Senate Report 111-201 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

[Senate Report 111-201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 414
111th Congress Report
2d Session SENATE 111-201
_______________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

----------

R E P O R T

[to accompany s. 3454]

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO
PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

----------

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

June 4, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of May 28
(legislative day, May 26), 2010

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

Calendar No. 414
111th Congress Report
2d Session SENATE 111-201
_______________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

__________

R E P O R T

[to accompany s. 3454]

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

__________

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

June 4, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of May 28
(legislative day, May 26), 2010

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

(111th Congress, 2d Session)

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BILL NELSON, Florida LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK UDALL, Colorado RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview............................................... 2
Explanation of funding summary............................... 3
Summary table of authorizations.......................... 5
Budget authority implication table....................... 10
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations................. 11
Title I--Procurement............................................. 11
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 11
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 11
Airborne common sensor and enhanced medium altitude
reconnaissance and surveillance system (sec. 111)...... 11
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 11
Multiyear funding for detail design and construction of
LHA replacement ship designated LHA-7 (sec. 121)....... 11
Requirement to maintain Navy airborne signals
intelligence capabilities (sec. 122)................... 11
Reports on service life extension of F/A-18 aircraft by
the Department of the Navy (sec. 123).................. 12
Inclusion of basic and functional design in assessments
required prior to start of construction of first ship
of a shipbuilding program (sec. 124)................... 13
Multiyear procurement authority for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and
EA-18G fighter aircraft (sec. 125)..................... 13
Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 14
System management plan and matrix for the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter Aircraft Program (sec. 141)............. 14
Contracts for commercial imaging satellite capacities
(sec. 142)............................................. 16
Quarterly reports on the use of Combat Mission
Requirements funds (sec. 143).......................... 17
Integration of solid state laser systems into certain
aircraft (sec. 144).................................... 18
Budget Items................................................. 18
Army..................................................... 18
AH-64 fuselage manufacturing......................... 18
Guardrail common sensor.............................. 19
Air warrior survival vest ensemble reset program..... 19
Non-line of sight launch system...................... 19
Patriot upgrades..................................... 19
Paladin Integrated Management program................ 19
M2A1 quick change barrel kits........................ 20
120mm mortars, Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative
reduction.......................................... 20
Efficiency and safety modifications to Heavy Expanded
Mobility Ammunition Trailer........................ 20
Navstar Global Positioning System.................... 20
Tactical Local Area Network.......................... 20
Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar..................... 21
Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensor......... 21
Forward Entry Devices................................ 21
Line of Communication Bridge......................... 22
Fido explosives detection system..................... 22
Ground soldier system................................ 22
Operator driving simulator........................... 22
Immersive group simulation virtual training system... 23
Combat skills marksmanship trainer................... 23
Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle virtual
trainers........................................... 23
Combined arms collective training facility........... 23
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 23
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........ 23
Navy..................................................... 23
F-18 multiyear procurement savings................... 23
F/A-18E/F............................................ 24
MH-60R/S mission avionics............................ 25
AN/AAR-47 missile warning system computer processor
upgrade............................................ 26
Readiness support for Navy unfunded aviation spares
and repair parts maintenance priorities............ 26
Weapons industrial facilities........................ 27
Gun mount mods....................................... 27
Virginia-class tube test equipment................... 27
Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project........ 27
Helicopter hangar door upgrades...................... 28
Range support vehicle................................ 28
Man overboard indicators............................. 28
Air Force................................................ 29
C-17................................................. 29
Airborne signals intelligence payload................ 29
C-135 modifications.................................. 29
E-8 modifications.................................... 30
Milsatcom terminals.................................. 31
Evolved expendable launch vehicle.................... 31
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System................................... 31
Joint threat emitter................................. 32
Eastern processing facility.......................... 32
Kodiak Launch Complex................................ 32
Defense-wide............................................. 32
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system........... 32
Special Operations Force Deployable Nodes............ 33
Enhanced Combat Optical Sight........................ 33
Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle....... 33
Ground Mobility Vehicle modification kits............ 33
Special operations binocular/monocular visual
augmentation devices............................... 34
Clip On Thermal Imager............................... 34
Items of Special Interest.................................... 34
Assessment of helicopter support......................... 34
Combat search and rescue helicopter fleet................ 34
Development and fielding of Paladin Integrated Management
program................................................ 35
F-16 upgrades............................................ 35
40mm target practice rounds.............................. 36
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle.............. 36
Rapid equipping soldier support equipment................ 37
Report on expeditionary amphibious warfare ship force
structure.............................................. 38
Surface ship construction and industrial base issues..... 40
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 43
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 43
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 43
Limitation on use of funds for alternative propulsion
system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec.
211)................................................... 43
Limitation on use of funds by Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency for operation of National Cyber Range
(sec. 212)............................................. 43
Enhancement of Department of Defense support of science,
mathematics, and engineering education (sec. 213)...... 44
Program for research, development, and deployment of
advanced ground vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and
components (sec. 214).................................. 44
Demonstrations and pilot projects on cybersecurity (sec.
215)................................................... 45
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters.......................... 47
Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) 47
Repeal of prohibition on certain contracts by the Missile
Defense Agency with foreign entities (sec. 232)........ 47
Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 233)............ 48
Acquisition accountability reports on the Ballistic
Missile Defense System (sec. 234)...................... 48
Independent review and assessment of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense system (sec. 235).................... 49
Budget Items................................................. 49
Army..................................................... 49
Army basic research.................................. 49
Army materials technologies.......................... 50
Unmanned aerial systems research and development..... 50
Advanced concepts and simulation..................... 51
Ground vehicle research.............................. 51
Robotic systems...................................... 51
Vehicle energy and power programs.................... 52
Reactive armor technologies.......................... 52
Advanced detection research.......................... 52
Acoustic sensors systems............................. 52
Military engineering technology...................... 53
Medical and warfighter technologies.................. 53
Thermal resistant fiber research..................... 53
Army advanced medical research and technologies...... 53
Army weapon systems sustainment...................... 54
Force projection technology.......................... 54
Training and simulation systems...................... 54
Aircraft survivability systems....................... 54
Missile artillery advanced technology development.... 55
Military engineering systems......................... 55
Adaptive robotic technology.......................... 55
Advanced environmental controls...................... 56
Advanced imaging technologies........................ 56
Alternative power technology......................... 56
Hostile fire detection for helicopters............... 56
Non-line of sight launch system...................... 56
XM1125 smoke projectile.............................. 56
Paladin Integrated Management program................ 57
Trojan Swarm......................................... 57
Army test and evaluation programs.................... 57
Enhanced Army energy testing......................... 58
Unserviceable ammunition demilitarization through
chemical dissolution............................... 58
Advanced ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor
blades............................................. 58
Navy..................................................... 58
University research initiatives...................... 58
Energetics research.................................. 59
Advanced energy research............................. 59
Navy force protection research....................... 59
Warfighter sustainment technologies.................. 59
Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research........ 60
Mobile intelligence and tracking systems............. 60
Formable textiles.................................... 60
Mobile repair capability............................. 61
Rare earth alternatives.............................. 61
Single generator operations.......................... 61
High-Integrity Global Positioning System............. 62
Hybrid heavy lift logistics vehicle.................. 62
Lighter-than-air research platform................... 62
Advanced actuators for submarines.................... 62
Submarine shock mitigation........................... 63
Submarine payloads................................... 63
Ship hydrodynamic test facilities improvement........ 64
Common network interface system...................... 64
Decision and energy reduction tool................... 64
Navy energy research................................. 65
Flame retardant textile fabric....................... 65
Optical interconnect................................. 65
Air and missile defense radar........................ 66
TB-33 thinline towed array........................... 66
Advanced manufacturing for submarine bow domes....... 66
Common command and control system module............. 67
Submarine airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capability.......................... 67
Submarine artificial intelligence-based combat system
software module.................................... 67
Submarine environment for evaluation and development. 68
Submarine weapon acquisition and firing system....... 68
SSGN weapon launcher technology insertion............ 68
Automated fiber optic manufacturing capability....... 68
Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle.................. 69
Next-generation Phalanx.............................. 69
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system................. 69
Composite tissue transplantation for combat wound
repair............................................. 70
Navy information technology programs................. 70
Navy manufacturing technology........................ 70
Strike study......................................... 71
Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform............. 71
Tomahawk cost reduction initiatives.................. 71
Aircraft metal alloys................................ 71
Aircraft windscreen laminates........................ 72
Tracking helicopter structural life.................. 72
System for triaging key evidence..................... 72
Marine Corps personnel carrier data management system 73
Unique identification web-based tracking and
accountability software............................ 73
Air Force................................................ 73
Cyber research and training.......................... 73
Air Force materials research......................... 73
Aerospace vehicle technologies....................... 74
Reconfigurable electronics and software.............. 74
Seismic research program............................. 74
Space plasma research................................ 74
Directed energy research............................. 75
Air Force advanced materials research................ 75
Advanced fuels and propulsion........................ 75
Air Force advanced propulsion systems................ 75
Carbon nanotubes..................................... 76
Collaboration gateway................................ 76
Global Positioning System operating control segment.. 76
Space situational awareness.......................... 76
Space protection program............................. 76
Next-generation military satellite communications.... 77
Operationally Responsive Space....................... 77
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite.......................................... 78
Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking Initiative........ 79
Space-based space surveillance system................ 79
Space-based Infrared System.......................... 79
Third generation infrared surveillance............... 80
Air Force test and evaluation........................ 80
Space test program................................... 80
B-2.................................................. 81
Cyber operations security institute.................. 81
Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence.. 81
Malware research technology demonstration and
validation......................................... 82
Milsatcom terminals.................................. 82
Environmental awareness for unmanned systems......... 82
Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance Program of Record.... 83
Global Positioning System augmentation............... 84
Global Positioning System operating control segment.. 85
Joint Space Operation Center System.................. 85
Nuclear detonation detection system.................. 85
Defense-wide............................................. 86
Cognitive computing.................................. 86
Advanced chem-bio protective materials............... 86
Chemical and biological infrared detector............ 86
Department of Defense Research & Engineering Cyber
security activities................................ 86
Weapons of mass destruction analysis reachback tool.. 87
Non-lethal weapons technology........................ 87
Combating terrorism technologies..................... 87
Foreign language correlation and translation......... 87
Reconnaissance and data exploitation system.......... 87
Plant-based vaccine development...................... 88
Defense Logistics Agency energy research............. 88
Printed circuit board industrial assessment.......... 89
U.S.-Israeli short-range ballistic missile defense... 89
Corrosion control research........................... 89
Chem-bio defense system development and demonstration 90
Defense Technical Information Center unjustified
growth............................................. 90
Center for Intelligence and Security Studies......... 90
Technology development for tactical unmanned aerial
systems............................................ 90
Wide-area aerial tactical situation awareness........ 91
Center of excellence for geospatial science.......... 91
Industrial Base Innovation Fund and supply chain..... 91
Lithium ion battery safety research.................. 91
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution
issues............................................. 92
Items of Special Interest.................................... 92
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense.......................... 92
Ballistic missile defense overview....................... 94
Coordination of the Minerva Program, the Human Social
Cultural Behavior Modeling Program, and Strategic
