PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6467-6471)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 22, 2007
Defense Acquisition Reform Act of 2007 - Prohibits the Secretary of the military department concerned from reprogramming or otherwise providing additional funds for a major defense acquisition program (MDAP) that experiences a specified percentage in program acquisition unit costs until the Joint Requirements Oversight Council submits an assessment of the performance requirements for the item to be procured. Adds to the membership of the Council. Requires the Council to approve the initial operational test and evaluation of a MDAP in an environment not specified in its test and evaluation master plan.
Requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe mechanisms that provide cost control measures in contracts for the acquisition of property for the Department of Defense (DOD) that may be authorized or approved by the program manager.
Designates military department deputies for acquisition matters.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to establish a committee on strategic investment in MDAPs.
Requires a report from the: (1) Comptroller General on potential modifications of DOD organization and structure for the acquisition of MDAPs; and (2) Secretary on the implementation of recommendations concerning total ownership costs and readiness rates for major weapon systems.
Prohibits the milestone decision authority for a MDAP from granting Milestone B approval until such authority obtains a program business case analysis from a federally funded research and development center.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) provide guidance on the use of award fees in contracts under DOD acquisition programs; (2) define "substantial savings" for purposes of DOD multiyear contracts; (3) submit an investment strategy for the allocation of funds among MDAPs; and (4) prescribe ethics compliance requirements for DOD contractors.
People & committees
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6467-6471)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6466-6467)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.32 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.32 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.32 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.32 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.