the authorizations would be repealed 
follows. The committee has provided new authorizations for some 
of these projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects 
that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found 
in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in 
this report.
    The committee urges the Department of Defense and the 
military departments to review any projects on this list that 
are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 and re-
insert those projects, if the requirements are still valid, in 
the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program.



Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 project 
        (sec. 2106)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109-163) to increase 
the project authorizations for Fort Bragg, North Carolina by 
$7.0 million. This increase was requested by the Department of 
Defense in its legislative proposal to the Congress.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 
        2107)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Army fiscal year 2005 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These extensions were 
requested by the Department of Defense in their legislative 
proposal to the Congress.

Technical amendments to the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
        2007 (sec. 2108)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make two 
corrections to the table of project authorizations in section 
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (division B of Public Law 109-364). One amendment 
would modify the name of a specific location of a project in 
Romania to reflect a modification of the original plan. This 
modification was proposed by the Army and understood by the 
conferees prior to the adoption of the fiscal year 2007 
legislation. The second amendment would correct an enrolling 
error and align the text of the public law with the text of the 
conference report.

Ground lease, SOUTHCOM Headquarters Facility, Miami-Doral, Florida 
        (sec. 2109)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
amendments to the existing ground lease agreement between the 
United States Government and the State of Florida for the land 
proposed as the site of a new headquarters for the U.S. 
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) before the Secretary of the Army 
could begin construction of the headquarters. The committee is 
concerned that the existing agreement does not allow sufficient 
flexibility for the use of this facility by other federal 
agencies in the event future requirements change, and that the 
lease term should be a more standard 50-year period, rather 
than 20 years with options for extensions as under the current 
agreement. The committee understands the State is willing to 
make these modifications to the lease agreement.

                        Item of Special Interest


Army budget justification material for military construction

    The military departments and defense agencies prepare 
detailed justification documents for each military construction 
project and transmit these to the Congress as part of the 
annual budget justification materials. These documents are 
known as DD1391 forms. The budget justification materials 
submitted by the Army in February in support of the fiscal year 
2008 budget contained, in 44 different projects, an assertion 
that ``Title to utility infrastructure constructed as a result 
of this MILCON project may be transferred to the utility 
privatization contractor notwithstanding any other provision of 
law.''
    The committee appreciates any attempt to make the DD1391 
forms as informative as possible. However, the committee notes 
that an executive branch assertion in a budget justification 
document of a right to take an action ``notwithstanding any 
other provision of law'' has no force and effect and does not 
create any such right. Committee approval in this Act of 
funding for any Army military construction project containing 
this phrase does not constitute an endorsement or acceptance of 
any right by the Army to take actions contrary to existing law. 
The committee directs the Army to refrain from inserting such 
an assertion into DD1391 forms in the future.
                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $2.1 billion for military construction and $669.7 million 
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal 
year 2008 in the base budget request, plus an additional $169.1 
million in emergency funding for projects to support increasing 
the size of the Marine Corps.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$2.4 billion for military construction and $671.5 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2008. Included in this amount is 
the $169.1 million which was requested as emergency funding. 
The committee has transferred funding for these projects from 
title XXIX of this Act and included these projects in the 
regular State list on a non-emergency basis. These transfers 
are identified in the State list.
    The budget request also included ``placeholders'' in the 
Navy's military construction and family housing budget accounts 
of $382.9 million related to facilities to support the 
administration's ``Grow the Force'' proposal to increase the 
size of the Marine Corps. On April 20, 2007, the Navy provided 
a detailed breakout and supporting budget justification 
materials to the committee requesting a specific allocation of 
these funds. While this was not an official administration 
budget amendment, the committee has reviewed this request and 
included these proposed changes in the committee 
recommendation. These projects are identified in the State list 
table included in this report.
    The committee recommends the following reductions and 
modifications to projects requested by the Navy. The committee 
has deleted $18.1 million requested for an infantry squad 
battle course at Camp Pendleton, California. The budget 
justification material for this project indicated that only 
about 9 percent of the cost of this project was for the primary 
facility, while the rest was for supporting facilities and 
extensive site work and mitigation. The committee urges the 
Navy to find a more efficient way to construct this project.
    The committee has also deleted funding requested for the 
Outlying Landing Field (OLF) project in Washington County, 
North Carolina. The committee is aware that the Navy is in the 
process of reconsidering the siting for this project. The 
committee has added funding for an expanded environmental 
impact statement that would evaluate other potential sites in 
title III of this Act.
    The committee is concerned by the cost of the $45.3 million 
request for a fitness center in Guam. In particular, the 
committee considers the $5.3 million requested for an outdoor 
running track to be excessive in light of the $7.9 million 
already included in the project for a lighted synthetic field, 
which would appear to be a suitable alternative for jogging.
    The committee is also concerned by the cost of proposed 
family housing construction in Guam. The budget requests $57.2 
million for just 73 units in Guam, which equates to a per unit 
cost of $783,198 per building including site work and 
utilities. The average unit cost of the dwelling units alone is 
$437,562. The committee understands that construction costs in 
Guam are very high, but finds these unit costs unacceptable and 
has accordingly reduced this request by $10.0 million. The 
proposal to relocate 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam over 
the next several years will not be affordable, even with cost 
sharing between the United States and the Government of Japan, 
at these prices.
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 2008. 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 2008. 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 2008 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 2008 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.
Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Navy projects 
        for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for 
military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 
for which no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were 
provided in fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized 
but were not included in the President's original budget 
request.
    The entire list of fiscal year 2007 active Navy projects 
for which the authorizations would be repealed follows. The 
committee has provided new authorizations for some of these 
projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects that 
received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found in 
the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in this 
report.
    The committee urges the Department of Defense and the 
military departments to review any projects on this list that 
are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 and re-
insert those projects, if the requirements are still valid, in 
the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program.



                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $912.1 million for military construction and $1.1 billion 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.0 billion for military construction and $1.1 billion for 
family housing for fiscal year 2008.
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 2008. 
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 2008. 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 2008 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 2008 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.
Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Air Force 
        projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for 
military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 
for which no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were 
provided in fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized 
but were not included in the President's original budget 
request. The entire list of fiscal year 2007 active Air Force 
projects for which the authorizations would be repealed 
follows. The committee has provided new authorizations for some 
of these projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects 
that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found 
in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in 
this report. The committee urges the Department of Defense and 
the military departments to review any projects on this list 
that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 
and re-insert those projects, if the requirements are still 
valid, in the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program.



Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 project 
        (sec. 2306)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109-163) to increase 
the project authorizations for MacDill Air Force Base, Florida 
by $25.0 million. This increase was requested by the Department 
of Defense in its legislative proposal to the Congress.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 
        2307)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2005 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These extensions were 
requested by the Air Force.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 projects (sec. 
        2308)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2004 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These extensions were 
requested by the Department of Defense in their legislative 
proposal to the Congress.
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.8 billion for military construction for the defense 
agencies, $49.3 million for family housing for the defense 
agencies and the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and $86.2 
million for chemical demilitarization construction in fiscal 
year 2008.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.9 billion for military construction and $49.3 million for 
family housing for the defense agencies and the Family Housing 
Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2008. These amounts include 
the funding for chemical demilitarization construction.
    The Department of Defense requested funding for chemical 
demilitarization as a new separate funding title. The committee 
bill funds this program in title XXIV, as in previous years. 
The funding tables reflect the elimination of the $86.2 million 
request from the proposed new title, the transfer of these 
funds into title XXIV, the net increase of $18.0 million to 
this program, and the total of $104.2 million authorized in 
this title for chemical demilitarization construction.
    The committee does not agree to authorize the $18.5 million 
requested by the Washington Headquarters Service for electrical 
upgrades for the Pentagon Reservation. The committee invites 
the Department of Defense to resubmit a modified version of 
this project in future years once the Department has reached 
agreement with the relevant electric utility companies on a 
more comprehensive approach that fulfills all the objectives 
this project was intended to address.
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 2008. 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 2008 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.
Termination or modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
        year 2007 Defense Agencies projects (sec. 2404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for 
military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 
for which no funds were appropriated. The provision would also 
increase the authorized amount for prior year base realignment 
and closure (BRAC) funding for fiscal year 2007 to authorize 
the additional amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007.
    No appropriations were provided in fiscal year 2007 for 
projects that were authorized but were not included in the 
President's original budget request. The entire list of fiscal 
year 2007 projects of the defense agencies for which the 
authorizations would be repealed follows.
    The committee has provided new authorizations for some of 
these projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects 
that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found 
in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in 
this report. The committee urges the Department of Defense and 
the military departments to review any projects on this list 
that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 
and re-insert those projects, if the requirements are still 
valid, in the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program.



Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 
        2405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain defense agency fiscal year 2005 
military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These 
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense in their 
legislative proposal to the Congress.
   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriation of $201.4 million for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 
2008. The committee recommends an authorization of 
appropriation of $201.4 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 2008 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 $201.4 million for the United States' 
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2008.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $695.2 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2008 for National Guard and reserve facilities. The 
committee recommends a total of $895.3 million 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 2008. 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 2008. 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 2008. 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 2008. 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 2008. 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 2008 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.
Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Guard and 
        Reserve projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 
        2607)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for 
military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 
for which no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were 
provided in fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized 
but were not included in the President's original budget 
request. The entire list of fiscal year 2007 reserve component 
projects for which the authorizations would be repealed 
follows. The committee has provided new authorizations for some 
of these projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects 
that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found 
in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in 
this report. The committee urges the Department of Defense and 
the military departments to review any projects on this list 
that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 
and re-insert those projects, if the requirements are still 
valid, in the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program.



Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2006 Air Force 
        Reserve construction and acquisition projects (sec. 2608)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
authorization for a fiscal year 2006 Air Force Reserve project 
to convert a hanger into a headquarters for a C-17 unit at 
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Earlier this year, the Air 
Force submitted a reprogramming request to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
seeking to use this $3.1 million in funding for a project 
supporting the F-22 program rather than the C-17 program. The 
committee does not believe that construction of facilities not 
authorized by law is an appropriate use of existing 
authorities. The reprogramming was not approved, and the Air 
Force later turned to an existing statutory authority to 
construct the F-22 project. Therefore, the funding proposed by 
the Air Force as a source of funds is no longer required. The 
committee has included a separate legislative provision to 
address the reprogramming process more generally.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 
        2609)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain guard and reserve fiscal year 2005 
military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These 
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense in their 
legislative proposal to the Congress.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 projects (sec. 
        2610)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain guard and reserve fiscal year 2004 
military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These 
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense in their 
legislative proposal to the Congress.

                       Items of Special Interest


Planning and design, Army National Guard

    The committee directs that the amount of $3.5 million, 
added to the authorization of appropriations for planning and 
design for the Army National Guard, be used to complete the 
design of the Joint Forces Headquarters for the Minnesota 
National Guard at the Arden Hills Army Training Site, and that 
$960,000 added to this account be used to complete the design 
of a readiness center in The Dalles, Oregon.
               TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Summary and explanation of tables
    The budget request included $220.7 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 $8.2 billion for implementation of the 2005 
BRAC round. Section 2703 of this Act authorizes the full $8.2 
billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2008. 
Included in the $8.2 billion requested for BRAC is an 
authorization of appropriations for $6.4 billion in military 
construction projects that would be initiated in fiscal year 
2008. The full project authorization amount of these projects 
is $8.7 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.



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 2008 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 2008 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 2008 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.
Authorized cost and scope of work variations (sec. 2704)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) military 
construction project carried out with amounts authorized for 
appropriations by sections 2701 and 2703 of this title be 
subject to the limits on cost and scope variations contained in 
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code. Furthermore, this 
provision would establish, as a baseline for the determination 
of variations, the cost and scope contained in the military 
construction project data for each project provided to the 
congressional defense committees annually in justification 
material accompanying each President's budget request.
         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

      Subtitle A--Effective Date and Expiration of Authorizations

Effective Date (sec. 2801)
    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, 2007 or the date of 
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, repair of real property, land 
acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, as 
October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever 
is later.

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

General military construction transfer authority (sec. 2811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
transfer authority for military construction authorizations 
similar to that already in use by the Committees on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
The provision would provide that up to $200.0 million could be 
transferred among the military construction authorizations 
available to a particular military department or defense agency 
for fiscal year 2008. Funds could be transferred only to cover 
cost or scope changes on previously authorized and appropriated 
projects, not to create ``new start'' construction projects.
    This provision is more limited than the general transfer 
authority provided in section 1001 for funds in division A of 
this Act, which allows funds to be transferred between military 
departments. The committee is willing to consider such 
additional flexibility, in consultation with the other 
congressional defense committees, in the future.
    At present, military construction reprogrammings are 
presented only to the Committees on Appropriations, while 
notifications of cost and scope changes are provided to the 
Committees on Armed Services. The committee believes that it 
should have the same information on the proposed reprogramming 
of funds used as sources to cover cost and scope increases as 
the Committees on Appropriations.
    The committee is concerned by the proposal made by the Air 
Force to the Committees on Appropriations in January 2007 to 
use the existing reprogramming process to carry out a ``new 
start'' military construction project that had not been 
authorized by law. The committee does not see a need at this 
time for a military construction transfer authority that would 
allow the Department of Defense to construct ``new start'' 
construction projects through the reprogramming process. At a 
minimum, all four congressional defense committees would have 
to agree on a common reprogramming procedure before the 
committee would entertain such an expansion of the 
reprogramming process.
Modifications of authority to lease military family housing (sec. 2812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
existing authorities in section 2828 of title 10, United States 
Code, regarding the leasing of family housing by the Department 
of Defense. The provision would grant the Secretary of the Army 
additional authority to enter into high cost leases for up to 
600 units in the United States. The provision would also set an 
annual per-unit cap on high cost leases overseas. The provision 
would combine and consolidate the existing authorities for high 
cost leases in Italy for the Army and the Navy into a single 
limit applicable to the entire Department of Defense. The 
provision would also raise the threshold for which 
congressional notification of overseas leases is required to 
$1.0 million in annual rental payments.
    The provision would also modify one of the limits on high 
cost housing leases in Korea. The committee values the strong 
alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea, 
and supports the implementation of the Land Partnership Plan 
and the Yongsan Relocation Plan.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
proceed with an economic analysis comparing the life cycle cost 
of military construction to build-to-lease construction of 
family housing units in Korea as soon as possible, in order to 
assess the likely size and quality of units that could be 
constructed in a competitive bidding situation. The committee 
also strongly urges the Secretary of the Army to issue a 
request for information to help inform this analysis. Taking 
these steps expeditiously would better inform the conferees of 
the need for any specific changes in the cost ceilings. The 
committee does not believe that the full increase in the 
leasing unit cost ceilings proposed by the Department is 
affordable, and urges the Secretary of the Army to review all 
the alternatives identified in the economic analysis, and then 
proceed with a request for proposals for a full and open 
competition for leasing or military construction in order to 
find the most economical means to provide suitable family 
housing units.

Increase in thresholds for unspecified minor military construction 
        projects (sec. 2813)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2805(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by raising 
the threshold of the cost of a construction project authorized 
by this section from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. This 
provision would also raise the threshold of the cost of a 
construction project intended solely to correct a deficiency 
that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-
threatening from $3.0 million to $4.0 million.
    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office, in a report released in February 2004 entitled ``Long-
term Challenges in Managing the Military Construction 
Program,'' estimated that construction costs for the military 
have increased by an average of 41 percent since the thresholds 
amended by this provision were last adjusted.
    An identical provision was included in the last three 
defense authorization bills reported by the committee and 
passed by the Senate. The committee continues to believe that 
this change is necessary and appropriate.

Modification and extension of temporary, limited authority to use 
        operation and maintenance funds for construction projects 
        outside the United States (sec. 2814)

    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 year, through the end of fiscal year 2008, 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 
remove the authority in current law to waive the annual dollar 
limitation on this authority.

Temporary authority to support revitalization of Department of Defense 
        laboratories through unspecified minor military construction 
        projects (sec. 2815)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Department of Defense (DOD) with additional authority to 
improve DOD laboratories using minor construction authorities 
similar to those already contained in section 2805 of title 10, 
United States Code. The temporary authority would expire on 
September 30, 2012. The Department of Defense requested similar 
language in their fiscal year 2008 legislative proposal to the 
Congress. DOD laboratories are generally funded with research 
and development funds and do not have the same access to 
military construction funds as other types of DOD facilities.

Two-year extension of temporary program to use minor military 
        construction authority for construction of child development 
        centers (sec. 2816)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2810 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109-163) to extend 
by 2 years the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of 
Defense to use higher thresholds contained in section 2805 of 
title 10, United States Code, for the construction of child 
development centers. This provision would also require the 
Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2009, on the use of this temporary program.