Multi-layer Assessment efforts......................... 97
Defense Science Board study on cyber research and
development............................................ 97
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation personnel
issues................................................. 98
High speed encryption.................................... 98
Integrated Sensor is Structure........................... 98
Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft prognostics.............. 99
Multiple User Objective System........................... 99
Report on implementation of industry standardized
hardware and software interfaces....................... 100
Test Resources Management Center......................... 100
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 101
Explanation of tables.................................... 101
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 101
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions......................... 101
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for
certain costs in connection with the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant, Minnesota (sec. 311)................. 101
Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated
penalties in connection with Naval Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine (sec. 312)............................ 101
Requirements relating to Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry investigation of exposure to drinking
water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
(sec. 313)............................................. 102
Commission on Military Environmental Exposures (sec. 314) 102
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues....................... 103
Depot level maintenance and recapitalization parts supply
(sec. 321)............................................. 103
Subtitle D--Energy Security.................................. 104
Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 331).......... 104
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 104
Additional limitation on indemnification of United States
with respect to articles and services sold by working-
capital funded Army industrial facilities and arsenals
outside the Department of Defense (sec. 341)........... 104
Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec.
342)................................................... 104
Four-year extension of authority to provide logistics
support and services for weapons systems contractors
(sec. 343)............................................. 105
Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense
property (sec. 344).................................... 106
Commercial sale of small arms ammunition in excess of
military requirements (sec. 345)....................... 107
Modification of authorities relating to prioritization of
funds for equipment readiness and strategic capability
(sec. 346)............................................. 107
Repeal of requirement for reports on withdrawal or
diversion of equipment from Reserve units for support
of Reserve units being mobilized and other units (sec.
347)................................................... 108
Revision to authorities relating to transportation of
civilian passengers and commercial cargoes by
Department of Defense when space unavailable on
commercial lines (sec. 348)............................ 108
Budget Items................................................. 108
Navy..................................................... 108
Readiness support for Navy unfunded aircraft
maintenance priorities............................. 108
Readiness support for Navy unfunded ship maintenance
priorities......................................... 109
Air Force................................................ 110
Air Force amended budget submission for C-130s....... 110
Readiness support for Air Force unfunded weapons
system sustainment priorities...................... 110
Defense-wide............................................. 111
Defense Security Cooperation Agency.................. 111
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative.... 112
Department of Defense support for program development
and interagency training for rule of law operations 112
Department of Defense Education Activity Operation
and Maintenance funding............................ 113
Unobligated Balances..................................... 113
Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances....... 113
Items of Special Interest.................................... 114
Acoustic intelligence archive programs............... 114
Air Force food transformation initiative............. 114
Kirtland Air Force Base jet fuel spill............... 115
Littoral combat ship report.......................... 116
Report and timeline for the Secretary of the Navy's
energy goals....................................... 116
Requirements for standard ground combat camouflage
uniforms........................................... 116
Reserve component pre-deployment equipment fielding
and training....................................... 118
Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting.. 119
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 121
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 121
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 121
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 121
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 121
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the Reserves (sec. 412)................................ 122
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 122
Fiscal year 2011 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 122
Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 123
Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations................. 123
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 123
Subtitle D--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 123
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 431)............................. 123
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 125
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 125
Modification of promotion board procedures for joint
qualified officers and officers with joint staff
experience (sec. 501).................................. 125
Nondisclosure of information from discussions,
deliberations, notes, and records of special selection
boards (sec. 502)...................................... 125
Administrative removal of officers from promotion list
(sec. 503)............................................. 125
Technical revisions to definition of ``joint matters''
for purposes of joint officer management (sec. 504).... 125
Modification of authority for officers selected for
appointment to general and flag officer grades to wear
insignia of higher grade before appointment (sec. 505). 126
Temporary authority to reduce minimum length of
commissioned service required for voluntary retirement
as an officer (sec. 506)............................... 126
Age for appointment and mandatory retirement for health
professions officers (sec. 507)........................ 126
Authority for permanent professors at the United States
Air Force Academy to hold command positions (sec. 508). 126
Authority for appointment of warrant officers in the
grade of W-1 by commission and standardization of
warrant officer appointing authority (sec. 509)........ 127
Continuation of warrant officers on active duty to
complete disciplinary action (sec. 510)................ 127
Authority to credit military graduates of the National
Defense Intelligence College with completion of joint
professional military education Phase I (sec. 511)..... 127
Expansion of authority relating to phase II of three-
phase approach to joint professional military education
(sec. 512)............................................. 127
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 127
Repeal of requirement for new oath when officer transfers
from active-duty list to reserve active-status list
(sec. 521)............................................. 127
Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to
be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522)... 127
Authority for assignment of Air Force Reserve military
technicians (dual status) to positions outside Air
Force Reserve unit program (sec. 523).................. 128
Authority for temporary employment of non-dual status
technicians to fill vacancies caused by mobilization of
military technicians (dual status) (sec. 524).......... 128
Direct appointment of graduates of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy into the National Guard (sec.
525)................................................... 128
Subtitle C--Education and Training........................... 128
Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical
accession programs (sec. 531).......................... 128
Authority to waive maximum age limitation on admission to
the service academies for certain enlisted members who
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring
Freedom (sec. 532)..................................... 128
Active duty obligation for military academy graduates who
participate in the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (sec. 533) 129
Participation of Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program recipients
in active duty health profession loan repayment program
(sec. 534)............................................. 129
Increase in number of private sector civilians authorized
for admission to the National Defense University (sec.
535)................................................... 129
Modification of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
minimum unit strength (sec. 536)....................... 129
Increase in maximum age for prospective Reserve Officers'
Training Corps financial assistance recipients (sec.
537)................................................... 129
Modification of education loan repayment programs (sec.
538)................................................... 130
Enhancements of Department of Defense undergraduate nurse
training program (sec. 539)............................ 130
Authority for service commitment of reservists who accept
fellowships, scholarships, or grants to be performed in
the Selected Reserve (sec. 540)........................ 130
Health professions scholarship and financial assistance
program for civilians (sec. 541)....................... 130
Annual report on Department of Defense graduate medical
education programs (sec. 542).......................... 131
Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education.................... 131
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 551)................................... 131
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
552)................................................... 131
Authority to expand eligibility for enrollment in
Department of Defense elementary and secondary schools
to certain additional categories of dependents (sec.
553)................................................... 131
Subtitle E--Leave and Related Matters........................ 132
Leave of members of the reserve components of the armed
forces (sec. 556)...................................... 132
Non-chargeable rest and recuperation absence for certain
members undergoing extended deployment to a combat zone
(sec. 557)............................................. 132
Subtitle F--Military Justice Matters......................... 132
Reform of offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and
other sexual misconduct under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 561)............................ 132
Enhanced authority to punish contempt in military justice
proceedings (sec. 562)................................. 132
Authority to compel production of documentary evidence
prior to trial in military justice cases (sec. 563).... 133
Subtitle G--Awards and Decorations........................... 133
Cold War Service Medal (sec. 566)........................ 133
Authority for award of Bronze Star medal to members of
military forces of friendly foreign nations (sec. 567). 133
Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-
Service Cross to Shinyei Matayoshi for acts of valor
during World War II (sec. 568)......................... 133
Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-
Service Cross to Jay C. Copley for acts of valor during
the Vietnam War (sec. 569)............................. 133
Subtitle H--Wounded Warrior Matters.......................... 133
Disposition of members found to be fit for duty who are
not suitable for deployment or worldwide assignment for
medical reasons (sec. 571)............................. 133
Authority to expedite background investigations for
hiring of wounded warriors and spouses by the
Department of Defense and defense contractors (sec.
572)................................................... 134
Subtitle I--Military Family Readiness Matters................ 134
Additional members of Department of Defense Military
Family Readiness Council (sec. 581).................... 134
Enhancement of community support for military families
with special needs (sec. 582).......................... 135
Pilot program on scholarships for military dependent
children with special education needs (sec. 583)....... 135
Reports on child development centers and financial
assistance for child care for members of the armed
forces (sec. 584)...................................... 135
Subtitle J--Other Matters.................................... 136
Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in
the armed forces (sec. 591)............................ 136
Recruitment and enlistment of charter school graduates in
the armed forces (sec. 592)............................ 136
Updated terminology for the Army Medical Service Corps
(sec. 593)............................................. 136
Items of Special Interest.................................... 137
Access to appropriate facilities, services, and support
for military families with dependent children with
special needs.......................................... 137
Access to the operational reserve........................ 138
Comptroller General review of educational fellowships and
training-with-industry programs........................ 138
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 141
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 141
Extension of authority for increase in basic allowance
for housing for areas subject to major disaster or
installations experiencing sudden increase in personnel
(sec. 601)............................................. 141
Repeal of mandatory high-deployment allowance (sec. 602). 141
Ineligibility of certain Federal Government employees for
income replacement payments (sec. 603)................. 141
Report on costs incurred by members undergoing permanent
change of duty station in excess of allowances (sec.
604)................................................... 142
Report on basic allowance for housing for personnel
assigned to sea duty (sec. 605)........................ 142
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 142
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for Reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 142
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 142
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 143
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 143
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 143
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
referral bonuses (sec. 616)............................ 143
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 143
Travel and transportation allowances for attendance of
members and certain other persons at Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program events (sec. 621)................ 143
Authority for payment of full replacement value for loss
or damage to household goods in certain cases not
covered by carrier liability (sec. 622)................ 144
Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 144
Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance for members of the armed forces
married to other members (sec. 631).................... 144
Conformity of special compensation for members with
injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday
living with monthly personal caregiver stipend under
Department of Veterans Affairs program of comprehensive
assistance for family caregivers (sec. 632)............ 144
Items of Special Interest.................................... 145
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense use
and management of incentive pays and bonuses........... 145
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense
report on housing standards and housing surveys used to
determine basic allowance for housing.................. 145
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 147
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program.................................. 147
One-year extension of ceiling on charges for inpatient
care under the TRICARE program (sec. 701).............. 147
Extension of dependent coverage under the TRICARE program
(sec. 702)............................................. 147
Recognition of licensed mental health counselors as
authorized providers under the TRICARE program (sec.
703)................................................... 147
Plan for enhancement of quality, efficiencies, and
savings in the military health care system (sec. 704).. 148
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 148
Postdeployment health reassessments for purposes of the
medical tracking system for members of the armed forces
deployed overseas (sec. 711)........................... 148
Comprehensive policy on consistent automated neurological
cognitive assessments of members of the armed forces
before and after deployment (sec. 712)................. 149
Restoration of previous policy regarding restrictions on
use of Department of Defense medical facilities (sec.
713)................................................... 149
Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for
command-sponsored dependents of members assigned to
remote locations outside the continental United States
(sec. 714)............................................. 149
