H.R. 5122 (109^th): John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

For aircraft, $10,734,071,000.

For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, $2,549,020,000.

For shipbuilding and conversion, $11,021,553,000.

For other procurement, $4,995,033,000.

lessons learned from operations involving the Global War on Terrorism; and

product improvement programs carried out for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles program in the areas of force protection, survivability, reliability, network communications, situational awareness, and safety.

shall be entered into in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, and shall commence with the fiscal year 2007 program year; and

shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose.

An analysis of how the systems specified in subsection (c) will fit together, including, for each such system, an analysis of whether there are opportunities to leverage technologies and equipment from that system as part of the development of the other systems.

A description of the extent to which components of the systems specified in subsection (c) could be used together as elements of a single tactical network.

A description of the strategy of the Army for completing the systems engineering necessary to ensure the end-to-end interoperability of a single tactical network referred to in paragraph (2).

An assessment of the costs of acquiring each of the systems specified in subsection (c).

An assessment of the technical compatibility of the systems specified in subsection (c).

A description of the plans of the Army for fielding the systems specified in subsection (c).

A description of the plans of the Army for sustaining the Joint Network Node through fiscal year 2020 and an assessment of the need to upgrade its technologies and equipment.

A description of the plans of the Army for the insertion of new technology into the Joint Network Node.

The Joint Network Node (JNN) element of the Bridge to Future Networks program.

The Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) program.

The Mounted Battle Command On-the-Move (MBCOTM) system.

A description of the responsibilities of the lead systems integrator in managing the Future Combat Systems program under the contract for the Future Combat Systems, and an assessment of the manner in which such responsibilities differ from the typical responsibilities of a lead systems integrator under acquisition contracts of the Department of Defense.

A description and assessment of the responsibilities of the Army in managing the Future Combat Systems program, including oversight of the activities of the lead systems integrator and the decisions made by the lead systems integrator.

An assessment of the manner in which the Army—

An identification of the mechanisms in place to ensure the protection of the interests of the United States in the Future Combat Systems program.

An identification of the mechanisms in place to mitigate organizational conflicts of interest with respect to competition on Future Combat Systems technologies and equipment under subcontracts under the Future Combat Systems program.

Lead ship

The total amount obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other procurement account, for the aircraft carrier designated as CVN–21 may not exceed $10,500,000,000 (as adjusted pursuant to subsection (b)).

Follow-on ships

The total amount obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other procurement account, for the construction of any ship that is constructed in the CVN–21 class of aircraft carriers after the lead ship of that class may not exceed $8,100,000,000 (as adjusted pursuant to subsection (b)).

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to economic inflation after September 30, 2006.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local laws enacted after September 30, 2006.

The amounts of outfitting costs and post-delivery costs incurred for that ship.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs of that ship that are attributable to insertion of new technology into that ship, as compared to the technology baseline as it was defined in the approved acquisition program baseline estimate of December 2005.

The amounts of increases or decreases to nonrecurring design and engineering cost attributable to achieving compliance with the cost limitation.

The amounts of increases or decreases to cost required to correct deficiencies that may affect the safety of the ship and personnel or otherwise preclude the ship from safe operations and crew certification.

the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees, that insertion of the new technology would lower the life-cycle cost of the ship; or

the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees, that insertion of the new technology is required to meet an emerging threat and the Secretary of Defense certifies to those committees that such threat poses grave harm to national security.

Requirement

The Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees each year, at the same time that the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the next fiscal year, written notice of any change in the amount set forth in subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year that the Secretary has determined to be associated with a cost referred to in subsection (b).

Effective date

The requirement in paragraph (1) shall become effective with the budget request for the year of procurement of the first ship referred to in subsection (a).

In general

The Secretary of the Navy may enter into a contract beginning with the fiscal year 2007 program year for procurement of each of the first two vessels under the DDG–1000 Next-Generation Destroyer program.

Limitation

Not more than one contract described in paragraph (1) may be awarded under that paragraph to a single shipyard.

Split funding authorized

Each contract under paragraph (1) shall contemplate funding for the procurement of a vessel under such contract using a combination of funds appropriated for fiscal year 2007 and funds appropriated for fiscal year 2008.

Condition on out-year contract payments

A contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under such contract for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2007 is subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose for such fiscal year.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to economic inflation after September 30, 2006.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local laws enacted after September 30, 2006.

The amounts of outfitting costs and post-delivery costs incurred for that ship.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs of that ship that are attributable to insertion of new technology into that ship, as compared to the technology baseline as it was defined at the development stage referred to as Milestone B.

The amounts of increases or decreases to nonrecurring design and engineering cost attributable to achieving compliance with the cost limitation.

The amounts of increases or decreases to cost required to correct deficiencies that may affect the safety of the ship and personnel or otherwise preclude the ship from safe operations and crew certification.

Contract cost adjustments directly attributed to the effect of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 or other force majeure contract modifications.

the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees, that insertion of the new technology would lower the life-cycle cost of the ship; or

the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees, that insertion of the new technology is required to meet an emerging threat and the Secretary of Defense certifies to those committees that such threat poses grave harm to national security.

Requirement

The Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees each year, at the same time that the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the next fiscal year, written notice of any change in the amount set forth in subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year that the Secretary has determined to be associated with a cost referred to in subsection (b).

Effective date

The requirement in paragraph (1) shall become effective with the budget request for the year of procurement of the first ship referred to in subsection (a).

Procurement cost

The total amount obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, for the San Antonio-class amphibious ships designated as LPD–22, LPD–23, LPD–24, and LPD–25 may not exceed the amount for each such vessel specified in paragraph (2).

Specified cost limit by vessel

The limitation under this subsection for each vessel specified in paragraph (1) is the following:

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to economic inflation after September 30, 2006.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local laws enacted after September 30, 2006.

The amounts of outfitting costs and post-delivery costs incurred for that ship.