Extension of authority to accept equalization payments for facility 
        exchanges (sec. 2817)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority provided in section 2809 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 
Law 108-375) by an additional 3 years, until September 30, 
2010. This provision was requested by the Department of 
Defense.

        Subtitle C--Real Property and Facilities Administration


Requirement to report transactions resulting in annual costs of more 
        than $750,000 (sec. 2831)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2662 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military 
departments, or their designees, to notify Congress prior to 
entering into a transaction or contract action that results in 
or includes the acquisition, lease or license, or any other use 
by entities of the Department of Defense of real property if 
the estimated annual rental or cost is more than $750,000.
    In hearings before the Subcommittee on Readiness and 
Management Support earlier this year, the committee received 
testimony that elements of the Department of Defense may have 
violated existing law through the use of service contracts to 
acquire office space without providing the required 
notifications to Congress regarding what was a lease under 
another name. The provision recommended by the committee is in 
no way intended to imply that such actions were or are legal or 
appropriate under existing law. Rather, this provision is 
intended to clarify that elements of the Department of Defense 
are required to notify Congress before entering into any type 
of contract, including service contracts, for the use of real 
property or facility space.

Modification of authority to lease non-excess property (sec. 2832)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
secretary of a military department to use competitive 
procedures to select lessees for transactions authorized by 
paragraph (a) of section 2667. The provision would also 
eliminate the authority for the secretary concerned to receive 
in-kind consideration or to use rental and other proceeds for 
facility operation support.
    The committee is concerned that the authority granted to 
the secretary of a military department by section 2667 to 
provide an opportunity to gain benefit for underutilized real 
or personal property may be used to acquire services beyond 
that intended by Congress. The committee urges the military 
departments to use the proceeds gained in transactions carried 
out under this authority prudently to address military facility 
requirements directly related to maintenance, repair, 
improvements, and construction.

Enhanced flexibility to create or expand buffer zones (sec. 2833)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Department of Defense (DOD) with additional flexibility in 
entering into partnerships with non-federal entities to protect 
or enhance the capability of DOD installations. The provision 
would allow such agreements to provide for the ongoing upkeep 
and management of buffer zones bordering defense installations, 
in addition to the authority to acquire the property provided 
under current law. The committee also recognizes that the 
military value of such buffer zones may exceed the appraised 
value of the real property. The provision would provide 
additional authority in such cases for DOD entities to acquire 
an interest in property where the cost of acquiring the 
interest exceeds the fair market value of the property, if the 
Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department 
provides a certification to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives that the military 
value of the acquisition provides benefits that justify a 
payment in excess of the fair market value.

Reports on Army and Marine Corps operational ranges (sec. 2834)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify a 
reporting requirement on changing requirements for Army 
training ranges that was contained in section 2827 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(division B of Public Law 109-364). This report, which was due 
on February 1, 2007, has not been submitted. The provision 
would expand this reporting requirement to include the impact 
of the proposal contained in the fiscal year 2008 budget to 
permanently increase the size of the active-duty component of 
the Army by 65,000 personnel. The report by the Secretary of 
the Army would also include an assessment of the potential 
expansion of the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, 
Louisiana, and an assessment of the available training capacity 
in Germany.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
might propose to base these additional 65,000 personnel in a 
way that would not effectively utilize the existing training 
capacity the Army already has in Germany. The committee expects 
a full assessment of this issue, including the cost of 
constructing any facilities that would duplicate any existing 
underutilized capacity in Germany, as part of this report. The 
report should also incorporate the analysis done for, and if 
possible the results of, the programmatic environmental impact 
statement the Army plans to conduct on the growth of the Army.
    The provision would also add a similar reporting 
requirement with respect to the proposal in the fiscal year 
2008 budget request to expand the size of the Marine Corps by 
27,000 personnel. This report would include an analysis of a 
proposal under consideration by the Marine Corps to expand the 
training range at Marine Corps Base Twentynine Palms, 
California.

Consolidation of real property provisions without substantive change 
        (sec. 2835)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
the real property authorities provided under sections 2663 and 
2677 of title 10, United States Code. This provision was 
requested by the Department of Defense.

                Subtitle D--Base Closure and Realignment


Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York, basing report (sec. 2841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 
defense committees on the current and future missions planned 
for Niagara Air Reserve Base in Niagara, New York.

                      Subtitle E--Land Conveyances


Land conveyance, Lynn Haven Fuel Depot, Lynn Haven, Florida (sec. 2851)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, for consideration, a 
parcel of approximately 40 acres, including real property, at 
the Lynn Haven Fuel Depot in Lynn Haven, Florida. The committee 
expects the consideration received by the Air Force to 
approximate the fair market value of the property to be 
conveyed.

Modification to land conveyance authority, Fort Bragg, North Carolina 
        (sec. 2852)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 2836 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) to authorize the Secretary 
of the Army to convey without consideration to Harnett County, 
North Carolina, a parcel of real property totaling 137 acres at 
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for educational purposes and the 
construction of public school structures. The provision would 
also authorize the Secretary to require the County to cover 
administrative and other costs for the conveyance.

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, GSA property, Springfield, 
        Virginia (sec. 2853)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) 
to transfer control of a parcel of property adjacent to the 
Springfield metro station in Springfield, Virginia to the 
Secretary of the Army in return for fair market value 
compensation from the Army. The compensation provided by the 
Army could be provided through a combination of property or 
services. The property transferred to the Army would become 
part of Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
    The committee believes the use of this GSA site to 
accommodate a portion of the workforce relocating to Fort 
Belvoir under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process 
would greatly benefit the Army and the workforce by allowing a 
much greater use of public transportation. The committee 
believes that the relocation of Washington Headquarters Service 
employees to this site should be given priority consideration. 
The committee is aware that the parties may be able to reach an 
agreement on such a transfer under current law, but that the 
provision recommended by the committee would provide additional 
benefits and authorities. The committee urges the Army and the 
GSA to assess the terms and conditions available under current 
law and those available under this legislation and conclude an 
agreement that is fair to both parties as quickly as possible.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Report on condition of schools under jurisdiction of Department of 
        Defense Education Activity (sec. 2861)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report by March 1, 2008 on the condition of 
schools under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense 
Education Activity (DODEA).
    The committee is concerned that the recent and proposed 
amounts of investment for the maintenance, repair, and 
recapitalization of DODEA school facilities are not adequate to 
sustain acceptable conditions for the education of the 
dependents of military personnel. In addition, the committee is 
concerned that the proposed amounts for the construction of new 
schools and the elimination of temporary trailers are 
inadequate to address the requirements resulting from the 2005 
Defense Base Realignment and Closure process, the Global 
Defense Realignment Plan, and initiatives by the Army and 
Marine Corps to increase their respective end strengths.
    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish standards for acceptable sizes and conditions of 
DODEA school facilities, to assess the existing inventory of 
facilities, and to develop a master plan and investment 
strategy to quickly correct identified deficiencies. Finally, 
this provision would require the Secretary to submit this plan 
to the congressional defense committees to facilitate further 
oversight and diligence to ensure the timely investment of 
resources to bring the entire DODEA school system up to 
acceptable standards.

Repeal of requirement for study and report on impact to military 
        readiness of proposed land management changes on public lands 
        in Utah (sec. 2862)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 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 law 
restricted the actions of the Department of the Interior until 
the Secretary of Defense submitted a report. The Department of 
Defense has failed, for over 6 years, to submit this report, 
and has not given the committee any indication the report will 
ever be submitted. The committee does not believe it is fair 
for one government agency to restrict the actions of another 
agency indefinitely simply through inaction. Furthermore, 
circumstances have changed in the intervening years, and the 
committee sees no further need for this restriction.

Additional project in Rhode Island (sec. 2863)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
terms and conditions applicable to an Army Corps of Engineers 
project in Rhode Island contained in section 2866 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) to an additional project in Woonsocket, 
Rhode Island.