Clarification of authority for transfer of medical
records from the Department of Defense to the
Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 715).............. 150
Clarification of licensure requirements applicable to
military health-care professionals who are members of
the National Guard performing certain duty while in
state status (sec. 716)................................ 150
Education and training on use of pharmaceuticals in
rehabilitation programs for wounded warriors (sec. 717) 150
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 151
Report on Department of Defense support of members of the
armed forces who experience traumatic injury as a
result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec.
731)................................................... 151
Repeal of report requirement on separations resulting
from refusal to participate in anthrax vaccine
immunization program (sec. 732)........................ 151
Items of Special Interest.................................... 151
Cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain
injury................................................. 151
Embedded behavioral health providers..................... 152
Live tissue training..................................... 153
Report on the use of temporary military contingency
payment adjustments for TRICARE Outpatient Prospective
Payment System rates................................... 154
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 157
Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 157
Improvements to structure and functioning of Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 801).............. 157
Cost estimates for program baselines and contract
negotiations for major defense acquisition and major
automated information system programs (sec. 802)....... 157
Management of manufacturing risk in major defense
acquisition programs (sec. 803)........................ 158
Extension of reporting requirements for developmental
test and evaluation and systems engineering in the
military departments and Defense Agencies (sec. 804)... 159
Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense
acquisition programs under various acquisition-related
requirements (sec. 805)................................ 159
Technical and clarifying amendments to Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (sec. 806).............. 159
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 159
New acquisition process for rapid fielding of
capabilities in response to urgent operational needs
(sec. 811)............................................. 159
Acquisition of major automated information system
programs (sec. 812).................................... 161
Permanent authority for Defense Acquisition Challenge
Program (sec. 813)..................................... 161
Exportability features for Department of Defense systems
(sec. 814)............................................. 161
Reduction of supply chain risk in the acquisition of
national security systems (sec. 815)................... 161
Department of Defense policy on acquisition and
performance of sustainable products and services (sec.
816)................................................... 162
Repeal of requirement for certain procurements from firms
in the small arms production industrial base (sec. 817) 162
Prohibition on Department of Defense procurements from
entities engaging in commercial activity in the energy
sector of the Islamic Republic of Iran (sec. 818)...... 163
Subtitle C--Amendments Relating to General Contracting
Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations................... 163
Pilot program on acquisition of military purpose
nondevelopmental items (sec. 831)...................... 163
Competition for production and sustainment and rights in
technical data (sec. 832).............................. 164
Elimination of sunset date for protests of task and
delivery order contracts (sec. 833).................... 164
Inclusion of option amounts in limitations on authority
of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to
carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 834)........ 164
Enhancement of Department of Defense authority to respond
to combat and safety emergencies through rapid
acquisition and deployment of urgently needed supplies
(sec. 835)............................................. 164
Subtitle D--Contractor Matters............................... 165
Contractor business systems (sec. 841)................... 165
Oversight and accountability of contractors performing
private security functions in areas of combat
operations (sec. 842).................................. 166
Enhancements of authority of Secretary of Defense to
reduce or deny award fees to companies found to
jeopardize the health or safety of Government personnel
(sec. 843)............................................. 166
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 167
Extension of acquisition workforce personnel management
demonstration program (sec. 851)....................... 167
Non-availability exception from Buy American requirements
for procurement of hand or measuring tools (sec. 852).. 167
Five-year extension of Department of Defense Mentor-
Protege Program (sec. 853)............................. 167
Extension and expansion of small business programs of the
Department of Defense (sec. 854)....................... 167
Four-year extension of test program for negotiation of
comprehensive small business subcontracting plans (sec.
855)................................................... 168
Report on supply of fire resistant fiber for production
of military uniforms (sec. 856)........................ 168
Contractor logistics support of contingency operations
(sec. 857)............................................. 168
Items of Special Interest.................................... 169
Acquisition workforce strategic plan..................... 169
Configuration Steering Boards............................ 170
Contractor past performance information.................. 170
Organizational conflicts of interest..................... 171
Planning and implementation for hiring civilian employees
to replace contractor employees........................ 172
Profit or fee for undefinitized contract actions......... 173
Strategy of addressing national security issues related
to rare earth materials in the defense supply chain.... 174
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 175
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 175
Repeal of personnel limitations applicable to certain
defense-wide organizations and revisions to limitation
applicable to the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(sec. 901)............................................. 175
Reorganization of Office of the Secretary of Defense to
carry out reduction required by law in number of Deputy
Under Secretaries of Defense (sec. 902)................ 175
Revision of structure and functions of the Reserve Forces
Policy Board (sec. 903)................................ 176
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 176
Limitation on use of funds for costs of terminating
contracts under the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System Program (sec. 911)...... 176
Limitation on use of funds for purchasing Global
Positioning System user equipment (sec. 912)........... 176
Plan for integration of space-based nuclear detection
sensors (sec. 913)..................................... 177
Preservation of the solid rocket motor industrial base
(sec. 914)............................................. 177
Implementation plan to sustain solid rocket motor
industrial base (sec. 915)............................. 177
Review and plan on sustainment of liquid rocket
propulsion systems industrial base (sec. 916).......... 178
Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters............................. 178
Permanent authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in
commercial activities as security for intelligence
collection activities (sec. 921)....................... 178
Modification of attendees at proceedings of Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Integration Council
(sec. 922)............................................. 178
Report on Department of Defense interservice management
and coordination of remotely-piloted aircraft support
of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (sec.
923)................................................... 179
Report on requirements fulfillment and personnel
management relating to Air Force intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance provided by remotely-
piloted aircraft (sec. 924)............................ 179
Subtitle D--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related
Matters.................................................... 179
Continuous monitoring of Department of Defense
information systems for cybersecurity (sec. 931)....... 179
Strategy on computer software assurance (sec. 932)....... 179
Strategy for acquisition and oversight of Department of
Defense cyber warfare capabilities (sec. 933).......... 180
Report on the cyber warfare policy of the Department of
Defense (sec. 934)..................................... 181
Reports on Department of Defense progress in defending
the Department and the defense industrial base from
cyber events (sec. 935)................................ 184
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 184
Report on organizational structure and policy guidance of
the Department of Defense regarding information
operations (sec. 951).................................. 184
Report on the organizational structures of the geographic
combatant command headquarters (sec. 952).............. 184
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 187
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 187
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 187
Repeal of requirement for annual joint report from Office
of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget
Office on scoring of outlays in defense budget function
(sec. 1002)............................................ 187
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 187
Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for
certain Navy mess operations (sec. 1011)............... 187
Subtitle C--Counterdrug Matters.............................. 188
Notice to Congress on military construction projects for
facilities of foreign law enforcement agencies for
counter-drug activities (sec. 1021).................... 188
Extension and expansion of support for counter-drug
activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1022).. 188
Extension and modification of joint task forces support
to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities (sec. 1023)....................... 189
Extension of numerical limitation on assignment of United
States personnel in Colombia (sec. 1024)............... 189
Reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign
counter-drug activities (sec. 1025).................... 189
Subtitle D--Homeland Defense and Civil Support............... 189
Limitation on deactivation of existing Consequence
Management Response Forces (sec. 1031)................. 189
Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for
domestic emergency assistance (sec. 1032).............. 190
Sale of surplus military equipment to State and local
homeland security and emergency management agencies
(sec. 1033)............................................ 190
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 191
National Guard support to secure the southern land border
of the United States (sec. 1041)....................... 191
Prohibition on infringing on the individual right to
lawfully acquire, possess, own, carry, and otherwise
use privately owned firearms, ammunition, and other
weapons (sec. 1042).................................... 191
Extension of limitation on use of funds for the transfer
or release of individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1043)........ 191
Limitation on transfer of detainees from United States
Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain
countries (sec. 1044).................................. 192
Clarification of right to plead guilty in trial of
capital offense by military commission (sec. 1045)..... 192
Fiscal year 2011 administration and report on the Troops-
to-Teachers Program (sec. 1046)........................ 192
Military impacts of renewable energy development projects
and other energy projects (sec. 1047).................. 192
Public availability of Department of Defense reports
required by law (sec. 1048)............................ 192
Development of criteria and methodology for determining
the safety and security of nuclear weapons (sec. 1049). 193
Subtitle F--Reports.......................................... 194
Report on potential renewable energy projects on military
installations (sec. 1061).............................. 194
Report on use of domestically-produced alternative fuels
or technologies by vehicles of the Department of
Defense (sec. 1062).................................... 194
Report on role and utility of non-lethal weapons and
technologies in counterinsurgency operations (sec.
1063).................................................. 194
Report on United States efforts to defend against threats
posed by the anti-access and area-denial capabilities
of certain nation-states (sec. 1064)................... 194
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 195
Technical, conforming, and updating amendments (sec.
1081).................................................. 195
Budget Items................................................. 195
International crime and narcotics analytic tools......... 195
National Guard counterdrug programs...................... 195
United States European Command's counterdrug activities.. 196
Items of Special Interest.................................... 196
Army Cooperative Arrangements............................ 196
Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department
of Defense............................................. 196
Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate................................................. 197
Export Control Reform.................................... 198
Special operations counter proliferation capabilities.... 198
Special operations integration with U.S. Embassy Country
Teams.................................................. 199
West Africa maritime security initiative................. 199
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters............................. 201
Modification of certain authorities relating to personnel
demonstration laboratories (sec. 1101)................. 201
Requirements for Department of Defense senior mentors
(sec. 1102)............................................ 201
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1103)............................................ 202
Extension and modification of enhanced Department of
Defense appointment and compensation authority for
personnel for care and treatment of wounded and injured
members of the armed forces (sec. 1104)................ 202
Designation of Space and Missile Defense Technical Center
of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army
Forces Strategic Command as a Department of Defense
science and technology reinvention laboratory (sec.
1105).................................................. 202
Treatment for certain employees paid saved or retained
rates (sec. 1106)...................................... 203
Rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees
performing work aboard or dockside in support of the
nuclear aircraft carrier home-ported in Japan (sec.
1107).................................................. 203
Item of Special Interest..................................... 203
Action plan for employees on pay retention after
conversion from National Security Personnel System to
General Schedule....................................... 203
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations................... 205
Subtitle A--Training and Assistance.......................... 205
Addition of allied government agencies to enhanced
logistics interoperability authority (sec. 1201)....... 205
Expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition and
cross-servicing agreements to lend certain military
equipment to certain foreign forces for personnel
protection and survivability (sec. 1202)............... 205
Authority to build the capacity of Yemen Ministry of
Interior Counterterrorism forces (sec. 1203)........... 206
Authority to pay personnel expenses in connection with
African cooperation (sec. 1204)........................ 207
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan................................................... 207
One-year extension and modification of Commanders'
Emergency Response Program and related authorities
(sec. 1211)............................................ 207
Increase in temporary limitation on amount for building
capacity of foreign military forces to participate in
or support military and stability operations (sec.
1212).................................................. 208
Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1213)........................ 208
Extension and modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund (sec. 1214)....................................... 209
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security
forces of Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1215)............. 209
Sense of Congress and reports on training of Afghan
National Police (sec. 1216)............................ 210
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 210
One-year extension of report on progress toward security
and stability in Afghanistan (sec. 1231)............... 210
Two-year extension of United States plan for sustaining
the Afghanistan National Security Forces (sec. 1232)... 211
Report on Department of Defense support for coalition
operations (sec. 1233)................................. 211
Report on United States engagement with the Islamic
Republic of Iran (sec. 1234)........................... 212
Defense Policy Board report on Department of Defense
strategy to counter violent extremism outside the
United States (sec. 1235).............................. 212
Report on Cuba (sec. 1236)............................... 213