The amounts of increases or decreases in costs of that ship that are attributable to insertion of new technology into that ship, as compared to the technology built into the U.S.S. San Antonio (LPD–17), the lead ship of the LPD–17 class.

Contract cost adjustments directly attributed to the effect of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 or other force majeure contract modifications.

The amounts of closeout costs associated with completion of the LPD–17 class program.

the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees, that insertion of the new technology would lower the life-cycle cost of the ship; or

the Secretary determines, and certifies to the congressional defense committees, that insertion of the new technology is required to meet an emerging threat and the Secretary of Defense certifies to those committees that such threat poses grave harm to national security.

Requirement

The Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees each year, at the same time that the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the next fiscal year, written notice of any change in the amount set forth in subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year that the Secretary has determined to be associated with a cost referred to in subsection (b).

Effective date

The requirement in paragraph (1) shall become effective with the budget request for the year of procurement of the first ship referred to in subsection (a).

Securing and maintaining access to affordable and plentiful sources of energy is a vital national security interest for the United States.

The Nation’s dependence upon foreign oil is a threat to national security due to the inherently volatile nature of the global oil market and the political instability of some of the world’s largest oil producing states.

Given the recent increase in the cost of crude oil, which cannot realistically be expected to improve over the long term, other energy sources must be seriously considered.

Alternate propulsion sources such as nuclear power offer many advantages over conventional power for major surface combatant ships of the Navy, including—

The United States Navy must be large enough, agile enough, and lethal enough to deter any threat and defeat any foe.

The proliferation of modern nuclear and nonnuclear submarines in the navies of nations around the globe will make undersea superiority a more significant challenge in the future.

The unique combination of firepower, stealth, sensors, and communications equipment contained in a modern attack submarine make the attack submarine a critical component of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The report entitled Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2007, submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Navy pursuant to section 231 of title 10, United States Code—

Ship critical safety items.

Modifications, repair, and overhaul of ship critical safety items.

That the head of the design control activity for ship critical safety items establish processes to identify and manage the procurement, modification, repair, and overhaul of such items.

That the head of the contracting activity for a ship critical safety item enter into a contract for the procurement, modification, repair, or overhaul of such item only with a source on a qualified manufacturers list or a source approved by the design control activity in accordance with section 2319 of title 10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (d)).

That the ship critical safety items delivered, and the services performed with respect to such items, meet all technical and quality requirements specified by the design control activity.

in subsection (c)(3), by inserting or ship critical safety item after aviation critical safety item; and

in subsection (g)—

Retirement limitation

During the B–52 retirement limitation period, the Secretary of the Air Force—

B–52 retirement limitation period

For purposes of paragraph (1), the B–52 retirement limitation period is the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the date that is the earlier of—

Limitation

No funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for retiring any of the 93 B–52H bomber aircraft in service in the Air Force as of the date of the enactment of this Act until 45 days after the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits the report specified in paragraph (2).

Report

A report specified in this subsection is a report submitted by the Secretary of the Air Force to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the amount and type of bomber force structure of the Air Force, including the matters specified in paragraph (4).

Amount and type of bomber force structure defined

In this subsection, the term amount and type of bomber force structure means the number of each of the following types of aircraft that are required to carry out the national security strategy of the United States:

Matter to be included

A report under paragraph (2) shall include the following:

Preparation of report

A report under paragraph (2) shall be prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses and submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force for submittal by the Secretary in accordance with that paragraph.

Certification required

After fiscal year 2007, the Secretary of the Air Force may retire a U–2 aircraft only if the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities provided by the U–2 aircraft no longer contribute to mitigating any gaps in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities identified in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Limitations

No action may be taken by the Department of Defense to retire (or to prepare to retire) any U–2 aircraft before a certification specified in paragraph (1) is submitted to Congress. If such a certification is submitted, no such action may be taken until after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the certification is submitted.

That the use of such contract will result in substantial savings of the total anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts.

That the minimum need for the property to be purchased is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of production rate, procurement rate, and total quantities.

That there is a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period the Secretary of the Air Force will request funding for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation.

That there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with such property are not excessive.

That the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic.

That the use of such contract will promote the national security of the United States.

Limitation

No funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the termination of any ICBM modernization program with respect to the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system, or for the withdrawal of any Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from the active force, until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report described in subsection (c).

ICBM modernization program defined

In this subsection, the term ICBM Modernization program means each of the following:

A detailed strategic justification for the proposal to reduce the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile force from 500 to 450 missiles, including an analysis of the effects of the reduction on the ability of the United States to assure allies and dissuade potential competitors.

A detailed analysis of the strategic ramifications of continuing to equip a portion of the Minuteman III missile force with multiple independent warheads rather than single warheads.

An assessment of the test assets and spares required to maintain a force of 500 deployed Minuteman III missiles through 2030.

An assessment of the test assets and spares required to maintain a force of 450 deployed Minuteman III missiles through 2030.

An inventory of currently available Minuteman III missile test assets and spares.

A plan to sustain and complete the modernization of all deployed and spare Minuteman III missiles, a test plan, and an analysis of the funding required to carry out modernization of all deployed and spare Minuteman III missiles.

An assessment of whether halting upgrades to the Minuteman III missiles withdrawn from the deployed force would compromise the ability of those missiles to serve as test assets.

A description of the plan of the Department of Defense for extending the life of the Minuteman III missile force beyond fiscal year 2030.

by inserting for procurement after the Department of Defense; and

by inserting before the period at the end the following: (or by an official within the Office of the Under Secretary designated by the Under Secretary for that purpose).

In general

The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the development and procurement of the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft through the continued development and sustainment of two interchangeable propulsion systems for that aircraft by two separate contractors throughout the life cycle of the aircraft.

Modifications prohibited

Except as provided by paragraph (3), the Secretary may not carry out any modification to the acquisition program for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that would result in the development or procurement of the propulsion system for that aircraft in a manner other than that required by paragraph (1).