                       Items of Special Interest


Host nation burdensharing

    The committee notes that the United States Government has 
entered into separate agreements with the Governments of the 
Republic of Korea and Japan to share the costs of relocating 
United States military forces away from urban areas onto new 
bases to be constructed over the next 5 years. In Korea, two 
initiatives to consolidate over 14,000 U.S. military personnel, 
11,000 family members, and 9,000 other civilians at Camp 
Humphreys from 59 smaller locations and the U.S. Army post in 
Seoul will cost approximately $9.0 billion through fiscal year 
2012. In Japan, over 8,000 U.S. marines and their families are 
planned to be relocated from Okinawa to Guam by 2015 at a 
current estimated cost of over $10.0 billion.
    For both countries, the United States Government currently 
maintains cost sharing arrangements for the sustainment and 
support of U.S. forces contributing to the common defense of 
each country. In Korea, for non-personnel stationing costs of 
U.S. forces, the U.S. goal is a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement 
for the total estimated amount of $1.8 billion annually. 
Unfortunately, the Korean Government's contribution fell short 
in 2006, funding only 38 percent of the total costs, and the 
contribution for 2007 is expected to be 41 percent for a total 
of $770.0 million. The Government of Japan contributes 
approximately $4.0 billion annually for the support and 
operations of U.S. forces stationed throughout Japan and on 
Okinawa.
    The committee is concerned that host nation plans to share 
costs specifically for the initiatives to relocate U.S. forces 
in each country will be funded from amounts already agreed to 
in existing burden-sharing arrangements. Since these amounts 
are required to sustain the entirety of U.S. forces in each 
country, the net effect of this arrangement would be to defer 
or cancel other U.S. forces mission critical requirements in 
each country while host nation funding is diverted to pay for 
the relocations. The committee is concerned that this deferment 
would result in either a decrease in the readiness and mission 
effectiveness of forces in each country, or an increase of 
requirements to be funded through U.S. Department of Defense 
appropriations.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than December 31, 2007 that details the sources of funds 
to be used to fund the relocation of U.S. forces in the 
Republic of Korea and Japan, by year, through completion of 
each initiative as well as the anticipated costs each year to 
sustain remaining forces and the expected contribution from the 
host nation to share in these costs. The committee further 
directs the Secretary to assess the impact on the readiness, 
training, and operations of U.S. forces stationed in each 
country of any deferment of facility and support requirements 
as a result of the funding proposed to be provided by the host 
nation in each agreement for the relocation of U.S. forces to 
be from amounts provided in existing burden-sharing 
arrangements.

Military investment strategy in facilities that support training for 
        military operations in urban terrain

    The committee continues to be concerned that the current 
range and facilities and infrastructure supporting U.S. 
military forces around the world for military operations in 
urban terrain (MOUT) does not comprehensively simulate the type 
of environment encountered by military units in the 
battlefield. This concern remains despite a proliferation of 
military construction projects over the past 5 years to 
construct new MOUT facilities and shoot houses. In addition, 
the committee believes that the current practice for the 
development and construction by each military service of MOUT 
complexes to serve their specific training requirements does 
not adequately account for the battlefield integration of joint 
operations and combined arms.
    The committee is aware that, in response to consistent 
congressional oversight, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness established on April 13, 2007 a formal 
process to synchronize individual Department of Defense (DOD) 
Component efforts and to establish policies and 
responsibilities for evaluating and certifying military 
construction projects to upgrade existing or to construct new 
urban training facilities. The committee commends the Secretary 
of Defense's initiative to establish the Urban Training 
Facilities Review Group (URFRG) responsible for the 
implementation of the DOD policy to evaluate all proposals for 
new construction or modifications to MOUT complexes. Another 
positive step is the formal distinction of MOUT's that 
acknowledges the difference between regional urban training 
facilities to serve as national assets for complex large unit 
maneuvers and operations involving integrated components, and 
local urban training facilities to support individual and small 
unit basic skills training. But despite this progress, the 
committee notes that the Department still lacks a joint, 
future- year plan to combine resources from all components to 
construct and sustain a national infrastructure consisting of a 
varied range of MOUT complexes offering military units of all 
sizes, and from all components, a series of options to 
accomplish critical combined arms training in realistic 
settings truly simulating the atmosphere and conditions of a 
challenging urban battlefield.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
use the framework recently adopted to develop a comprehensive 
joint investment strategy, including an integrated priority 
list, to address the combined arms training needs and 
challenges of the warfighter for 21st century urban operations. 
The Secretary would then be able to certify that military 
construction projects to construct MOUT complexes are in 
compliance with the adopted investment strategy to ensure the 
most efficient use of resources to establish and maintain this 
critical asset. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
containing the MOUT facility investment strategy by March 1, 
2008.

Naval master jet basing

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) continues to be inundated with requests to reconsider 
decisions made by the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC) Commission, which were approved by the President of the 
United States and reviewed by Congress without further action 
in November 2005. These requests are made without regard to the 
resources and manpower required within the military services to 
faithfully and fully respond with the required information. 
Furthermore, the requests serve to undermine the intent and 
integrity of the 2005 BRAC process by requiring the military 
services to justify decisions made by an independent 
commission, which was established by Congress to reduce the 
political influence on DOD's efforts to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of its domestic basing.
    As an example, the Secretary of the Navy was recently 
encouraged to assess the viability and costs of relocating the 
east coast master jet base from Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, 
Virginia to numerous other locations around the country. This 
request came after the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of 
Naval Operations stated in testimony to the Committee on Armed 
Services in the House of Representatives on March 1, 2007 that 
``[t]he service is committed to staying at Oceana as long as 
these things continue to go well.''
    The committee notes that DOD previously conducted an 
assessment of naval master jet bases in 2004 in preparation of 
recommendations submitted to the BRAC Commission in May 2005. 
At that point, the Department recommended no realignment or 
closure actions for the master jet base at NAS Oceana. The BRAC 
Commission further studied alternate locations for the master 
jet base and also concluded that no viable alternative existed 
within the current inventory of Navy and Marine Corps 
installations. Finally, the Chief of Naval Operations received 
a report on December 9, 2005, entitled ``Master Jet Base 
Assessment,'' which assessed NAS Oceana to have the highest 
score for operational training support due to its ``proximity 
to the offshore training areas and ranges a Master Jet Base 
requires.''
    The 2005 Defense BRAC Commission did recommend a series of 
actions to be undertaken by the local community around NAS 
Oceana to control encroachment upon the airfield. As the Navy 
leadership indicated to the Committee on Armed Services in the 
House of Representatives, these actions have been successful to 
date in establishing a cooperative relationship between the 
community and the Navy for the preservation of safe flying 
operations at NAS Oceana, and, if continued, will allow for 
compatible airfield operations into the future. Therefore, a 
request to the Secretary of the Navy to readdress a decision of 
the 2005 Defense BRAC round in order to satisfy parochial 
interests is not in the best interests of the United States 
Navy or the Department of Defense.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy, if deciding to conduct the study, to expend the absolute 
minimal amount of manpower and resources necessary to satisfy 
the request to assess, once again, basing alternatives for 
naval air jet basing on the east coast of the United States. 
The committee also directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 
to the congressional defense committees, prior to the 
commencement of the study, an estimate of the cost to satisfy 
the request, and a list of the activities deferred or cancelled 
in order to direct manpower and resources to the request. 
Furthermore, this committee strongly encourages the Secretary 
of the Navy to include in the Navy's assessment, as required, a 
review of the actions taken to date by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia and the community of Virginia Beach to work 
collaboratively with the Navy to proactively address 
encroachment concerns at NAS Oceana, with the intent that this 
review will serve as a positive example to the local 
communities around the country supporting naval and Marine 
Corps aviation operations.