Report on Venezuela (sec. 1237).......................... 213
Report on the disarmament of the Lord's Resistance Army
(sec. 1238)............................................ 214
Items of Special Interest................................ 214
Comptroller General Report on the Islamic Republic of
Iran................................................... 214
Comptroller General Review of U.S. Assistance to the
Government of the Republic of Yemen.................... 215
Operation Unified Response and Joint Task Force-Haiti.... 216
Report on personnel contributions by the United States
Armed Forces to international peacekeeping missions.... 216
U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command and
operational control.................................... 217
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction......................... 221
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
and funds (sec. 1301).................................. 221
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 221
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers
of excellence in countries outside of the former Soviet
Union (sec. 1303)...................................... 221
Plan for nonproliferation, proliferation prevention, and
threat reduction activities with the People's Republic
of China (sec. 1304)................................... 222
Title XIV--Other Authorizations.................................. 223
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 223
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................ 223
Consolidation and reorganization of statutory authority
for destruction of United States stockpile of lethal
chemical agents and munitions (sec. 1411).............. 223
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 224
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health
Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1421)...................... 224
Budget Items................................................. 224
Defense Coalition Support Fund........................... 224
Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding.. 224
Department of Defense Inspector General, second year
growth plan............................................ 224
Title XV--Overseas Contingency Operations........................ 227
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 227
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 227
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 227
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 227
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 227
Availability of amounts in Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund solely for detainee operations
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(sec. 1531)............................................ 227
Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532)....................... 227
Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533).................... 229
Projects of Task Force for Business and Stability
Operations in Afghanistan and report on economic
strategy for Afghanistan (sec. 1534)................... 229
Report on management controls and oversight mechanisms
for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (sec. 1535)............................... 230
Sense of Congress on support for integrated civilian-
military training for civilian personnel deploying to
Afghanistan (sec. 1536)................................ 231
Budget Items............................................. 231
Base Expeditionary Targeting and Surveillance System-
Combined............................................... 231
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 231
Joint Strike Fighter..................................... 232
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund............. 233
Wide-area airborne surveillance exploitation............. 233
Commanders' Emergency Response Program................... 234
Iraq Security Forces Fund................................ 234
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund............ 235
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations................. 237
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 237
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 237
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 237
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 239
Summary.................................................. 239
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 240
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 240
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 240
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........ 240
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008
projects (sec. 2105)................................... 240
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2009 project (sec. 2106).......................... 240
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2010 project (sec. 2107).......................... 241
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 243
Summary.................................................. 243
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 243
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 243
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 244
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 244
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008
project (sec. 2205).................................... 244
Technical amendment to carry out certain fiscal year 2010
project (sec. 2206).................................... 244
Item of Special Interest..................................... 244
Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam. 244
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 249
Summary.................................................. 249
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 249
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 249
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 249
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 249
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2007
project (sec. 2305).................................... 250
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 251
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 251
Summary.................................................. 251
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 251
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)................. 252
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 252
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2010 project (sec. 2404).......................... 252
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 252
Authorization of appropriations, chemical
demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 252
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2000 project (sec. 2412).......................... 252
Item of Special Interest..................................... 252
Design standards for schools of the Department of Defense
Education Activity..................................... 252
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 255
Summary.................................................. 255
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 255
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 255
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 257
Summary.................................................. 257
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 257
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 257
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 257
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 257
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 257
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 258
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008
projects (sec. 2607)................................... 258
Item of Special Interest..................................... 258
Report on National Guard readiness centers............... 258
Title XXVII--Base Closure and Realignment Activities............. 261
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 261
Authorization of appropriations for base closure and
realignment activities funded through Department of
Defense Base Closure Account 1990 (sec. 2701).......... 261
Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded
through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005
(sec. 2702)............................................ 261
Authorization of appropriations for base closure and
realignment activities funded through Department of
Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2703).......... 261
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Matters.............. 263
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 263
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects outside the United States (sec. 2801)......... 263
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Limitation on enhanced use leases of non-excess property
(sec. 2811)................................................ 263
Subtitle C--Energy Security.................................. 264
Enhancement of energy security activities of the
Department of Defense (sec. 2821)...................... 264
Permanent authority to accept and use landing fees
charged to use of domestic airfields by civil aircraft
(sec. 2822)............................................ 265
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 265
Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky (sec. 2831)......... 265
Land Conveyances, Naval Support Activity (West Bank), New
Orleans, Louisiana (sec. 2832)......................... 265
Authority for use of unobligated funds for construction
of a replacement fire station at Fort Belvoir, Virginia
(sec. 2833)............................................ 265
Subtitle E--Reports.......................................... 265
Limitation on availability of funds pending reports
regarding construction of a new outlying landing field
(OLF) in North Carolina and Virginia (sec. 2841)....... 265
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 266
Further enhancements to Department of Defense Homeowners
Assistance Program (sec. 2851)......................... 266
Lease of Airborne and Special Operations Museum facility
(sec. 2852)............................................ 266
Sense of the Senate on the proposed extension of the
Alaska Railroad corridor across Federal land in Alaska
(sec. 2853)............................................ 266
Sense of Congress on military housing for the Air Force
(sec. 2854)............................................ 266
Items of Special Interest.................................... 266
Application of force protection and anti-terrorism
standards to gates and entry points on military
installations.......................................... 266
Report on U.S. Special Operations Command military
construction requirements.............................. 267
Title XXIX--Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction
Authorizations................................................. 269
Summary.................................................. 269
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2901)................................... 269
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2902)................................... 269
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 271
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 271
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 271
Overview................................................. 271
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 272
Weapons activities................................... 272
Directed stockpile work.............................. 272
Campaigns............................................ 272
Readiness in the technical base...................... 273
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............ 274
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development........................................ 275
Nonproliferation and international security.......... 275
International nuclear materials protection and
cooperation........................................ 275
Fissile materials disposition........................ 275
Global threat reduction initiative................... 276
Plutonium reactor shutdown program................... 277
Secure transportation asset.......................... 277
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response........... 277
Facilities and infrastructure........................ 277
Site stewardship..................................... 278
Safeguards and security.............................. 278
Naval reactors....................................... 278
Office of the Administrator.......................... 278
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 278
Waste Treatment Plant................................ 278
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 279
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 280
Assessment of adequacy of budget requests with respect to
maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3111).. 280
Biennial plan on modernization and refurbishment of the
nuclear security complex (sec. 3112)................... 280
Future-years defense environmental management plan (sec.
3113).................................................. 280
Notification of cost overruns for certain Department of
Energy projects (sec. 3114)............................ 280
Authority to purchase or lease aircraft necessary to
support the mission of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3115)............................. 281
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers
of excellence in countries outside of the former Soviet
Union (sec. 3116)...................................... 281
Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy for
appointment of certain scientific, engineering, and
technical personnel (sec. 3117)........................ 282
Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy to enter
into transactions to carry out certain research
projects (sec. 3118)................................... 282
Extension of deadline for cooperation with the Russian
Federation with respect to development of nuclear
materials protection, control, and accounting program
(sec. 3119)............................................ 282
Repeal of sunset provision for modification of minor
construction threshold for plant projects (sec. 3120).. 282
Extension of deadline for transfer of parcels of land to
be conveyed to Los Alamos County, New Mexico, and held
in trust for the pueblo of San Ildefonso (sec. 3121)... 283
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 283
Department of Energy energy parks program (sec. 3131).... 283
Reclassification of certain appropriations for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3132)... 283
Items of Special Interest.................................... 283
Department of Energy National Laboratories............... 283
Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System........ 284
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 285
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 285
Title XXXIII--Maritime Administration.................... 287
Maritime Administration (sec. 3301)...................... 287
Division D--Funding Tables....................................... 289
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 289
Title XLI--Procurement........................................... 291
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 291
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 291
Title XLII--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.......... 293
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 293
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 293
Title XLIII--Operation and Maintenance........................... 295
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 295
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 295
Title XLIV--Other Authorizations................................. 297
Other authorizations (sec. 4401)......................... 297
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 297
Title XLV--Military Construction................................. 299
Military construction (sec. 4501)........................ 299
2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011
project listing (sec. 4502)............................ 299
Military construction for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4503)............................................ 299
Title XVI--Department of Energy National Security Programs....... 301
Department of Energy national security programs (sec.
4601).................................................. 301
Legislative Requirements......................................... 301
Departmental Recommendations............................. 301
Committee Action......................................... 301
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 304
Regulatory Impact........................................ 304
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 304
Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate................................................. 305
Additional Views................................................. 343
Additional views of Mr. McCain........................... 343
Deployment of National Guard to the Southern Border
of the United States Amendment..................... 343
Abortion Amendment................................... 343
Iraqi Security Forces Fund........................... 343
Transparency and Earmarks............................ 344
Additional views of Mr. Chambliss........................ 346
Additional views of Mr. Thune............................ 348
Next Generation Bomber............................... 348
Air-Sea Battle Concept............................... 349
Abortion Amendment................................... 349
Additional views of Messrs. McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, Lemieux, Brown, Burr,
and Vitter............................................. 350
Repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' Amendment........ 350
Calendar No. 414
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-201