Modifications allowed

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a modification described in paragraph (2) may be carried out to the extent that each of the following requirements is met:

In general

A comprehensive and detailed cost analysis of the Joint Strike Fighter engine program shall be independently performed by each of the following:

Matters covered

Each such cost analysis shall cover—

Reports

Not later than March 15, 2007, the Secretary of Defense, the Comptroller General, and the chief executive officer of the federally funded research and development center selected under paragraph (1)(B) shall independently submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the cost analysis carried out under paragraph (1). Each such report shall include each of the following matters:

Certifications

In submitting the report required by paragraph (3), the Comptroller General and the chief executive officer of the federally funded research and development center shall also submit a certification as to whether the Secretary of Defense provided access to sufficient information to enable the Comptroller General or the chief executive officer, as the case may be, to make informed judgments on the matters required to be included in the report.

those elements of cost that would be considered for a life-cycle cost analysis for a major defense acquisition program, including procurement of engines, procurement of spare engines, and procurement of engine components and parts; and

good-faith estimates of routine engine costs (such as performance upgrades and component improvement) that historically have occurred in tactical fighter engine programs.

In general

Subsection (a) of section 2374a of title 10, United States Code, is amended—

Conforming amendments

Such section is further amended—

by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) as clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) respectively; and

by inserting before clause (ii) (as so redesignated) the following new clause:

Solicitation of challenge proposals

Section 2359b(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—

Requirement for guidelines for covering costs of challenge proposals

Section 2359b(e) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

Action upon unfavorable full review and evaluation

Section 2359b of such title is amended—

Additional information required to be included in annual report

Section 2359b(j) of such title, as redesignated by paragraph (3), is amended by striking No report is required for a fiscal year in which the Challenge Program is not carried out. and inserting The report shall also include a list of each challenge proposal that was determined by a Panel to satisfy each of the criteria specified in subsection (c)(5), but was not determined under a full review and evaluation to satisfy such criteria, together with a detailed rationale for the Department’s determination that such criteria were not satisfied..

evaluate the efficacy of the incentives provided to encourage the adoption of each challenge proposal receiving favorable full review and evaluation, as required by section 2359b(e)(2) of title 10, United States Code;

identify additional incentives and authorities required, if any, to further facilitate the adoption of each challenge proposal receiving favorable full review and evaluation, particularly in the case of challenge proposals submitted in response to critical cost growth threshold breaches (as such term is used in section 2359b of such title); and

not later than March 1, 2007, submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the results of such evaluation and identification.

by amending the heading to read as follows: Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality; and

by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: and that the identity of any person or activity submitting a challenge proposal is not disclosed outside the Federal Government, prior to contract award, without the consent of the person or activity. For purposes of the proceeding sentence, the term Federal Government includes both employees of the Federal Government and employees of Federal Government contractors providing advisory and assistance services as described in part 37 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation..

in subsection (c)(7), as redesignated by subsection (b), by striking paragraph (4) and inserting paragraph (5);

in subsection (d)(1), by striking subsection (c)(6) and inserting subsection (c)(7);

in subsection (d)(2), by striking subsection (c)(4) and inserting subsection (c)(5); and

in subsection (e)(1), by striking subsection (c)(4) and inserting subsection (c)(5).

Whether the warfighter’s needs are valid and can be best met with the concept of the program.

Whether the concept of the program can be developed and produced within existing resources.

Whether the program should—

Whether each critical technology for the program is at least Technical Readiness Level 6.

For each system and network component of the program, what the key design and technology risks are, based on System Functional Reviews, Preliminary Design Reviews, and Technical Readiness Levels.

Whether actual demonstrations, rather than simulations, have shown that the concept of the program will work.

Whether actual demonstrations, rather than plans, have shown that the software for the program is functional.

What the cost estimate for the program is.

What the affordability assessment for the program is, based on that cost estimate.

In general

For fiscal years beginning with 2009, the Secretary may not obligate any funds for procurement for the Future Combat Systems program.

Exceptions

Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to—

Termination

The requirement of paragraph (1) terminates after the report required by subsection (c) is submitted.

In general

The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the preparation of an independent estimate of the anticipated costs of systems development and demonstration with respect to the Future Combat Systems.

Conduct of estimate

The estimate required by this subsection shall be prepared by a federally funded research and development center selected by the Secretary for purposes of this subsection.

Matters to be addressed

The independent estimate prepared under this subsection shall address costs of research, development, test, and evaluation, and costs of procurement, for—

Submittal to congress

Upon completion of the independent estimate required by this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the estimate.

Deadline for submittal

The report described in paragraph (4) shall be submitted not later than April 1, 2007.

Coordinate and integrate current and future research, development, test, and evaluation programs and system demonstration programs of the Department of Defense on hypersonics.

Undertake appropriate actions to ensure—

Approve demonstration programs on hypersonic systems.

Ensure that any demonstration program on hypersonic systems that is carried out in any year after its approval under paragraph (3) is carried out only if certified under subsection (e) as being consistent with the roadmap under subsection (d).

Roadmap required

The joint technology office established under subsection (a) shall develop, and every two years revise, a roadmap for the hypersonics programs of the Department of Defense.

Coordination

The roadmap shall be developed and revised under paragraph (1) in coordination with the Joint Staff and in consultation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Elements

The roadmap shall include the following matters:

Submittal to Congress

The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees—

Annual review

The joint technology office established under subsection (a) shall conduct on an annual basis a review of—

Certification

The joint technology office shall, as a result of each review under paragraph (1), certify to the Secretary whether or not the funding and programs subject to such review are consistent with the roadmap developed under subsection (d).

Termination

The requirements of this subsection shall terminate after the submittal to Congress of the budget for fiscal year 2012 pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.