Temporary facilities

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) continues to allow the proliferation on military 
installations worldwide of the use of non-permanent or 
temporary facilities, defined as having a useful design life of 
less than 25 years. The military services are using temporary 
structures to respond to the increased operational pace of our 
military and the realignment of U.S. forces, including the 
modular conversion of the U.S. Army. The committee also notes 
that the DOD is not adhering to internal policy requiring the 
approval of the use of temporary facilities only as an interim 
solution and accompanied by a plan for replacement with 
permanent facilities as quickly as possible. Temporary 
facilities do not offer the same level of durability, security, 
and safety from severe climatic events. The potential that non-
permanent facilities would eventually be considered an 
acceptable working or living standard increases the risk over 
time of possible harm to military and DOD civilian personnel 
due to less sturdy construction.
    The committee is also concerned about the use of 
procurement or operation and maintenance funding to lease or 
acquire temporary facilities. The practice of using a service 
contract to lease space in temporary buildings provided by a 
contractor on a military installation can be viewed as a 
deliberate attempt to circumvent federal statutes pertaining to 
the authorization of military construction. In addition, 
entering into a lease of non-permanent, temporary space with an 
option to purchase the building is equally problematic when it 
leads to overpayment for an inadequate facility over its life 
cycle. The committee is also concerned that the initial costs 
of acquiring and installing non-permanent facilities are 
eclipsed by increased sustainment requirements over the life 
cycle of the facility. These costs may not be readily apparent 
as they are included in a service contract or lease of a 
temporary building. In addition, when temporary facilities are 
replaced by permanent facilities, the taxpayer ends up paying 
twice.
    Therefore, in order for this committee to provide diligent 
oversight on the use of temporary facilities, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
(USD-ATL) is directed to report to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act on the use of non-permanent, temporary facilities 
within the Department of Defense. Specifically, the Under 
Secretary shall report on: (1) a list of the acquisition or 
leasing actions of temporary facilities in each service over 
the past 5 years; (2) amounts spent on temporary facilities in 
the following categories: (a) operation and maintenance funding 
obligated in service contracts; (b) operation and maintenance 
funding obligated solely for non-permanent, temporary facility 
construction or procurement; (c) operation and maintenance 
funding obligated for leases of non-permanent, temporary 
facilities; and (d) procurement funding spent to procure non-
permanent, temporary facilities; (3) the plan for the 
construction of permanent facilities to replace each temporary 
facility acquired or leased in the DOD inventory to include 
project title, planned budget year, and estimated cost; and (4) 
the number of non-permanent, temporary facilities previously 
leased by the Department or the military services that were 
later purchased, and the costs associated with these 
arrangements. The Under Secretary shall include within the 
report recommendations for improvements, as appropriate, in 
each area reported on. Non-permanent or temporary facilities 
used overseas at forward operating sites or cooperative 
security locations are exempted from this reporting 
requirement.
    The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to analyze and report on the findings of the Under 
Secretary 90 days after the receipt of the Under Secretary's 
report. The GAO may conduct independent research, make 
independent findings, and make independent recommendations as 
required.
      TITLE XXIX--WAR-RELATED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary
    The committee bill would fund the $752.7 million requested 
by the Department of Defense for military construction projects 
for the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    The President's budget also requested, as emergency 
funding, $169.1 million in military construction funds for 
projects for the Department of the Navy. However, because those 
projects were inside the United States and related to the 
proposal to increase the size of the Marine Corps rather than 
to operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, the committee has 
authorized funding for those projects in title XXII of this 
Act.



Authorized war-related Army construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
war-related military construction projects in Iraq and 
Afghanistan for the Army for fiscal year 2008. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorizations of war-related military construction appropriations, 
        Army (sec. 2902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for war-related military construction projects 
of the Army authorized for construction for fiscal year 2008 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
the Army. The project list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Overview
    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
2008, 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 $15.9 billion, a less than 1 percent 
increase above the fiscal year 2007 appropriated level. Of the 
total amount requested:
    (1) $9.4 billion is for NNSA, of which
          (a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities;
          (b) $1.7 billion is for defense nuclear 
        nonproliferation activities;
          (c) $808.2 million is for naval reactors; and
          (d) $394.7 is for the Office of the Administrator;
    (2) $5.4 billion is for defense environmental cleanup;
    (3) $764.0 million is for other defense activities; and
    (4) $292.0 million is for defense nuclear waste disposal.
    The budget request also included $5.9 million within energy 
supply.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget requested $50.0 million in war-
related funding for defense nuclear nonproliferation 
activities.
    The committee recommends $15.9 billion for atomic energy 
defense activities at the Department, a decrease of $5.0 
million below the budget request.
    Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
    (1) $9.5 billion for NNSA, of which
          (a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities, a 
        decrease of $39.1 million below the budget request;
          (b) $1.8 billion is for defense nuclear 
        nonproliferation activities, including the fiscal year 
        2008 funds requested for war-related funding, an 
        increase of $87.0 above the combined budget request;
          (c) $808.2 million is for naval reactors, the amount 
        of the budget request; and
          (d) $399.7 million is for the Office of the 
        Administrator, an increase of $5.0 million above the 
        budget request;
    (2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup 
activities, an increase of $47.0 million above the budget 
request;
    (3) $663.1 million for other defense activities, a decrease 
of $100.9 million below the budget request; and
    (4) $242.0 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 $5.9 million.
    The following table summarizes the budget request and the 
authorizations:



National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $9.5 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in 
fiscal year 2008 for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to 
national security.

Weapons activities

    The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons 
activities, a decrease of $39.1 million below the budget 
request. The committee authorizes the following activities: 
$1.5 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.8 billion for 
campaigns; $1.6 billion for readiness in the technical base; 
$215.6 million for the secure transportation asset; $171.7 
million for nuclear weapons incidence response; $943.5 million 
for safeguards and security; $293.7 million for facilities and 
infrastructure recapitalization; and, $17.5 million for 
environmental projects and operations.

Directed stockpile work

    The committee recommends $1.5 billion for directed 
stockpile work, an increase of $66.3 million above 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 an increase of $20.0 million for 
weapons dismantlements to sustain the pace of dismantlements. 
The committee congratulates the NNSA on its Pantex throughput 
initiative, which has maintained nuclear operating safety and 
resulted in more efficient operations. Funding for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead (RRW) is reduced by $43.0 million and is 
discussed later in this report. The committee recommends a 
reduction of $60.0 million for the W-76 life extension program. 
The reduction brings the funding for the W-76 life extension 
program to the fiscal year 2008 funding level that was planned 
in fiscal year 2007. The additional funds were included in the 
budget request to accelerate the W-76 life extension. The 
committee supports the W-76 life extension program, but sees no 
justification for an accelerated program.

Campaigns

    The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns, a 
decrease of $114.6 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 full-scale underground nuclear 
weapons testing. These efforts form the scientific underpinning 
of the Department's certification that the stockpile remains 
safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons testing.
    The reductions in the engineering campaigns reflect a shift 
in funds that were requested for the RRW but were included in 
the engineering campaigns, from the engineering campaigns to 
the RRW account. The committee also recommends an increase of 
$9.7 million in the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield 
campaign for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) to fully fund 
the national ignition campaign, consistent with the approved 
baseline plan. The committee supports the goal of ignition in 
2010 and urges the NNSA to utilize the NIF as soon as possible 
to conduct stockpile stewardship experiments.

Readiness in the technical base

    The committee recommends $1.6 billion for readiness in the 
technical base and facilities (RTBF), a decrease of $13.2 
million below the budget request. This account funds facilities 
and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex to ensure the 
operational readiness of the complex and includes construction 
funding for new facilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $36.8 million for 
deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs at Pantex, 
including operations of facilities and critical infrastructure 
and nuclear safety upgrades, including replacement of nuclear 
facility hoists and high pressure fire loop lead-ins. The 
committee further recommends a $50.0 million decrease in the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement project (CMRR), 
Project 04-D-125, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a 
result of changing project requirements of the nuclear facility 
component of the CMRR. The NNSA has taken a pause in the design 
activities for the nuclear facility component of the CMRR while 
continuing with the design of the radiological laboratory.

Secure transportation asset

    The committee recommends $215.6 million for the secure 
transportation asset, 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 commends the secure transportation 
asset and its federal agents for increasing the number of 
secure convoys in recent years, under constrained funding. The 
committee is aware that workload requirements for the secure 
transportation asset will escalate significantly as the 
Department proceeds with the consolidation of its nuclear 
materials and deals with increased weapons dismantlements. The 
committee urges the DOE and the NNSA to budget adequate funding 
to undertake this important activity. The committee is 
concerned that as the workload increases the NNSA maintains a 
robust training program, which is essential to the long-term 
effectiveness of the federal agents.

Nuclear weapons incident response

    The committee recommends $171.7 million for nuclear weapons 
incident response, an increase of $10.0 million above the 
budget request, to address shortfalls in the ability to 
attribute an incident to a state or non-state actor.

Safeguards and security

    The committee recommends $943.5 million for weapons 
safeguards and security, an increase of $62.4 million above the 
budget request. The committee recommends the additional funds 
to address training and equipment shortages at many of the NNSA 
sites.
    Sites that store and use weapons grade fissile materials 
must meet the defined, rigorous Design Basis Threat (DBT) 
standards for security. The committee urges the NNSA to work 
with the DOE to consolidate these nuclear materials at a 
minimum number of sites. The consolidation effort should go 
forward independent of any plans to restructure the nuclear 
weapons complex. The committee questions the wisdom of moving 
nuclear materials numerous times, which appears to be the 
current plan. The committee continues to be concerned with the 
lack of results coming from the Department's nuclear materials 
consolidation coordinating committee and the length of time 
needed to decide on and implement a comprehensive 
consolidation. The extended delay can only serve to reduce the 
security posture in the long-term. As a result, the NNSA and 
the DOE must either invest significant resources to maintain 
the required level of security, or defer the necessary upgrades 
to meet the DBT at sites that are to be de-inventoried, thus 
calling into question the security posture at those sites. 
Neither of these outcomes is acceptable or responsible.
    The NNSA has initiated the Complex 2030 study to review the 
nuclear weapons complex and decide on the design for the 
complex of the future. The committee is troubled by the scope 
and timing of the study and the options under consideration. 
The study does not include any options that would significantly 
reduce the size of the complex or that would consolidate 
operations and NNSA sites. The committee urges the NNSA to 
expand the scope of the Complex 2030 study to look at site 
consolidation, including the possibility of closing NNSA sites 
that are surplus to mission needs.