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

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 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 4, 2010.--Ordered to be printed

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of May 28
(legislative day, May 26, 2010)

_______

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

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 3454]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military 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 2011;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2011;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2011;
(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 2011; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2011.

Committee overview

The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed
conflict for more than 8 years--8 and one half years in
Afghanistan and 7 years in Iraq. Whether engaged in combat in
Afghanistan or Iraq, delivering humanitarian assistance to
victims of an earthquake in Haiti, training foreign national
forces to combat terrorism in their own countries, or assisting
State and federal agencies responding to emergencies here at
home, the men and women of our Armed Forces, both active and
reserve, are serving honorably and courageously to promote and
defend our Nation's interests. They do so often at great
personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their
families.
After more than 8 years of war, our military, particularly
our ground forces, are severely stressed and the readiness of
the military services to conduct the full range of their
assigned missions remains low.
The administration has honed its counterinsurgency strategy
in Afghanistan, put in place a new military leadership team,
deployed additional U.S. forces, and stressed a more regional
approach, including in particular a greater emphasis on
Pakistan. The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq continues.
To date in this Second Session of the 111th Congress, the
Committee on Armed Services has conducted 38 hearings and
formal briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2011, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and related
defense matters.
In order to provide a framework for the consideration of
these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines to guide
its work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011. These guidelines are:
1. Improve the quality of life of the men and women of the
all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves)
and their families through fair pay, policies and benefits,
including first rate health care, and address the needs of the
wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families.
2. Provide our service men and women with the resources,
training, technology, equipment (especially force protection),
and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability
operations.
3. Enhance the capability of the armed forces to conduct
counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to
Afghanistan, as appropriate.
4. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials
by strengthening and accelerating nonproliferation programs,
maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of
the nuclear weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety,
security, and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery
systems, and the nuclear infrastructure.
5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter
nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery.
6. Enhance the capability of the security forces of allied
and friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and
other violent extremist organizations.
7. Seek to reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking
action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness
of the military services to conduct the full range of their
assigned missions.
8. Terminate troubled programs and activities, improve
efficiencies, and apply the savings to higher-priority
programs.
9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels
and seek greater energy security and independence and pursue
technological advances in traditional and alternative energy
storage, power systems, renewable energy production, and more
energy efficient ground, air, and naval systems.
10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant
laws and regulations.

Explanation of funding summary

The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2011 was $725.9
billion and was in three parts:
$548.9 billion for the base budget of the
Department of Defense,
$159.3 billion for overseas contingency
operations, which funds the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and
$17.7 billion for national security programs
in the Department of Energy and for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.
The bill authorizes $725.7 billion for National Defense
programs. The bill authorizes $1.4 billion more than was
requested for the base budget of the Department of Defense and
$1.7 billion less than was requested for overseas contingency
operations. The bill authorizes the requested level of funding
for national security programs in the Department of Energy and
an increase of $5.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
The administration's budget for national defense also
included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that
do not require further authorizations, mandatory programs that
are part of current law, and a mandatory proposal dealing with
concurrent receipt. When these programs are added to the
administration's budget the total request for national defense
totaled $739.3 billion as re-estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office.
The following two tables summarize the direct
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2011 defense programs. The first table summarizes
committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction
of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending
from the trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home which
is outside the national defense budget function. The second
table summarizes the total budget authority implication for
national defense by adding funding for items that are not
within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not
require an annual authorization.

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2011 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations

Division A: Base Budget
(Titles I, II, III, IV, XIV)

Title I: PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army.... 5,976,867 -15,700 5,961,167
Missile Procurement, Army..... 1,887,437 -216,974 1,670,463
Weapons & Tracked Combat 1,723,561 -99,277 1,624,284
Vehicles, Army...............
Procurement of Ammunition, 1,979,414 -28,600 1,950,814
Army.........................
Other Procurement, Army....... 9,765,808 164,182 9,929,990
Joint Improvised Explosive 215,868 -215,868
Device Defeat Fund...........
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.... 18,508,613 622,548 19,131,161
Weapons Procurement, Navy..... 3,359,794 41,000 3,400,794
Procurement of Ammunition, 817,991 817,991
Navy & Marine Corps..........
Shipbuilding & Conversion, 15,724,520 15,724,520
Navy.........................
Other Procurement, Navy....... 6,450,208 21,600 6,471,808
Procurement, Marine Corps..... 1,344,044 1,344,044
Aircraft Procurement, Air 15,366,508 -26,200 15,340,308
Force........................
Missile Procurement, Air Force 5,463,272 7,692 5,470,964
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 667,420 667,420
Force........................
Other Procurement, Air Force.. 17,845,380 31,000 17,876,380
Procurement, Defense-Wide..... 4,280,368 88,400 4,368,768
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT......... 111,377,073 373,803 111,750,876

Title II: RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVALUATION
RDT&E, Army................... 10,333,392 240,153 10,573,545
RDT&E, Navy................... 17,693,496 136,289 17,829,785
RDT&E, Air Force.............. 27,247,302 82,500 27,329,802
RDT&E, Defense-Wide........... 20,661,600 208,900 20,870,500
Operational Test & Evaluation, 194,910 194,910
Defense......................
Subtotal, RESEARCH, 76,130,700 667,842 76,798,542
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVALUATION...................

Title III: OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, 33,971,965 33,971,965
Army.........................
Operation and Maintenance, 2,879,077 2,879,077
Army Reserve.................
Operation and Maintenance, 6,572,704 6,572,704
Army National Guard..........
Operation and Maintenance, 38,134,308 109,000 38,243,308
Navy.........................
Operation and Maintenance, 5,590,340 5,590,340
Marine Corps.................
Operation and Maintenance, 1,367,764 1,367,764
Navy Reserve.................
Operation and Maintenance, 285,234 285,234
Marine Corps Reserve.........
Operation and Maintenance, Air 36,844,512 133,312 36,977,824
Force........................
Operation and Maintenance, Air 3,301,035 102,792 3,403,827
Force Reserve................
Operation and Maintenance, Air 5,941,143 101,096 6,042,239
National Guard...............
Operation and Maintenance, 30,583,896 -101,000 30,482,896
Defense-wide.................
US Court Of Appeals For The 14,068 14,068
Armed Forces, Defense........
Overseas Humanitarian, 108,032 108,032
Disaster And Civic Aid.......
Cooperative Threat Reduction.. 522,512 522,512
Acquisition Development 217,561 217,561
Workforce Fund...............
Environmental Restoration, 444,581 444,581
Army.........................
Environmental Restoration, 304,867 304,867
Navy.........................
Environmental Restoration, Air 502,653 502,653
Force........................
Environmental Restoration, 10,744 10,744
Defense......................
Environmental Restoration 276,546 276,546
Formerly Used Sites..........
Overseas Contingency 5,000 5,000
Operations Transfer Fund.....
Subtotal, OPERATION AND 167,878,542 345,200 168,223,742
MAINTENANCE..................

Title IV: MILITARY PERSONNEL.. 138,540,700 138,540,700

Title XIV: OTHER
AUTHORIZATIONS
Defense Working Capital Funds. 160,965 160,965
Defense Commissary Agency..... 1,273,571 1,273,571
National Defense Sealift Fund. 934,866 934,866
Defense Coalition Support Fund 10,000 -10,000
Office of the Inspector 283,354 33,800 317,154
General......................
Defense Health Program........ 30,935,111 22,000 30,957,111
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 1,131,351 22,500 1,153,851
Drug Activities, Defense.....
Chemical Agents & Munitions 1,467,307 1,467,307
Destruction, Defense.........
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 36,196,525 68,300 36,264,825

Subtotal, Division A, Base 530,123,540 1,455,145 531,578,685
Budget.......................

Division A: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget (Title XV)

Title XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS

PROCUREMENT, OCO
Aircraft Procurement, Army.... 1,373,803 1,373,803
Missile Procurement, Army..... 343,828 343,828
Weapons & Tracked Combat 687,500 687,500
Vehicles, Army...............
Procurement of Ammunition, 702,591 -50,100 652,491
Army.........................
Other Procurement, Army....... 5,827,274 -41,000 5,786,274
Joint Improvised Explosive 3,250,000 215,868 3,465,868
Device Defeat Fund...........
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.... 420,358 420,358
Weapons Procurement, Navy..... 93,425 93,425
Procurement of Ammunition, 565,084 565,084
Navy & Marine Corps..........
Other Procurement, Navy....... 480,735 480,735
Procurement, Marine Corps..... 1,778,243 1,778,243
Aircraft Procurement, Air 1,362,420 -204,900 1,157,520
Force........................
Missile Procurement, Air Force 56,621 56,621
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 292,959 292,959
Force........................
Other Procurement, Air Force.. 3,087,481 3,087,481
Procurement, Defense-Wide..... 874,546 874,546
Mine Resistant Ambush 3,415,000 3,415,000
Protection Veh Fund..........
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO.... 24,611,868 -80,132 24,531,736

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVALUATION, OCO
RDT&E, Army................... 150,906 150,906
RDT&E, Navy................... 60,401 60,401
RDT&E, Air Force.............. 266,241 266,241
RDT&E, Defense-Wide........... 157,240 25,500 182,740
Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO.......... 634,788 25,500 660,288

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO
Operation and Maintenance, 62,602,618 -400,000 62,202,618
Army.........................
Operation and Maintenance, 286,950 286,950
Army Reserve.................
Operation and Maintenance, 544,349 544,349
Army National Guard..........
Afghanistan Security Forces 11,619,283 11,619,283
Fund.........................
Iraq Security Forces Fund..... 2,000,000 -1,000,000 1,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, 8,946,634 8,946,634
Navy.........................
Operation and Maintenance, 4,136,522 4,136,522
Marine Corps.................
Operation and Maintenance, 93,559 93,559
Navy Reserve.................
Operation and Maintenance, 29,685 29,685
Marine Corps Reserve.........
Operation and Maintenance, Air 13,487,283 13,487,283
Force........................
Operation and Maintenance, Air 129,607 129,607
Force Reserve................
Operation and Maintenance, Air 350,823 350,823
National Guard...............
Operation and Maintenance, 9,426,358 9,426,358
Defense-wide.................
Overseas Contingency 1,551,781 -245,000 1,306,781
Operations Transfer Fund.....
Subtotal, OPERATION AND 115,205,452 -1,645,000 113,560,452
MAINTENANCE, OCO.............

MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO....... 15,275,502 15,275,502

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO
Defense Working Capital Funds. 485,384 485,384
Office of the Inspector 10,529 10,529
General......................
Defense Health Program........ 1,398,092 1,398,092
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 457,110 457,110
Drug Activities, Defense.....
Subtotal, OTHER 2,351,115 2,351,115
AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO..........

Subtotal, Division A, OCO 158,078,725 -1,699,632 156,379,093
Budget.......................

Total, Division A............. 688,202,265 -244,487 687,957,778

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations

Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI-XXVI)

Titles XXI-XXVI: MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army... 4,078,798 -282,000 3,796,798
Military Construction, Navy 3,879,104 -168,684 3,710,420
and Marine Corps.............
Military Construction, Air 1,311,385 71,740 1,383,125
Force........................
Military Construction, Defense- 3,118,062 84,582 3,202,644
Wide.........................
Chemical Demilitarization 124,971 124,971
Construction.................
Security Investment Program... 258,884 258,884
Military Construction, Army 873,664 89,366 963,030
National Guard...............
Military Construction, Army 318,175 33,500 351,675
Reserve......................
Military Construction, Navy 61,557 61,557
Reserve......................
Military Construction, Air 176,986 159,100 336,086
National Guard...............
Military Construction, Air 7,832 7,832
Force Reserve................
Subtotal, MILITARY 14,209,418 -12,396 14,197,022
CONSTRUCTION.................

Titles XXI-XXVI: FAMILY
HOUSING
Family Housing Construction, 92,369 92,369
Army.........................
Family Housing O&M, Army...... 518,140 518,140
Family Housing Construction, 186,444 186,444
Navy and Marine Corps........
Family Housing O&M, Navy and 366,346 366,346
Marine Corps.................
Family Housing Construction, 78,025 78,025
Air Force....................
Family Housing O&M, Air Force. 513,792 513,792
Family Housing O&M, Defense- 50,464 50,464
Wide.........................
Homeowners Assistance Fund.... 16,515 16,515
Family Housing Improvement 1,096 1,096
Fund.........................
Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING...... 1,823,191 1,823,191

Title XXXVII: BRAC
Defense Base Closure Account 360,474 360,474
1990.........................
Defense Base Closure Account 2,354,285 2,354,285
2005.........................
Subtotal, BRAC................ 2,714,759 2,714,759

Subtotal, Division B, Base 18,747,368 -12,396 18,734,972
Budget.......................

Division B: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget (Title XXIX)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, OCO
Military Construction, Army... 929,996 98,180 1,028,176
Military Construction, Air 280,506 -86,740 193,766
Force........................
Military Construction, Defense- 46,500 46,500
Wide.........................
Subtotal, Division B, OCO 1,257,002 11,440 1,268,442
Budget.......................

Total, Division B............. 20,004,370 -956 20,003,414

SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, 548,870,908 1,442,749 550,313,657
DIVISIONS A & B..............
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, 159,335,727 -1,688,192 157,647,535
DIVISIONS A & B..............

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 708,206,635 -245,443 707,961,192
(051)........................

Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and
Other Authorizations

Division C (Titles XXXI and
XXXII)

Department of Energy
Authorization (Title XXXI)

Electricity Delivery and 6,188 -6,188
Energy Reliability...........

Title XXXI: NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities............ 7,008,835 6,188 7,015,023
Defense Nuclear 2,687,167 2,687,167
Nonproliferation.............
Naval Reactors................ 1,070,486 1,070,486
Office of the Administrator... 448,267 448,267
Subtotal, NATIONAL NUCLEAR 11,214,755 6,188 11,220,943
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION......

Title XXXI: ENVIRONMENTAL AND
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup. 5,588,039 5,588,039
Other Defense Activities...... 878,209 878,209
Subtotal, ENVIRONMENTAL AND 6,466,248 6,466,248
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.....

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY... 17,687,191 17,687,191

Title XXXII: DEFENSE NUCLEAR
FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Defense Nuclear Facilities 28,640 5,000 33,640
Safety Board.................
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 28,640 5,000 33,640
FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD......

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 17,715,831 5,000 17,720,831
PROGRAMS (053)...............

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 725,922,466 -240,443 725,682,023
(050)........................

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION
Title IV--Armed Forces 71,200 71,200
Retirement Home (Function
600).........................

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER
AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer [5,000,000] [5,000,000]
Authority (non-add)..........
Title XV--Special Transfer [4,000,000] [4,000,000]
Authority (non-add)..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2011 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS 548,870,908 1,442,749 550,313,657
A & B...........................
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A 159,335,727 -1,688,192 157,647,535
& B.............................
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 708,206,635 -245,443 707,961,192
(051)...........................
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 17,715,831 5,000 17,720,831
PROGRAMS (053)..................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE.... 725,922,466 -240,443 725,682,023

Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the
Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require
Additional Authorization
Defense Production Act Purchases. 28,746 28,746
Indefinite Account: National 25 25
Science Center, Army............
Indefinte Account: Disposal Of 10,317 10,317
DOD Real Property...............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD 8,884 8,884
Real Property...................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 47,972 47,972
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 130,000 130,000
Action Program..................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 130,000 130,000
Other Discretionary Programs..... 7,017,000 7,017,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 7,017,000 7,017,000
Total Defense Discretionary 7,194,972 7,194,972
Adjustments (050)...............

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military 708,254,607 -245,443 708,009,164
(051)...........................
Atomic Energy Defense Activities 17,845,831 5,000 17,850,831
(053)...........................
Defense-Related Activities (054). 7,017,000 7,017,000
Total BA Implication, National 733,117,438 -240,443 732,876,995
Defense Discretionary...........

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Concurrent receipt accrual 4,754,000 4,754,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund.................
Concurrent receipt policy 410,000 -410,000
proposal........................
Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,240,000 1,240,000
Mandatory.......................
Offsetting receipts.............. -1,751,000 -1,751,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 4,653,000 -410,000 4,243,000
Energy employees occupational 1,158,000 1,158,000
illness compensation programs
and other.......................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 1,158,000 1,158,000
Radiation exposure compensation 44,000 44,000
trust fund......................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 292,000 292,000
and other.......................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 336,000 336,000
Total National Defense Mandatory 6,147,000 -410,000 5,737,000
(050)...........................

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military 712,907,607 -655,443 712,252,164
(051)...........................
Atomic Energy Defense Activities 19,003,831 5,000 19,008,831
(053)...........................
Defense-Related Activities (054). 7,353,000 7,353,000
Total BA Implication, National 739,264,438 -650,443 738,613,995
Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Subtitle B--Army Programs