A description of the types of scenarios, types of targets, and circumstances in which a conventional sea-launched ballistic missile might be used.

A discussion of the weapon systems or weapons, whether current or planned, that could be used as an alternative for each of the scenarios, target types, and circumstances set forth under paragraph (1), and a statement of any reason why each such weapon system or weapon is not a suitable alternative to a conventional sea-launched ballistic missile.

A description of the command and control arrangements for conventional sea-launched ballistic missiles, including launch authority and the use of Permissive Action Links (PALs).

An assessment of the capabilities of other countries to detect and track the launch of a conventional or nuclear sea-launched ballistic missile.

An assessment of the capabilities of other countries to discriminate between the launch of a nuclear sea-launched ballistic missile and a conventional sea-launched ballistic missile, other than in a testing scenario.

An assessment of the notification and other protocols that would have to be in place before using any conventional sea-launched ballistic missile and a plan for entering into such protocols.

An assessment of the adequacy of the intelligence that would be needed to support an attack involving conventional sea-launched ballistic missiles.

A description of the total program cost, including the procurement costs of additional D-5 missiles, of the conventional Trident sea-launched ballistic missile program, by fiscal year.

An analysis and assessment of the implications for ballistic missile proliferation if the United States decides to go forward with the conventional Trident sea-launched ballistic missile program or any other conventional long-range ballistic missile program.

An analysis and assessment of the implications for the United States missile defense system if other countries use conventional long-range ballistic missiles.

An analysis of any problems created by the ambiguity that results from the use of the same ballistic missile for both conventional and nuclear warheads.

An analysis and assessment of the methods that other countries might use to resolve the ambiguities associated with a nuclear or conventional sea-launched ballistic missile.

An analysis, by the Secretary of State, of the international, treaty, and other concerns that would be associated with the use of a conventional sea-launched ballistic missile and recommendations for measures to mitigate or eliminate such concerns.

A joint statement by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the use of a conventional sea-launched ballistic missile will not result in an intentional, inadvertent, mistaken, or accidental reciprocal or responsive launch of a nuclear strike by any other country.

A description of the essential components of a proposed space-based interceptor system, including a description of how the system proposed would enhance or complement other missile defense systems.

An estimate of the acquisition and life-cycle cost of the system described under paragraph (1), including lift cost and periodic replacement cost due to depreciation and attrition.

An analysis of the vulnerability of such a system to counter-measures, including direct ascent and co-orbital interceptors, and an analysis of the functionality of such a system in the aftermath of a nuclear detonation in space.

A projection of the foreign policy and national security implications of a space-based interceptor program, including the probable response of United States adversaries and United States allies.

In response to the threat posed by ballistic missiles, President George W. Bush in December 2002 directed the Secretary of Defense to proceed with the fielding of an initial set of missile defense capabilities in 2004 and 2005.

According to assessments by the intelligence community of the United States, North Korea tested in 2005 a new solid propellant short-range ballistic missile, conducted a launch of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile/space launch vehicle in 2006, and is likely developing intermediate-range and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities that could someday reach as far as the United States with a nuclear payload.

According to assessments by the intelligence community of the United States, Iran continued in 2005 to test its medium-range ballistic missile, and the danger that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon and integrate it with a ballistic missile Iran already possesses is a reason for immediate concern.

An identification of—

The schedule for transition of each missile defense program planned to be transitioned to a military department, and an explanation of such schedule.

A description of—

An identification of the entity of the Department of Defense (whether the Missile Defense Agency, a military department, or both) that will be responsible for funding each missile defense program to be transitioned to a military department, and at what date.

A description of the type of funds that will be used (whether funds for research, development, test, and evaluation, procurement, military construction, or operation and maintenance) for each missile defense program to be transitioned to a military department.

An explanation of the number of systems planned for procurement for each missile defense program to be transitioned to a military department, and the schedule for procurement of each such system.

by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and

by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

Review

During fiscal year 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall review Department of Defense policies and practices on test and evaluation in order to—

Revised guidance

If the Under Secretary determines as a result of the review under paragraph (1) that a revision of the policies and practices referred to in that paragraph is necessary, the Under Secretary and the Director shall jointly issue new or revised guidance for the Department of Defense on test and evaluation to address that determination.

ensure the performance of test and evaluation activities with regard to—

ensure the appropriate use, if any, of operational test and evaluation resources to assess technology readiness levels for the purpose of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable technology readiness requirements.

reflects any testing needs of the Department of Defense that are identified as a result of activities under subsection (b); and

includes an assessment of the test and evaluation facilities, resources, and budgets that will be required to meet such needs.

by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively; and

by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

Report required

The contract required by subsection (a) shall require the entity entering into such contract to submit to the Secretary of Defense, and to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the assessment required by that subsection.

Elements

The report required under paragraph (1) shall include—

$20,894,663,000 is for Operation and Maintenance;

$135,603,000 is for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; and

$396,355,000 is for Procurement.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 for expenses, not otherwise provided for, for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, $1,277,304,000, of which—

Amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraph (1) are authorized for—

$214,897,000 is for Operation and Maintenance; and

$1,400,000 is for Procurement.

To complete, by not later than September 30, 2007, preliminary assessments of unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at all active installations and formerly used defense sites (other than operational ranges).

To complete, by not later than September 30, 2010, site inspections of unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at all active installations and formerly used defense sites (other than operational ranges).

To achieve, by not later than September 30, 2009, a remedy in place or response complete for unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at all military installations closed or realigned as part of a round of defense base closure and realignment occurring prior to the 2005 round.

To achieve, by a date certain established by the Secretary of Defense, a remedy in place or response complete for unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at all active installations and formerly used defense sites (other than operational ranges) and all military installations realigned or closed under the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.

In general

Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive plan for addressing the remediation of unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at current and former defense sites (other than operational ranges).