Facilities and infrastructure

    The committee recommends $293.7 million for the Facilities 
and Infrastructure Recapitalization program (FIRP), the amount 
of the budget request. FIRP is a capital renewal program which 
was established to reduce the approximately $2.4 billion 
backlog of NNSA deferred maintenance which developed during the 
1980s and 1990s. While the FIRP program has been successful, 
the committee is concerned that at some sites, particularly the 
Pantex site, the ongoing routine maintenance activities are 
once again lagging and a new backlog of deferred maintenance is 
being created.

Environmental projects and operations

    The committee recommends $17.5 million for environmental 
projects and operations, the amount of the budget request.
    The committee was cautious in its support of the creation 
of the environmental projects and operations account and 
office, and was concerned that activities that are 
appropriately within the scope of the Defense Environmental 
Management (EM) program would be transferred to the NNSA. The 
DOE fiscal year 2008 budget request made clear that the EM 
program will continue to assume responsibility for 
dismantlement of excess contaminated facilities. As a result, 
the committee believes that this new organization is a valuable 
addition to support long-term NNSA environmental stewardship 
responsibilities.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program

    The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $87.0 million 
above the total amount of the fiscal year base budget request 
and the amount requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related 
funding. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
has management and oversight responsibilities for the 
nonproliferation programs of the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program. The committee recommends funding for 
these programs as follows: $315.3 million for nonproliferation 
and verification research and development--an increase of $50.0 
million for next generation nuclear detection technologies, the 
nuclear explosion monitoring program, and technologies to 
support improved nuclear material forensic capabilities, 
including a nuclear forensic library, research on improvised 
nuclear explosive devices, and new nuclear energy production 
concepts; $137.9 million for nonproliferation and international 
security--an increase of $8.0 million for global initiatives 
for proliferation prevention, and an increase of $5.0 million 
for international regimes and agreements, including technical 
assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 
enhanced safeguards activities; $381.8 million for 
international nuclear materials protection and cooperation--an 
increase of $10.0 million for the second line of defense core 
program; $195.6 million for elimination of weapons-grade 
plutonium production--an increase of $14.0 million to 
accelerate shutdown of the plutonium producing reactor at 
Zheleznogorsk, Russia; $609.5 million for fissile materials 
disposition--the amount of the request, including a $14.0 
million reduction in U.S. surplus materials disposition and a 
$14.0 million increase in Russian surplus materials disposition 
for the U.S./Russia partnership in Gas Turbine-Modular Helium 
reactor technology; and $169.6 million for the global threat 
reduction initiative--the amount of the budget request, 
including funds in the fiscal year 2008 war-related funding 
budget request.

Nuclear Forensics

    In the event that a non-state actor would ever detonate a 
nuclear device or explode a dirty bomb in the United States, 
correctly ascertaining the responsible party would be a 
difficult task, complicated by the fact that the nuclear 
material or weapon used would most likely be stolen. The 
committee supports the efforts in the NNSA, in conjunction with 
the Air Force and the intelligence community, to develop the 
tools to determine the source of the materials or weapons. 
There are two key aspects to successful forensics and 
attribution: technical capabilities to assess and collect 
samples, and the ability to compare them with material of known 
origin. The committee includes additional funding for research 
and development to develop the necessary collection and 
analytic capabilities, both pre-detonation and post-detonation, 
and to support the development of the Department of Energy 
(DOE) forensic library of nuclear materials.
    An additional element of the nuclear forensics capability 
is the nuclear explosion monitoring program. Attention to these 
technologies has lagged in recent years. New capabilities for 
ground and space monitoring technologies, as well as analytic 
capabilities are needed to detect low level, uncoupled, 
clandestine underground nuclear explosions. Such technologies 
would include hydroacoustic and signature element detection 
capabilities as well as other technologies.

Radiation Detection

    The committee also recommends additional funding for work 
on basic nuclear detection technologies. The NNSA is 
responsible for all of the U.S. Government's basic nuclear and 
radiation detection research and development. Today the ability 
to detect the most dangerous nuclear materials, weapons-grade 
plutonium and highly enriched uranium, is limited. The 
consequences of a terrorist using these materials in a nuclear 
explosive device would be catastrophic. The committee believes 
that additional effort should be focused on research that could 
detect these largely undetectable materials.

Fissile Materials Disposition program

    The committee notes its continuing and serious concerns 
regarding the Russian and U.S. Fissile Materials Disposition 
programs. The program consists of three separate functional 
areas, the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility, the 
plutonium pit disassembly facility, and the waste 
solidification facility. The MOX facility total project cost is 
estimated by the NNSA to be $4.7 billion, and the pit 
disassembly and waste solidification facilities total project 
cost (TPC) is estimated to be $2.7 billion. All of these 
projects have focused on the effort to disposition 34 metric 
tons of plutonium over a 13-year period without respect to the 
need to disposition all the many additional tons of excess 
plutonium that will be excess as the nuclear weapons stockpile 
draws down significantly in the future. Even with the $7.4 
billion TPC for the disposition facilities there are still tons 
of plutonium that are not sufficiently pure to be used in the 
MOX process. The fate of this plutonium is unknown and not 
included in the $7.4 billion TPC. Given all of the other 
demands on the defense budget, the committee is becoming more 
concerned about the entire approach to disposition. The 
committee also recognizes that long-term storage is not a good 
long-term option, given cost, security and environmental 
concerns.
    The committee notes that the NNSA has failed to conduct an 
independent cost estimate of the MOX facility and directs the 
NNSA to conduct an independent cost estimate of the pit 
disassembly and waste solidification facilities.
    The committee further notes that the United States and 
Russia have still not finalized an agreement whereby each 
country agrees to complete disposition of the original 34 
metric tons of excess plutonium by a date certain.
    The committee directs the Department of Energy to look at 
all of the plutonium that is currently excess or that could be 
declared excess in the next 15 years and develop a complete 
plan that includes a comprehensive, coordinated disposition 
path for all of the excess plutonium. The plan should be 
provided to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2008.

International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear fuel bank

    The committee recommends a provision that would recommend 
$50.0 million for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
nuclear fuel bank. As described by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, 
Director General of the IAEA, the fuel bank would have four key 
aspects:
          (1) provide assurance of supply of reactor technology 
        and nuclear fuel;
          (2) accept a time-limited moratorium (of perhaps 5 to 
        10 years) on new uranium enrichment and plutonium 
        separation facilities--at the very least for countries 
        that do not currently have such technologies;
          (3) establish a framework for multilateral management 
        and control of the ``back end'' of the fuel cycle (i.e. 
        spent fuel reprocessing and waste disposal); and
          (4) create a similar framework for multilateral 
        management and control of the ``front end'' of the fuel 
        cycle (i.e. enrichment and fuel production).
    The committee notes that the Nuclear Threat Initiative 
(NTI) has contributed $50.0 million to the IAEA to jump-start 
the nuclear fuel bank and to help create a low enriched uranium 
stockpile to support nations that make the sovereign choice not 
to build indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capabilities. This grant 
to the IAEA was contingent on two conditions: that the IAEA 
takes the necessary actions to approve establishment of this 
reserve, and that one or more member states contribute an 
additional $100.0 million in funding or an equivalent value of 
low enriched uranium to jump-start the reserve. The committee 
believes that the U.S. should lead the way and match the NTI 
funding.

Naval reactors

    The committee recommends $808.2 million for Naval reactors, 
the amount of the budget request.

Office of the Administrator

    The committee recommends $399.7 million for program 
direction for the NNSA, an increase of $5.0 million above the 
the budget request, to support increased nonproliferation 
program activities. This account provides program direction 
funding for all elements of 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 a 
total of $5.4 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal 
year 2008 for environmental cleanup activities, an increase of 
$47.0 million above the budget request.
    The committee recommends an increase of $37.0 million above 
the budget request for 2035 completion projects at the Savannah 
River Site that would reduce long-term costs, avoid the 
possible assessment of fines and penalties for failing to meet 
enforceable milestones, and would allow the site to package and 
ship additional transuranic waste. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million above the budget 
request for technology development to address new technologies 
for treating liquid wastes and increasing the ability to remove 
additional sludge from high level radioactive waste tanks cost 
effectively.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$663.1 million for the Department of Energy for other defense 
activities, $100.9 million below the budget request.