Airborne common sensor and enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and
surveillance system (sec. 111)
The budget request included $88.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army for the purchase of three low rate initial
production Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and
Surveillance System (EMARSS) aircraft. The committee
understands, however, that the EMARSS program has an ambitious
and risky development schedule that has already suffered
schedule delays that makes the obligation of these funds in
fiscal year 2011 unlikely. The committee recommends a provision
that would prohibit the obligation of any funds for the
Airborne Common Sensor, EMARSS, until the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology
certifies to the congressional defense committees that the
system has successfully completed its limited user tests and
demonstrates the technical performance necessary for successful
Milestone C approval.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Multiyear funding for detail design and construction of LHA replacement
ship designated LHA-7 (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Navy to execute the contract for LHA-7 over fiscal years
2011 and 2012, subject to the availability of appropriations
for that purpose in budgets after 2011.
Requirement to maintain Navy airborne signals intelligence capabilities
(sec. 122)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the retirement of the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated
Electronic System II fleet or the Special Projects Aircraft
(SPA) until the Navy has readied replacements that are
equivalent or better in terms of meeting the requirements of
the combatant commanders. The provision also requires that the
two systems be maintained and upgraded to remain current
against evolving threats and operational requirements.
The committee believes that this provision is necessary to
ensure that the Navy sustains adequate signals intelligence
(SIGINT) and multi-intelligence collection support for the
Marine Corps, special forces, ground component commanders, and
naval fleet commanders, and joint combatant commands.
The Navy terminated the EP-X program due to escalating
costs and a desire to pursue other solutions. The committee
does not quarrel with this decision, but is concerned that the
Navy shifted the EP-X outyear funds to other priorities and had
no concrete plans for the future. The committee is concerned
that the Navy's airborne intelligence collection capabilities
would be seriously degraded as the current systems deteriorate
well before new capabilities come on line.
The EP-3E and SPA fleets must be maintained and kept
current while the Navy firms up and executes plans to acquire
SIGINT on the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial
system (UAS), and develops and produces the ship-based medium-
endurance UAS.
The committee notes that the Navy operates multiple Reaper
UAS under the Saber Focus program that have capable, and in
some respects, unique sensors. These assets have been deployed
both as a demonstration and to support operations overseas. The
Navy's leadership is considering whether to cease operating
these aircraft and transfer them to the Air Force. The
committee has concerns about this proposed transfer. The
committee's view is that the Navy's long-term plan to shift a
much larger portion of its intelligence collection capabilities
to UAS in the future could benefit from the continued
availability of Reaper platforms to test sensors and to develop
Navy UAS operational concepts. These Saber Focus assets could
complement the SPA fleet if operated and managed together. The
committee is also concerned that the transfer of these assets
to the Air Force could result in the loss of, or a gap in,
support for deployed forces.
Reports on service life extension of F/A-18 aircraft by the Department
of the Navy (sec. 123)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a business case analysis
comparing two options: (1) conducting a service life extension
program (SLEP) for legacy F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours;
and (2) buying new F/A-18E/F aircraft. The provision also would
specify the elements of that analysis. The Secretary would be
required to complete that analysis and submit it to the
congressional defense committees before he could begin such a
SLEP effort.
The Department of the Navy has testified that, among the
alternatives available to the Department for managing the
shortfall it has projected in tactical aircraft inventory, one
is to conduct a SLEP for some portion of the F/A-18 fleet that
extends their service life beyond 8,600 flying hours. However,
several objective reports have suggested that extending the
service life of legacy F/A-18A-D aircraft to 10,000 hours may
require significant depot work to rebuild parts of each
aircraft. Such a situation raises uncertainty about the costs
of such a program.
The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the operational risks and effects of any decision to reduce the
size of F/A-18 squadrons before the Secretary takes any such
action. The provision would also specify topics or issues that
this report should address. The committee understands that the
Department of the Navy is planning to ask for funding to extend
the service life of F/A-18 aircraft in fiscal year 2012 and
will start reducing the size of its land-based F/A-18 squadrons
in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to submit the reports at the time the
President submits his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal to
Congress.
One of the ways that the Navy has decided it could deal
with the shortfall of strike fighter aircraft would be to
reduce the squadron size for expeditionary F/A-18 squadrons
from 12 to 10 planes, beginning in fiscal year 2011. The
committee understands that the Navy also intends to reduce the
size of F/A-18 training squadrons. The committee, however, has
seen no evidence that the Department of the Navy has conducted
an operational risk assessment and analysis of the effects of
these reductions. The committee believes that a final decision
on reducing operational or training squadrons should be made
only after the Department has completed those analyses and has
reported on them to the congressional defense committees.
Inclusion of basic and functional design in assessments required prior
to start of construction of first ship of a shipbuilding
program (sec. 124)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to tighten the
requirements under which the Secretary of the Navy is required
to certify that a new shipbuilding program has achieved
sufficient design maturity at the time the Navy begins
construction on the first ship of any major shipbuilding
program.
The Government Accountability Office, in its May 2009
report, ``Best Practices: High Levels of Knowledge at Key
Points Differentiate Commercial Shipbuilding from Navy
Shipbuilding (GAO-09-322),'' identified key steps that leading
commercial shipbuilders and ship buyers follow to ensure their
vessels deliver on-time, within planned costs, and with a high
degree of innovation.
One critical step in this process is achieving design
stability before start of fabrication. Leading commercial firms
assess a ship design as stable once all basic and functional
design activities have been completed (usually in the form of a
complete 3D product model).
Section 124 as currently written does not specifically
require that the assessment of design maturity directly address
the completeness of the 3D modeling or completion of the
activities that make up basic and functional design. This
provision would add that requirement.
Multiyear procurement authority for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G
fighter aircraft (sec. 125)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 110-84). Section 128 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
provided specific authorization, as required under section
2306b of title 10, United States Code, for the Secretary of the
Navy to enter into a multiyear contract for the purchase of
additional F/A-18E, F/A-18F, or EA-18G aircraft under certain
conditions, including that: (1) the statutorily required
written certifications be submitted to the congressional
defense committees; and (2) the Secretary sign the contract by
a certain time. This provision would change the effective dates
in section 128 to reflect the fact that the Department was
unable to meet those specified dates.
The committee strongly cautions the Department that how it
proceeded here is neither preferred nor desirable, and should
not be viewed as setting any precedent for acquiring major
systems on a multiyear basis in the future. However, the
committee believes that, against the backdrop of challenges to
the Navy's managing its projected shortfall in tactical
aviation (discussed elsewhere in this report), the savings of
$590.0 million identified by the Secretary of Defense is
``substantial'' within the meaning of section 2306b of title
10, United States Code, and sufficient reason to accept the
delayed agreement. Therefore, the committee recommends
authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to sign a multiyear
contract for these aircraft before the end of the fiscal year.
Extracting substantial savings from major systems near the
end of their production is hard to achieve. In this case, the
committee approves of the Department's proposal to: (1)
implement certain cost reduction initiatives; (2) avoid certain
sources of cost peculiar to this program; (3) implement a
proposed multiyear contract free of certain ``reopener''
clauses that, if exercised, could easily extinguish its savings
estimate; and (4) adopt a fixed price-type contract as the
vehicle for implementing the multiyear agreement.

Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters

System management plan and matrix for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Aircraft Program (sec. 141)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of Defense establish a system management
plan and matrix for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program
that would be used to measure progress in gaining maturity for
the system during the remainder of the system development and
demonstration (SDD) program.
The committee believes that the F-35 represents an
essential national capability. However, it remains concerned
about whether the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will
deliver required capability required by each of the services
when the services need it and at prices the Department can
afford.
The basis for that concern arises principally from several
reviews that were conducted late last year at the direction of
the Secretary of Defense, including reviews by the Joint
Estimating Team, an Industry Manufacturing Review Team, and a
Joint Assessment Team. In their annual assessments of the
program, the Director, Operational Testing and Evaluation and
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also conveyed
troubling information about the program's ability to perform as
promised.
Based on the reviews he directed, the Secretary of Defense
fundamentally restructured the program to: (1) extend the
development test schedule to March 2015; (2) add additional
research, development, testing, and evaluation funds to pay for
mitigating known risks; (3) buy another carrier variant
developmental test aircraft and add another software
integration line to the program; (4) use up to three aircraft
procured under low-rate initial production (LRIP) contracts for
developmental testing; (5) reduce procurement quantities over
the future-years defense program to slow the planned production
ramp up and offset added funding for developmental testing; and
(6) install a new fee structure that would provide incentives
for the contractor team to achieve key performance events and
cost goals. While the Marine Corps may delay its initial
operational capability date for a few months in 2012, the Navy
and the Air Force extended theirs several years to 2016.
The committee supports the Secretary's plan to restructure
the F-35 JSF program. However, the committee believes that
greater insight into it for Congress and others outside the
Department is warranted. To achieve that goal, the committee
believes that the Defense Department needs to establish
milestones against which we can measure progress of the
program.
Therefore, in accordance with the goals set forth by the
Program Executive Officer for the program, the committee
expects the Department of Defense to manage the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter aircraft program so as to achieve the following
milestones by the end of this calendar year:
(1) achieve first flight of the F-35C (carrier
variant);
(2) install and operate Block 1.0 software on all
flight test aircraft to be delivered this year;
(3) fully implement those recommendations of the
Independent Manufacturing Review Team, reflected in its
October 2009 report and its follow-on assessment of the
Production Integrated Transition Plan, that address
manufacturing issues affecting initial production (in
particular, those recommendations relating to the
global supply chain; parts shortages and change
management; first article inspections; test and
evaluation; quantitative management metrics; the
reduction of unit recurring flyaway costs; an
integrated management plan/integrated management
schedule; the completion of an independent schedule
risk assessment by the government; and assessments of
producibility);
(4) deliver all LRIP Lot I aircraft and all remaining
developmental aircraft (except for the additional F-35C
test aircraft to be bought with fiscal year 2011 funds)
in flyable status with software in Block 1.0
configuration;
(5) deliver 11 test aircraft in flyable status with
software in Block 1.0 configuration to Patuxent River
Naval Air Station and Edwards Air Force Base;
(6) conduct test flights at a rate of 12 flights per
aircraft per month;
(7) complete a minimum of 400 test flights;
(8) deliver at least 3 training aircraft to Eglin Air
Force Base; and
(9) capture real-time data from the flight testing of
all F-35 JSF developmental aircraft and training
aircraft using the F-35 Autonomous Logistics
Information System. Such data collection shall be
sufficient to support the Department's development of a
revised operations and sustainment estimate in the
second quarter of fiscal year 2012.
If the program reaches each of those milestones, the
committee believes that the program will be in a position to
award a fixed-price incentive fee contract no later than the
fiscal year 2011 procurement.
The Acting Program Executive Officer in the Joint Program
Office and the prime contractor both stipulated that the
foregoing milestones are achievable.
The committee expects that the program will achieve these
milestones and that, if they are not, the Department of Defense
will undertake appropriate action to correct any reason for
delays, including (but not limited to) withholding fees.
The recommended provision would look prospectively to
measure progress during the remainder of the SDD program. As
GAO recommended in its most recent report, ``Joint Strike
Fighter: Additional Costs and Delays Not Meeting Warfighter
Requirements on Time,'' such a plan should provide criteria and
conditions for comparing documented results to expected
progressive levels of demonstrated weapon system maturity in
relationship to planned increases in future procurement
quantities.
The committee believes that the system management plan and
matrix required under this section will serve as a useful tool
by which Congress can require the Department to explain how
increasing levels of demonstrated, quantifiable knowledge about
the Joint Strike Fighter program's maturity at annual
procurement decision-points justify increased procurement
funding and quantities, as the program proceeds to a full-rate
procurement decision.

Contracts for commercial imaging satellite capacities (sec. 142)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to procure or acquire the capacity
of imaging satellites with 1.5-meter telescopes after December
31, 2010, if DOD seeks to sustain an augmentation of national
overhead imagery capabilities with commercial-class electro-
optical capability. The committee intends for DOD to begin to
procure or acquire the use of 1.5-meter imaging satellites when
it is necessary to replenish the additional capacity being
acquired through the Enhanced View contract around the middle
of the decade.
The committee was informed by DOD officials that DOD no
longer has a requirement for survivable, wartime, moderate
resolution, wide-area electro-optical imagery. The committee
was informed that the additional capacity being acquired
through the Enhanced View contract vehicle is intended solely
as a backup in the event of shortfalls or gaps in the
collection of imagery by National Intelligence Program (NIP)
funded satellite programs. The committee was told that the
collection capacity provided by the commercial augmentation
program is actually in excess of requirements when the national
overhead constellation is at normal levels of capacity. The
committee was informed by DOD officials that, in the event of a
gap or shortfall in national overhead collection capacity, DOD
would lower the altitude of the planned 1.1-meter satellites to
increase their resolution, regardless of the significant
reduction this would cause in the lifetime of the satellites.
The committee requests that the Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council provide the committee with a
summary of DOD's peacetime and wartime requirements for space-
based electro-optical imaging other than from national overhead
collection systems prior to conference on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
The committee notes that a gap or shortfall in national
overhead collection capacity would most heavily impact the
satisfaction of requirements for high-resolution point target
collection. The committee notes further that 1.5-meter
satellites would be far more capable of providing high-
resolution point collection capacity than 1.1-meter satellites
to make up for any such gap. If the purpose of the additional
capacity being acquired through the Enhanced View contract is
to provide insurance against a gap in national overhead
collection, 1.5-meter satellites are clearly preferable.
Information provided to the committee from the Office of
the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicates that
the 10-year cost of procuring and operating 1.5-meter
satellites, and associated ground costs, would be comparable to
the 10-year cost of acquiring the capacity of 1.1-meter
satellites, using independent cost estimates of the cost of the
1.5-meter satellites. Yet, the performance of the 1.5-meter
satellites would be much greater than the 1.1-meter satellites.
If DOD decides to procure the 1.5-meter satellites directly,
the Department should contract with the Commercial Data
Providers (CDP) to operate the satellites and to process and
disseminate the data through the CDPs' ground infrastructure,
and to allow the CDPs to sell imagery commercially.
In terms of performance, on a one-to-one comparison, the
1.5-meter would collect 3-4 times more high-resolution points
and high-priority points, and 40-60 percent more total points.
In the event of a delay or an impairment in national overhead
capabilities, a 1.5-meter satellite initiative could regain
performance to the baseline, whereas the 1.1-meter
constellation would fall far short.
For these reasons, the committee is persuaded that DOD
should pursue the 1.5-meter-class commercial satellites in the
future.