Content

The plan required by paragraph (1) shall include—

Updates

Not later than March 15 of 2008, 2009, and 2010, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees an update of the plan required under paragraph (1). The Secretary may include the update in the report on environmental restoration activities that is submitted to Congress under section 2706(a) of title 10, United States Code, in the year in which that update is required and may include in the update any adjustment to the remediation goals established under subsection (a) that the Secretary determines necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

a description of any standards or principles that have been agreed upon; and

a discussion of any issues that remain in disagreement, including the impact that any such disagreement is likely to have on the ability of the Department of Defense to carry out the response plan required by subsection (b).

The terms unexploded ordnance and operational range have the meanings given such terms in section 101(e) of title 10, United States Code.

The terms discarded military munitions, munitions constituents, and defense site have the meanings given such terms in section 2710(e) of such title.

Historical review

The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a historical review of available records to determine the number, size, and probable locations of sites where the Armed Forces disposed of military munitions in coastal waters. The historical review shall, to the extent possible, identify the types of munitions at individual sites.

Cooperation

The Secretary shall request the assistance of the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other relevant Federal agencies in conducting the review required by this subsection.

Interim reports

The Secretary shall periodically, but no less often than annually, release any new information obtained during the historical review conducted under paragraph (1). The Secretary may withhold from public release the exact nature and locations of munitions the potential unauthorized retrieval of which could pose a significant threat to the national defense or public safety.

Inclusion of information in annual report on environmental restoration activities

The Secretary shall include the information obtained pursuant to the review conducted under paragraph (1) in the annual report on environmental restoration activities submitted to Congress under section 2706 of title 10, United States Code.

Final report

The Secretary shall complete the historical review required under paragraph (1) and submit a final report on the findings of such review in the annual report on environmental restoration activities submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2009.

Identification of hazards

The Secretary of Defense shall provide available information to the Secretary of Commerce to assist the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in preparing nautical charts and other navigational materials for coastal waters that identify known or potential hazards posed by disposed military munitions to private activities, including commercial shipping and fishing operations.

Continuation of information activities

The Secretary of Defense shall continue activities to inform potentially affected users of the ocean environment, particularly fishing operations, of the possible hazards from contact with disposed military munitions and the proper methods to mitigate such hazards.

In general

The Secretary of Defense shall continue to conduct research on the effects on the ocean environment and those who use it of military munitions disposed of in coastal waters.

Scope

Research under paragraph (1) shall include—

Research criteria

In conducting the research required by this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the sampling, analysis, and investigations are conducted at representative sites, taking into account factors such as depth, water temperature, nature of the military munitions present, and relative proximity to onshore populations. In conducting such research, the Secretary shall select at least two representative sites each in the areas of the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast (including Alaska), and the Hawaiian Islands.

Authority to make grants and enter into cooperative agreements

In conducting research under this subsection, the Secretary may make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, qualified research entities.

The term coastal waters means that part of the ocean extending from the coast line of the United States to the outer boundary of the outer Continental Shelf.

The term coast line has the meaning given that term in section 2(c) of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(c)).

The term military munitions has the meaning given that term in section 101(e) of title 10, United States Code.

The term outer Continental Shelf has the meaning given that term in section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)).

Transfer amount

Using funds described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer not more than $111,114.03 to the Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site 10–6J Special Account.

Purpose of reimbursement

The payment under paragraph (1) is to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for its costs incurred in overseeing a remedial investigation/feasibility study performed by the Department of the Army under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program at the former Larson Air Force Base, Moses Lake Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.

Interagency agreement

The reimbursement described in paragraph (2) is provided for in the interagency agreement entered into by the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency for the Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site in March 1999.

the United States assumes no liability, legal or otherwise, of Sequoyah Fuels Corporation by transporting the uranium; and

the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation waives any and all claims it may have against the United States related to the transported uranium.

in subparagraph (A), by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D);

in subparagraph (B), by striking but not more than one year from the date it is granted and inserting but not more than 1 year from the date it is granted, except as provided in subparagraph (D); and

by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

the remaining volume of such foreign-manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls that may require transportation into the customs territory of the United States for disposal, treatment, or storage; and

the efforts that have been made by the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to reduce such volume by—

In general

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the available scientific and medical evidence regarding associations between pre-natal, child, and adult exposure to drinking water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, as well as other pre-natal, child, and adult exposures to levels of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene similar to those experienced at Camp Lejeune, and birth defects or diseases and any other adverse health effects.

Elements

In conducting the review and evaluation, the Academy shall review and summarize the scientific and medical evidence and assess the strength of that evidence in establishing a link or association between exposure to trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene and each birth defect or disease suspected to be associated with such exposure. For each birth defect or disease reviewed, the Academy shall determine, to the extent practicable with available scientific and medical data, whether—

Scope of review

In conducting the review and evaluation, the Academy shall include a review and evaluation of—

Peer review

The Academy shall obtain the peer review of the report prepared as a result of the review and evaluation under applicable Academy procedures.

Submittal

The Academy shall submit the report prepared as a result of the review and evaluation to the Secretary and Congress not later than 18 months after entering into the agreement for the review and evaluation under paragraph (1).

Notice required

Upon completion of the current epidemiological study by the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, known as the Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water and Specific Birth Defects and Childhood Cancers, United States Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, the Commandant of the Marine Corps shall take appropriate actions, including the use of national media such as newspapers, television, and the Internet, to notify former Camp Lejeune residents and employees who may have been exposed to drinking water impacted by trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene of the results of the study.

Elements

The information provided by the Commandant of the Marine Corps under paragraph (1) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry and shall include a description of sources of additional information relating to such exposure, including, but not be limited to, the following:

consistent with the financial management improvement plan of the Department of Defense required by section 376(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 190–163; 119 Stat. 3213); and

likely to improve internal controls or otherwise result in sustained improvements in the ability of the Department to produce timely, reliable, and complete financial management information.

