[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.