Health, safety, and security

    The committee recommends $427.4 million for health, safety, 
and security, $1.9 million below the budget request. The 
committee notes that in late 2006 the Department of Energy 
established a new Office of Health, Safety, and Security, 
combining elements of the Office of Environment, Safety, and 
Health and the Office of Security and Safety Performance 
Assessment. The committee remains concerned that this important 
office, which is responsible for a broad range of oversight, 
was not established under the direction of an assistant 
secretary. This new account supports the operation of this new 
office.

Office of Legacy Management

    The committee recommends $159.1 million for the Office of 
Legacy Management, the amount of the budget request. The Office 
of Legacy Management is responsible for ensuring pension and 
benefit continuity to the Department's former contractor work 
force. This work force was formerly employed at seven of the 
Department's sites at which cleanup has now been completed. As 
additional sites are cleaned up and closed down, and their 
benefit programs transferred to the Office of Legacy 
Management, the budget for the Office of Legacy Management is 
expected to increase sharply. The committee encourages the 
Department to avail itself of the ready expertise existing in 
the private sector specializing in administering health and 
pension benefit programs instead of ``reinventing the wheel'' 
inside the Department.

Nuclear energy

    The committee recommends $75.9 million for nuclear energy, 
the amount of the budget request.

Defense-related administrative support

    The budget request included $99.0 million for defense-
related administrative support. The committee recommends no 
funds for these activities. The committee views these 
administrative support activities as inherently part of the 
nondefense activities of the Department and resists their 
categorization as defense-related. The committee does not 
support the use of atomic energy defense funds for nondefense 
activities.

Office of Hearings and Appeals

    The committee recommends $4.6 million for the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, the amount of the budget request.

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$242.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease 
of $50.0 million below the budget request. The committee notes 
that the Department of Energy is currently unable to provide a 
predicted timetable for either when a Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission license for the geologic repository would be 
granted, or a prediction of when a repository might begin 
operating. In addition, there is uncertainty about the 
disposition of the administration's legislative proposal that 
would permanently withdraw the land for the repository and 
would eliminate the administrative cap on the total amount of 
waste placed in the repository. 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


Reliable Replacement Warhead program (sec. 3111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$195.1 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) 
program, a decrease of $43.0 million from the budget request. 
In addition, the provision would restrict the RRW program to 
activities in phase 2A and below and limit the funds that could 
be used in fiscal year 2008 for the RRW program to $195.1 
million.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal 
year 2008 for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) included a specific line item for the RRW that included 
$88.8 million. Additional funds for the RRW program were 
included in: the NNSA budget in the engineering campaigns, 
$86.4 million; the pit manufacturing and certification 
campaign, $37.9 million; and the readiness campaign, $25.0 
million; for a total of $238.1 million. The budget request 
included funds that could be used for activities up to and 
including early phase 3 activities, although there was no 
specific request for phase 3 funding.
    The committee does not support RRW activities beyond the 
phase 2A level at this time. Moreover, authorizing funds for 
the RRW phase 2A study does not signal support to manufacture 
or deploy an RRW. Phase 2A is at the beginning of the nuclear 
weapons acquisition process and the committee believes that 
many years of research are necessary before any such decision 
can be made or even meaningfully discussed.
    Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) directed the Secretary of 
Energy to carry out an RRW program and established eight 
enumerated objectives. In November 2006, the NNSA completed a 
feasibility study for an RRW and in February 2007, the Nuclear 
Weapons Council (NWC) approved a candidate design and 
authorized the NNSA and the Navy to begin phase 2A of the 
nuclear weapons acquisition process to see if the objectives in 
section 3111 were achievable.
    The nuclear weapons acquisition is comprised of eight well-
understood, numbered steps, referred to as phases (1, 2, 2A, 3, 
4, 5, 6, and 7), that cover the life cycle of a nuclear weapon. 
This process starts at phase 1, which is a concept development 
study, and ends with phase 7, which is retirement, storage, and 
dismantlement. Phase 2A, the phase that the provision 
recommended by the committee would authorize, is the design 
definition and cost study. Phase 3 is the full scale 
engineering development phase. This phase, like phase 2A and 
all subsequent phases, must be approved by the NWC, and the 
activities and funding must be specifically authorized and 
appropriated by Congress.
    The RRW as envisioned by the NNSA and the NWC would be a 
new warhead, designed to fit within a current weapon and 
delivery system, the Trident D-5 ballistic missile carried on 
the Trident ballistic missile submarines. The RRW design 
approved by the NWC is planned to replace the current W-76 
warhead and meet the same military requirements as the W-76. As 
a new warhead, there are many policy questions, concerns, and 
issues that must be raised, discussed, and resolved before any 
decision can be made to move to phase 3 or beyond. The 
committee urges the administration to begin to address these 
policy issues while concurrently addressing the technical and 
cost issues for the RRW.
    The current nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and 
reliable and the Stockpile Stewardship program (SSP), 
established 15 years ago, has been extremely successful. With 
the new computational and analytic tools developed under the 
SSP, nuclear weapons scientists and engineers are able to 
understand nuclear weapons performance and behavior with more 
fidelity than was possible prior to the cessation of nuclear 
weapons testing. With the experience gained through the SSP, 
these weapons scientists and engineers have high confidence 
that the nuclear weapons could be maintained through stockpile 
life extension programs well into the next decade.
    The life extension programs are designed to anticipate, 
identify, and fix or replace the non-nuclear components and 
fix, if necessary, the nuclear components. Most of the non-
nuclear components have a relatively limited lifetime and will 
eventually have to be replaced as part of a life extension 
program.
    Currently the life extension programs are not designed to 
replace the nuclear components, the plutonium, primary and the 
uranium secondary, and have somewhat limited latitude with 
respect to the manner in which non-nuclear components can be 
replaced with more modern components.
    Recent studies have determined that one of the most 
troublesome nuclear components of a nuclear weapon, the 
plutonium primary, or pit, will have minimum lifetimes of at 
least 85 years. Given that most of the weapons in the stockpile 
were put into the inventory between 1960 and 1989, this 
determination is particularly important in making future 
stockpile decisions.
    The NNSA is, however, on the verge of regaining the ability 
to make an identical pit that could be used to replace a pit in 
an existing weapon. Even if this effort is successful, a life 
extension program would be limited to replacing a pit with an 
identical pit.
    An RRW would not be so constrained, as the design approved 
by the NWC would incorporate new nuclear and non-nuclear 
components. As such it could be designed to be more safe and 
secure, to avoid many hazardous materials during manufacture, 
to be periodically dismantled, and to eliminate any need to 
resume testing. Equally, if not more important, an RRW would 
enable substantial reductions in the total number of nuclear 
weapons in the stockpile by restoring confidence in the nuclear 
complex. Maintaining multiple levels of redundancy would no 
longer be necessary to ensure reliability, as is currently the 
case. Today the stockpile ensures reliability through redundant 
types of nuclear weapons and through redundant numbers of 
nuclear warheads. The result of these levels of redundancy is 
that there are between three and four nuclear warheads in some 
form of reserve for every deployed weapon. The RRW could have 
the potential to shrink these ratios to 1 to 1 or lower.
    In spite of these potential advantages, however, there are 
several potential draw backs to the RRW. A new warhead has not 
been placed in the inventory without testing since the earliest 
days of the nuclear weapons program. There is significant 
concern that placing a new, untested weapon in the inventory 
could reduce reliability or increase the possibility of a 
return to nuclear weapons testing. Some have suggested it is an 
option that should not even be considered. As a January 15, 
2007, editorial in the New York Times questioned, ``while 
experts debate whether the lab can really build a weapon 
without testing it, the more important question is whether any 
president would stake America's security on an untested 
arsenal.''
    Historically, the United States has sought to prevent the 
development of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states by 
being the world leader for nonproliferation. Many critics and 
skeptics of the RRW, including former Senator Sam Nunn, are 
deeply concerned that if Congress gives a green light to this 
program, such an action will be ``misunderstood by our allies, 
exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work to prevent 
the spread and use of nuclear weapons . . . and make resolution 
of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more 
difficult.''
    The idea of a new nuclear warhead and leadership in 
nonproliferation are distinctly at odds in the absence of 
additional steps and policies to reduce the reliance on nuclear 
weapons, accelerate reductions in the size of the stockpile, 
formalize the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, strengthen 
the nonproliferation regime, and renew commitments to all 
aspects of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear 
Weapons.
    As Dr. Sidney Drell, a preeminent expert in nuclear weapons 
and policy, testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces, ``a clear decision on our long-term nuclear policy 
goals is needed in order to decide on the appropriate size and 
scope'' of the new complex as well as the size of the stockpile 
and the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense planning.
    The committee believes that the technical work must go 
forward apace with the policy discussion and before any 
decision on RRW development, manufacturing, or deployment. This 
dual track process must be undertaken cautiously, openly, and 
with the goals of the RRW clearly stated and well understood. 
Technical evaluations and conclusions must be reviewed by 
experts in the DOE laboratories, in the military services, and 
by outside experts. A consensus in the technical community is 
necessary to inform the policy discussion. There is no rush on 
either front.
    The committee believes that whether the future decision is 
to support or not to support an RRW, there may be opportunities 
presented through the technical work on the RRW to address and 
improve the safety and security of the existing stockpile as 
well as for an RRW.
    Before this country can collectively come to a thoughtful 
decision on the RRW, many questions must be answered. Today 
there are goals and objectives for the RRW, but no answers. 
Determining whether the goals can be met will be a daunting 
technical and policy challenge but the committee believes it is 
worth the effort to try, for now.
    The committee notes that section 1061 would direct the next 
administration to undertake a new nuclear posture review, one 
of the steps necessary to evaluate the RRW in a policy context.