Authority to accept reimbursement

After September 30, 2006, the Secretary of a military department may accept funds from any non-profit entity authorized to support the national museum of the applicable Armed Force to reimburse the Secretary for amounts obligated and expended by the Secretary from amounts made available to the Secretary under this section.

Treatment

Amounts accepted as reimbursement under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the account that was used to cover the costs for which the reimbursement was provided. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts in that account, and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, as other amounts in that account.

the Secretary of each military department to meet the requirements of that military department for that fiscal year for the repair, recapitalization, and replacement of equipment used in the global war on terrorism; and

the Secretary of the Army to meet the requirements of the Army for that fiscal year, in addition to the requirements under paragraph (1), for—

Submission of information

As part of the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the President’s budget for a fiscal year or a request for supplemental appropriations, the Secretary of Defense shall include the following:

Information described

The information described in this paragraph is information that clearly and separately identifies, by appropriations account, budget activity, activity group, sub-activity group, and program element or line item, the amounts requested for the programs, projects, and activities of—

Additional information in first report

As part of the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the President’s budget for fiscal year 2008, the Secretary of Defense shall also include the information described in paragraph (2) for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.

A complete itemization of the requirements for the funding priorities in subsection (a), including an itemization for all types of modular brigades and an itemization for the replacement of equipment withdrawn or diverted from the reserve component for use in the global war on terrorism.

A list of any shortfalls that exist between available funding, equipment, supplies, and industrial capacity and required funding, equipment, supplies, and industrial capacity in accordance with the funding priorities in subsection (a).

A list of the requirements for the funding priorities in subsection (a) that the Army has included in the budget for that fiscal year, including a detailed listing of the type, quantity, and cost of the equipment the Army plans to repair, recapitalize, or procure, set forth by appropriations account and Army component.

An assessment of the progress made during that fiscal year toward meeting the overall requirements of the funding priorities in subsection (a).

A schedule for meeting the requirements of subsection (a).

A description of how the Army defines costs associated with modularity versus the costs associated with modernizing equipment platforms and the reset (repair, recapitalization, or replacement) of equipment used during the global war on terrorism, including the funding expended on, and the future funding required for, such reset requirements.

A complete itemization of the amount of funds expended to date on the modular brigades.

The results of Army assessments of modular force capabilities, including lessons learned from existing modular units and any modifications that have been made to modularity.

The comments of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Chief of the Army Reserve on each of the items described in paragraphs (1) through (8).

The progress of the Army in meeting the requirements of subsection (a), including progress in equipping and manning modular units in the regular components and reserve components of the Armed Forces.

The use of funds by the Army for meeting the requirements of subsection (a).

The progress of the Army in conducting further testing and evaluations of designs under the modularity initiative.

An analysis of alternatives to the MCTFS, including a detailed comparison between the cost of deploying and operating the MCTFS within the Navy and the cost of including the Navy in the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System.

A business case analysis, including an analysis of the costs and benefits to both the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense of the alternatives to the MCTFS considered under the analysis required by paragraph (1).

An analysis of the compatibility of the MCTFS with the enterprise architecture of the Department of Defense, including a detailed estimate of all interface costs with current or planned Department-wide military manpower, personnel, and pay information technology systems.

by striking (1) Amounts and inserting Amounts;

by striking entered into during fiscal years 2003 through 2009; and

by striking paragraph (2).

Inclusion of certain items

Paragraph (2) of section 2466(d) of such title is amended to read as follows:

Conforming amendment

The heading for subsection (d) of section 2466 of such title is amended to read as follows: Annual report.—.

Reduced percentage of required investment for fiscal years 2007 and 2008

The Secretary of the Army shall apply subsection (a) of section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), to the covered depots of the Army, and the Secretary of the Navy shall apply such subsection to the covered depots of the Department of the Navy—

Covered depots

In this subsection, the term covered depot has the meaning given that term in subsection (e) of section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

by striking September 30, 2007 both places it appears and inserting September 30, 2009;

by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection (d):

An explanation of progress made toward implementing each of the seven recommendations in the Comptroller General report entitled “Contract Security Guards: Army’s Guard Program Requires Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach” (GAO-06-284).

An assessment, taking into consideration the observations made by the Comptroller General on the report of the Department of Defense of November 2005 that is entitled Department of Defense Installation Security Guard Requirement Assessment and Plan, of the following:

A directive that provides guidance for the conduct of the Plan and standardizes terms and definitions.

Performance measures for evaluation of the Plan.

Costs and resources needed to achieve objectives of the Plan, including any incremental effect on the Navy Operation and Maintenance budget.

Operational tests, exercises, war games, experiments, and deployments used to test performance.

A collection and synthesis of lessons learned from the implementation of the Plan as of the date on which the report is submitted.

Evaluation of each of the following with respect to each ship participating in the Plan:

Any proposed changes to the Surface Force Training Manual.

The amount of funding required to effectively implement the operation and maintenance requirements of the Plan by ship class.

Any recommendations of the Secretary of the Navy with respect to expanding the Plan to include Expeditionary Strike Groups.

An examination of the management approaches of the Navy in implementing the Fleet Response Plan.

An assessment of the adequacy of Navy directives and guidance with respect to maintenance and training requirements and procedures.

An analysis and assessment of the adequacy of the Navy’s evaluation criteria for the Plan.

An evaluation of Navy data on aircraft carriers, destroyers, and cruisers that participated in the Plan with respect to readiness, response time, and availability for routine or unforeseen deployments.

An assessment of the Navy’s progress in identifying the amount of funding required to effectively implement the operations and maintenance requirements of the Plan and the effect of providing funding in an amount less than that amount.

Any recommendations of the Comptroller General with respect to expanding the Plan to include Expeditionary Strike Groups.

A comparison between the three destroyers participating in that experiment and destroyers not participating in the experiment that takes into consideration each of the following:

Results from surveys administered or focus groups held to obtain representative views from commanding officers, officers, and enlisted members on the effects of rotational crew experiments on quality of life, training, professional development, maintenance, mission effectiveness, and other issues.

The extent to which standard policies and procedures were developed and used for participating ships.

Lessons learned from the experiment.

An assessment from the combatant commanders on the crew mission performance when deployed.

An assessment from the commander of the Fleet Forces Command on the material condition, maintenance, and crew training of each participating ship.

Any recommendations of the Secretary of the Navy with respect to the extension of the ship rotational crew experiment or the implementation of the experiment for other surface vessels.

Destroyer experiment

Not later than January 1, 2007, the Secretary of the Navy shall terminate the existing ship rotational crew experiment involving the U.S.S. Gonzalez (DDG-66), the U.S.S. Stout (DDG-55), and the U.S.S. Laboon (DDG-58) that is known as the sea swap.

Patrol Coastal class ship experiment

The Secretary of the Navy may continue the existing ship rotational crew program that is currently in use by overseas-based Patrol Coastal class ships.

Mine Countermeasures Ships

The Secretary of the Navy may continue the existing ship rotational crew program that is currently in use by MCM and MHC ships.

Littoral Combat Ships

The Secretary of the Navy may employ a two crew for one ship (commonly referred to as Blue-Gold) rotational crew program for the first two ships of each Littoral combat ship design (LCS 1-4).

A review of the report submitted by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (a) and an assessment of the extent to which the Secretary fully addressed costs, quality of life, training, maintenance, and mission effectiveness, and other relevant issues in that report.

An assessment of the extent to which the Secretary established and applied a comprehensive framework for assessing the use of ship rotational crew experiments, including formal objectives, metrics, and methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of such experiments.

An assessment of the extent to which the Secretary established effective guidance for the use of ship rotational crew experiments.

Lessons learned from recent ship rotational crew experiments and an assessment of the extent to which the Navy systematically collects and shares lessons learned.

An analysis of different approaches to crew rotation and the degree of forward presence each approach would provide.

A comparison of the degree of forward presence provided by the fleet under the long-term shipbuilding plan of the Navy with and without the widespread use of crew rotation.

The long-term benefits and costs of using crew rotation on Navy ships.

the extent to which consistency exists in standards, protocols, and procedures for access control across installations of the Department of Defense; and

whether the establishment of joint standards and protocols for access control at such installations would be likely to—

electronically check any identification card issued by any Federal agency or any State or local government within the United States, including any identification card of a visitor to the installation who is a citizen or legal resident of the United States;

verify that an identification card used to obtain access to the installation was legitimately issued and has not been reported lost or stolen;

check on a real-time basis all relevant watch lists maintained by the Government, including terrorist watch lists and lists of persons wanted by Federal, State, or local law enforcement authorities;

maintain a log of individuals seeking access to the installation and of individuals who are denied access to the installation; and

exchange information with any installation with a system that complies with the joint standards and protocols.

In general

Not later than June 1, 2007, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on the readiness of the active component and reserve component ground forces of the Army and the Marine Corps.

One or more reports

In complying with the requirements of this section, the Comptroller General may submit a single report addressing all the elements specified in subsection (b) or two or more reports addressing any combination of such elements. If the Comptroller General submits more than one report under this section, all such reports shall be submitted not later than the date specified in paragraph (1).

An analysis of the current readiness status of each of the active component and reserve component ground forces of the Army and the Marine Corps, including a description of any major deficiency identified, an analysis of the trends in readiness of such forces during not less than the ten-year period preceding the date on which the report is submitted, and a comparison of the current readiness indicators of such ground forces with historical patterns.

An assessment of the ability of the Army and the Marine Corps to provide trained and ready forces for ongoing operations as well as other commitments assigned to the Army and the Marine Corps in defense planning documents.

An analysis of the availability of equipment for training by units of the Army and the Marine Corps in the United States in configurations comparable to the equipment being used by units of the Army and the Marine Corps, as applicable, in ongoing operations.

An analysis of the current and projected requirements for repair or replacement of equipment of the Army and the Marine Corps due to ongoing operations and the effect of such required repair or replacement of equipment on the availability of equipment for training.

An assessment of the current personnel tempo of Army and Marine Corps forces, including—

An assessment of the efforts of the Army and the Marine Corps to mitigate the impact of high operational tempos, including cross-leveling of personnel and equipment or cross training of personnel or units for new or additional mission requirements.

A description of the current policy of the Army and the Marine Corps with respect to the mobilization of reserve component personnel, together with an analysis of the number of reserve component personnel in each of the Army and the Marine Corps that are projected to be available for deployment under such policy.

A description of the Air Force flying operations at Pueblo Memorial Airport, including the Initial Flight Screening program.

An assessment of the impact of Air Force operations at Pueblo Memorial Airport on non-Air Force activities at the airport.

A description of the requirements necessary at Pueblo Memorial Airport to ensure safe Air Force flying operations, including the continuous availability of fire protection, crash rescue, and other emergency response capabilities.

An assessment of the necessity of providing for a continuous fire-fighting capability at Pueblo Memorial Airport.

A description and analysis of any alternatives for Air Force flying operations at Pueblo Memorial Airport, including the cost and availability of any such alternatives.

A description of Air Force funding of fire-fighting and crash rescue support at Pueblo Memorial Airport through the services contract for the Initial Flight Screening program.

An assessment of whether Air Force funding is required to assist the City of Pueblo, Colorado, in meeting Air Force requirements for safe Air Force flight operations at Pueblo Memorial Airport, and if such funding is required, the plan of the Secretary of the Air Force to provide such funding to the city.

The funding requirements of the personnel security clearance investigation program and ability of the Secretary of Defense to fund the program.

The size of the personnel security clearance investigation process backlog.

The length of the average delay for an individual case pending in the personnel security clearance investigation process.