Limitation on availability of funds for Fissile Materials Disposition 
        program (sec. 3112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Energy to certify to the congressional defense 
committees what portions of the fiscal year 2008 and prior 
fiscal years' funding for the fissile materials disposition 
program will be obligated and expended in fiscal years 2008 and 
2009, before any of the fiscal year 2008 funds are obligated or 
expended. In the event that any of the fiscal year 2008 funds 
will not be obligated in fiscal years 2008 or 2009, the 
provision would authorize the Secretary to use the fiscal year 
2008 funds that would not be obligated in fiscal years 2008 and 
2009 for fissile materials disposition to be obligated for any 
other nonproliferation program in which the funds could be 
obligated and expended in the 2 fiscal years.

Modification of limitations on availability of funds for Waste 
        Treatment and Immobilization Plant (sec. 3113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3120 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to strike the 
requirement for the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 
to review the earned value management system (EVMS) to be used 
by the construction contractor at the Department of Energy 
(DOE) Waste Treatment and Immobilization plant (WTP) under 
construction at the DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. 
The provision would direct the Secretary of Energy to have the 
EVMS reviewed by an independent entity chosen by the Secretary.
    The committee has learned that subsequent to the passage of 
section 3120, the DCMA changed its approach to reviewing EVM 
systems. Furthermore, the committee believes that the change in 
approach is not practical for large, technically complex 
construction projects. The committee notes that the WTP is the 
largest construction project in the United States. A change in 
the EVMS at this late stage would delay the construction of the 
WTP and place the people and the environment in Washington 
State at prolonged risk of contamination from high level 
radioactive waste.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Nuclear test readiness (sec. 3121)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 3152 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-06), as amended, and section 
3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 (Public Law 108-136). The recommended provision would 
reconcile several competing provisions of legislation and 
report language and is consistent with current test readiness 
posture. The provision would retain the requirement for a test 
readiness report, which is due in every odd-numbered year, and 
allow the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to 
establish the appropriate level of test readiness. In the most 
recent test readiness report, dated March 2007, the Secretary 
of Energy reported that at the end of 2006, the Department of 
Energy had achieved a 24-month level of test readiness.

Sense of Congress on the nuclear nonproliferation policy of the United 
        States and the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (sec. 3122)

    The committee recommends a provision that would set forth 
the sense of the Congress that the United States should take a 
number of actions to restore its leadership in nonproliferation 
matters. These actions outlined in the provision should be 
taken or initiated before any decision is made to manufacture 
or deploy a reliable replacement warhead.

Report on status of environmental management initiatives to accelerate 
        the reduction of environmental risks and challenges posed by 
        the legacy of the Cold War (sec. 3123)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
report on the status of environmental management initiatives, 
and would expand the scope of the report to include the status 
of enforceable milestones and plans for the future. When the 
report is completed the Government Accountability Office would 
be allotted 180 days to review and assess the required report 
and then submit a report setting forth the results of the 
review.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management 
program has taken significant steps to streamline and 
accelerate the rate of cleanup at DOE sites. In February 2002, 
the DOE completed a top-to-bottom review of the Environmental 
Management program that set out new approaches for cleanup. 
Congress received the first environmental status report in 
2003.
    Some notable progress, such as the closure of the Rocky 
Flats, Fernald, and Columbus Plants has occurred in the last 
several years. Fiscal year 2008 marks the first year in which 
the DOE Environmental Management budget request does not 
include funds for any of these three sites. The committee notes 
that without the need to fund these sites, and with progress at 
other sites, the fiscal year 2008 budget request is 
approximately $1.0 billion less than fiscal year 2006 funding. 
The committee believes that it is appropriate to get a wrap-up 
of the accomplishments in the 5 years since the last report and 
an estimate of what remains to be done. As the Department 
completes the report the committee would like the DOE to 
address the method and status of efforts to establish final 
cleanup and end-state standards.

Comptroller General report on Department of Energy protective force 
        management (sec. 3124)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on 
the security protection forces at Department of Energy (DOE) 
sites on which category I nuclear materials are maintained.
    The Department of Energy is in the process of changing the 
nature of its security protective forces from defense focused 
forces to offensive forces functioning in small, military-like, 
tactical units. These small tactical response units are 
necessary to meet the most recent Design Basis Threat issued by 
the DOE.
    Protective forces at DOE sites are civilians provided by 
contractors through individual contracts administered at each 
site. Both the contractors and the contracting mechanisms 
differ from site to site, with varying subcontractor and prime 
contractor arrangements. At a time when threats to nuclear 
materials and weapons are escalating, the committee wants to 
make sure that the protective forces are managed, trained, 
equipped, organized, and compensated in the most appropriate 
and cost-effective manner to ensure a continued high level of 
security at DOE sites.
    The committee notes that in April the guard force at the 
Pantex site went on strike on a variety of issues including 
issues associated with the change in approach to security.

Technical amendments (sec. 3125)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical amendments to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 
U.S.C. 2521 et seq.).
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$27.5 million--an increase of $5.0 million--to the budget 
request for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB). The DNFSB has the responsibility to ensure that the 
health and safety of the public and workers at Department of 
Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities is adequately 
protected.
    Currently, the DNFSB is evaluating 25 defense nuclear 
facility design activities with a total project cost of about 
$20.0 billion. Many of these new facilities have significant 
safety and technical challenges, and are often first of a kind 
or one of a kind projects. Staffing for the DNFSB is authorized 
by statute at 150 full-time staff, but the DNFSB fiscal year 
2008 budget request supports just 98 full-time staff to ensure 
adequate protection of public health and safety of nuclear 
operations at all DOE defense nuclear facilities as well as the 
construction projects. The committee is concerned that the 
DNFSB is not sufficiently staffed to meet the challenges 
presented by the growth in DOE nuclear facility construction 
and nuclear operations. As a result, the committee believes 
that additional technical staff are needed.
    The committee notes that the statement of managers 
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) directed the DOE and 
the DNFSB to submit a joint report to the congressional defense 
committees on efforts to ``improve the timeliness of issues 
resolution, including recommendations, if any, for legislation 
that would strengthen and improve technical oversight of the 
Department's nuclear design and operational activities'' (H. 
Rept. 109-702).
    Eight months have elapsed since the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) was enacted and the DOE and DNFSB have yet to submit the 
required report. The committee directs the DOE and the DNFSB to 
submit the report no later than July 1, 2007.
    The committee finds the DNFSB quarterly reports, which were 
also required in the statement of managers, to be very useful 
and directs the DNFSB to continue those reports until October 
1, 2008.



                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                      Departmental Recommendations

    By letter dated February 6, 2007, the General Counsel of 
the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the 
Senate proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
year 2008, and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and 
proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive 
Communication 743 to the Committee on Armed Services on 
February 12, 2007.
    Executive Communication 743 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 2008 was by 
unanimous rollcall vote, 25-0.
    The rollcall 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 2008.

                        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.

                                  