Any progress made by the Secretary of Defense during the 12 months preceding the date on which the report is submitted toward implementing planned changes in the personnel security clearance investigation process.

A determination certified by the Secretary of Defense of whether the personnel security clearance investigation process has improved during the 12 months preceding the date on which the report is submitted.

The number of personnel security clearance investigations conducted during the period beginning on October 1, 1999, and ending on September 30, 2006.

The number of each type of security clearance granted during that period.

The unit cost to the Department of Defense of each security clearance granted during that period.

The amount of any fee or surcharge paid to the Office of Personnel Management as a result of conducting a personnel security clearance investigation.

A description of the procedures used by the Secretary of Defense to estimate the number of personnel security clearance investigations to be conducted during a fiscal year.

A description of any plan developed by the Secretary of Defense to reduce delays and backlogs in the personnel security clearance investigation process.

A description of any plan developed by the Secretary of Defense to adequately fund the personnel security clearance investigation process.

A description of any plan developed by the Secretary of Defense to establish a more stable and effective Personnel Security Investigations Program.

A plan to repair, recapitalize, or replace the equipment withdrawn or diverted within the unit from which it is being withdrawn or diverted.

In the case of equipment that is to remain in a theater of operations while the unit from which the equipment is withdrawn or diverted leaves the theater of operations, a plan to provide that unit with equipment appropriate to ensure the continuation of the readiness training of the unit.

A signed memorandum of understanding between the active or reserve component to which the equipment is diverted and the reserve component from which the equipment is withdrawn or diverted that specifies—

Deadline

Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall establish the strategic policy on the programs of the Department of Defense for the prepositioning of materiel and equipment required under section 2229 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

Limitation on diversion of prepositioned materiel

During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits the report required under section 2229(c) of title 10, United States Code, on the policy referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary of a military department may not divert materiel or equipment from prepositioned stocks except for the purpose of directly supporting a contingency operation or providing humanitarian assistance under chapter 20 of that title.

in the section heading, by striking working dogs and inserting animals;

by striking working each place it appears;

by striking dog and dogs each place they appear and inserting animal and animals, respectively;

by striking dog’s in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) and inserting animal’s;

by striking a dog’s adoptability in subsection (b) and inserting the adoptability of the animal; and

by adding at the end the following new subsection:

in subsection (a), by striking Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and inserting a contingency operation; and

by adding at the end the following new subsection:

by striking As soon as possible after the date of the enactment of this Act, the and inserting (1) The; and

by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

enhance platform performance;

reduce the size of the fuel logistics systems;

reduce the burden high fuel consumption places on agility;

reduce operating costs; and

dampen the financial impact of volatile oil prices.

In general

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the progress of the Department of Defense in implementing the policy established by subsection (a).

Elements

The report shall include the following:

the President’s budget for fiscal year 2007 failed to fund the required number of ship steaming days per quarter for Navy ship operations as well as deferring projected depot maintenance for Navy ships and aircraft; and

the Secretary of Defense should ensure that sufficient financial resources are provided for each fiscal year to support the critical training and depot maintenance accounts of the Navy in order to enable the Navy to maintain the current readiness levels required to support the national military strategy without putting future readiness at risk by underfunding investment in modernization, including ship construction programs.

Ship steaming days per quarter for deployed and non-deployed ship operations.

Projected depot maintenance requirements for ships and aircraft.

An assessment of the deployed and non-deployed quarterly ship steaming day requirements, itemized by active-duty component and reserve component.

An assessment of the associated budget request for each of the following:

Report Required

The Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the Riverine Squadrons of the Navy. The report shall be submitted with the President’s budget for fiscal year 2008 and shall include the following:

Limitation

Of the amount made available for fiscal year 2007 to the Department of Navy for operation and maintenance for the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, not more than 80 percent may be obligated before the date on which the report required under paragraph (1) is submitted.

in subsection (a), by striking may include and inserting shall include; and

in subsection (b), by striking may be deducted and inserting shall be deducted.

Whether there is an alternative to the system under the program that would provide equal or greater capability at a lower cost.

Whether the estimates on costs, and the anticipated schedule and performance parameters, for the program and system are reasonable.

Whether the management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program costs.

Review and assessment required

The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review and assessment of the progress of the Department of Defense in implementing the program of the Department of Defense known as Families First.

Elements of review and assessment

In conducting the review and assessment required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

Reports

The Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives reports as follows:

The Army, 512,400.

The Navy, 340,700.

The Marine Corps, 180,000.

The Air Force, 334,200.

Army

The authorized strength for the Army provided in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) for active duty personnel for fiscal year 2007 is subject to the condition that costs of active duty personnel of the Army for that fiscal year in excess of 482,400 shall be paid out of funds authorized to be appropriated for that fiscal year for a contingent emergency reserve fund or as an emergency supplemental appropriation.

Marine corps

The authorized strength for the Marine Corps provided in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) for active duty personnel for fiscal year 2007 is subject to the condition that costs of active duty personnel of the Marine Corps for that fiscal year in excess of 175,000 shall be paid out of funds authorized to be appropriated for that fiscal year for a contingent emergency reserve fund or as an emergency supplemental appropriation.

The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.

The Army Reserve, 200,000.

The Navy Reserve, 71,300.

The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.

The Air National Guard of the United States, 107,000.

The Air Force Reserve, 74,900.

The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.

the total authorized strength of units organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component which are on active duty (other than for training) at the end of the fiscal year; and

the total number of individual members not in units organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component who are on active duty (other than for training or for unsatisfactory participation in training) without their consent at the end of the fiscal year.

National guard

Within the limitation provided in section 10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, the number of non-dual status technicians employed by the National Guard as of September 30, 2007, may not exceed the following:

Army reserve

The number of non-dual status technicians employed by the Army Reserve as of September 30, 2007, may not exceed 595.

Air force reserve

The number of non-dual status technicians employed by the Air Force Reserve as of September 30, 2007, may not exceed 90.