Quarterly reports on the use of Combat Mission Requirements funds (sec.
143)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to
report to the congressional defense committees quarterly on the
use of Combat Mission Requirements funding. The quarterly
reports would address: (1) the balance of the Combat Mission
Requirements account at the beginning of the quarter; (2) the
balance of the Combat Mission Requirements account at the end
of the quarter; (3) any transfer of funding into or out of the
Combat Mission Requirements account during the quarter
(including the source of any transfer into the fund, and the
objective of any transfer out of the fund); (4) a description
of any Combat Mission Requirements approved for procurement
and/or procured during the quarter; and (5) the amount of funds
committed to each requirement.
The committee understands that the Combat Mission
Requirements account plays an important role in providing
funding for critical equipment to satisfy emergent requirements
for deploying and deployed special operations forces. However,
the committee believes that increased visibility over the
account, including transfers into and out of the account, is
necessary to ensure that the congressional defense committees
possess sufficient information to exercise adequate oversight
of relevant procurement accounts. The committee encourages
USSOCOM to review its practices regarding transfers into and
out of the account to ensure that these practices are
consistent with requirements of law and policy related to the
reprogramming of defense funds.

Integration of solid state laser systems into certain aircraft (sec.
144)

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
long-standing research and development programs to advance the
military usefulness of high-powered lasers mounted on aircraft
for defensive and offensive capabilities. Recent advances in
the power and cooling of solid state lasers have led the
Department to begin to develop, integrate, and test such lasers
on military aircraft such as the B-1 bomber. There is concern
that the Department may solely focus on the B-1 platform
without fully analyzing the cost-benefit implications as it
moves from demonstration to development.
Hence, the committee recommends a provision for the
Department to provide to the congressional defense committees
no later than February 2011, a report analyzing various
candidate aircraft that are being considered as platforms for
high power solid state lasers and provide an estimated unit
cost to develop an integrated laser-aircraft system. The
analysis should also estimate the operations and maintenance
costs of such an integrated laser aircraft system. The
committee notes there may not be complete data for some
candidate aircraft but asks the Department to begin this
analysis as early as possible in order to fully understand
long-term life cycle costs.
The committee also requests that the analysis of the B-1
should consider the operational placement of the laser in the
aft bay so as to maintain the operational kinetic capabilities
of the forward and center bays.

Budget Items

Army

AH-64 fuselage manufacturing

The budget request included $160.7 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for AH-64 Apache block III helicopters.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in APA to
acquire special tooling and qualify a domestic source for the
manufacture of the Apache helicopter airframe assembly.

Guardrail common sensor

The budget request included $30.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army, in the Overseas Contingency Operations
budget for the Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS) program. The Army
decided to modernize and retain 14 GRCS platforms after the
budget was submitted. As a result, the Army requires only $6.0
million of the $30.2 million requested. The committee therefore
recommends a reduction of $24.2 million.

Air warrior survival vest ensemble reset program

The budget request included $52.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for aircrew integrated systems, but
provided no funding for the Air Warrior survival vest ensemble
reset program. The Army requires inspection and reset of
aviation survival equipment carriers, flotation collars, and
egress air equipment. Due to increased operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, equipment is wearing out before its
planned maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million in APA for the Air Warrior survival vest ensemble
reset program.

Non-line of sight launch system

The budget request included $350.6 million in Missile
Procurement, Army (MPA) for the non-line of sight launch system
(NLOS-LS). The committee is aware that due to performance
shortfalls, high projected costs for each missile, and the
availability of other technologies to meet precision artillery
fire requirements, the Army has recommended cancellation of the
NLOS-LS program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $350.6 million in MPA for the NLOS-LS.

Patriot upgrades

The budget request included $57.2 million in Missile
Procurement, Army for modification of the Patriot air and
missile defense system and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3
(PAC-3) interceptor missile, but insufficient funds to repair
and recertify PAC-3 missiles, and procure additional upgraded
Patriot launching station kits. These PAC-3 upgrades are an
Army Chief of Staff unfunded priority for fiscal year 2011.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $133.6
million in Missile Procurement, Army to cover the cost of the
Patriot repairs and upgrades included on its Unfunded
Priorities List. The Patriot system is the only combat-proven
missile defense system in the U.S. military, and demand for
Patriot and the PAC-3 missile is high among regional combatant
commanders, since it provides defensive capability against the
many existing short-range ballistic missiles in their Areas of
Responsibility.

Paladin Integrated Management program

The budget request included $105.3 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicle Procurement, Army (WTCV) for Paladin
Integrated Management (PIM) systems. The PIM program would
upgrade and extend the life of the Army's current M109A6
Paladin self-propelled howitzer system. The committee is aware
that due to technical and program management challenges the
procurement of PIM systems will be delayed and therefore
procurement is premature. The committee recommends a decrease
of $105.3 million in WTCV for PIM procurement.

M2A1 quick change barrel kits

The budget request included $15.0 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for M2 50 caliber machine gun
modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in WTCV for procurement of M2A1 quick change barrel
kits to support operational safety and enhance the
effectiveness of the M2 machine gun.

120mm mortars, Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative reduction

The budget request included $28.6 million in the base
budget and $70.0 million in the Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) budget request in Procurement of Ammunition, Army for the
Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) 120mm mortars, all
types. The Army was able to achieve substantial savings through
open competition in the source selection process and as a
result no longer needs this funding.
The committee recommends a decrease of $28.6 million in the
base budget request and a decrease of $50.1 million in the OCO
for APMI unit cost savings.

Efficiency and safety modifications to Heavy Expanded Mobility
Ammunition Trailer

The budget request included $25.6 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for tactical trailers, but included no
funds for the Heavy Expanded Mobility Ammunition Trailer
(HEMAT) systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in OPA for HEMAT systems.

Navstar Global Positioning System

The budget request included $45.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Navstar Global Positioning
System. The committee recommends an increase of $51.2 million
in OPA for Navstar global positioning systems. The additional
funding would be used to accelerate replacement of older
versions of the Precision Lightweight Global Position System
Receivers that are not Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing
Module (SAASM) compliant. SAASM-compliance is a critical
component of Army electronic force tracking and identification
systems. This is a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority.

Tactical Local Area Network

The budget request included $201.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for information systems. The Army has a
requirement to support Civil Affairs and Psychological
Operations units with Tactical Local Area Network (TACLAN) to
consolidate numerous automation and communications efforts into
a single program consisting of both hardware and common-user
software applications. The committee recommends an increase of
$55.0 million in OPA to accelerate the acquisition and fielding
of TACLAN. This is a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority.

Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar

The budget request included $58.0 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Lightweight Counter Mortar
Radar (LCMR). The LCMR (version 3) is a force protection system
that provides 360 degrees all around coverage to detect,
locate, and report the target location of enemy mortar firing
systems. The committee recommends an increase of $47.1 million
in OPA for LCMR. This is a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded
priority.

Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensor

The budget request included $29.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for Brigade Combat Team unattended
ground sensors (BCT-UGS). The committee notes that after 6
years of development and an investment of approximately $130.0
million the BCT-UGS system has failed in user tests to
demonstrate required technical performance, is unreliable, and
has not proven its tactical effectiveness or utility.
Specifically, the UGS system demonstrated poor communications
connectivity, inadequate transmission ranges, poor image
quality, and frequent system failures.
The committee also notes that the Army will conduct a
System Breakout/Contracting Review in December 2010 to address
whether the BCT-UGS full-rate production will be multi-sourced
through an open competition to qualified technologies and
vendors. The Army reports that non-BCT-UGS systems already
procured and deployed do not meet all the Capability Production
Document's requirements or are not compliant with the Army's
communications network. However, the committee is aware that
the program of record BCT-UGS system does not meet all the
requirements either. The committee is concerned that the Army
is missing an opportunity to test alternatives and introduce
competition into its UGS program by failing to take advantage
of multiple technologies from multiple vendors that may have
developed or are capable of developing and producing unattended
sensors. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology conduct tests of currently available alternative UGS
capabilities with particular emphasis on technical maturity,
interoperability, operational effectiveness, reliability, and
affordability.
Given the technical challenges confronting the Army's BCT-
UGS system, procurement is premature. The committee recommends
a decrease of $29.7 million in OPA for BCT-UGS.

Forward Entry Devices

The budget request included $6.9 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for Advanced Field Artillery Tactical
Data System Forward Entry Devices (FED). The FED is a pocket-
sized, hand-held computer used by artillery forward observers
to communicate target data to artillery fire direction centers
for precision target engagement. The committee recommends an
increase of $16.2 million in OPA to procure 408 additional FED
devices. This is a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority.

Line of Communication Bridge

The budget request included $53.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for tactical bridges. The Army has
three levels of bridging: Assault, Tactical, and Line-of-
Communication (LOCB). The LOCB provides a sustained capability
for heavy traffic over a long period of time. Funds provided
would accelerate procurement of the LOCB to meet an operational
needs statement to support forces in Afghanistan. The committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million in OPA for LOCB. This
is a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority.

Fido explosives detection system

The budget request included $226.0 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection
systems, but provided no funds for the Fido explosives
detection system. The Fido explosives detector is deployed and
in use by units in Iraq to counter improvised explosive devices
and land mines. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million in OPA for the Fido explosive detection system.
The committee further directs that, not later than August
1, 2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology, shall provide to the congressional
defense committees a report on the Army's requirement,
development, procurement, and fielding of Fido systems. The
report should include the quantities currently in the Army
inventory and deployed to theater and in use, and quantities of
Fido systems requested in pending operational needs statements,
if any, and how the Army plans to satisfy those requests.

Ground soldier system

The budget request includes $110.5 million in Other
Procurement, Army for the Ground Soldier System (GSS). The GSS
is a dismounted small unit leaders' command and control system
that increases tactical awareness, communication, navigation,
safety, and unit effectiveness. The committee supports the
Army's efforts to enhance the operational capabilities of its
platoons, squads, and other small units for an increasingly
complex and lethal operating environment. However, the
committee notes that the Army's acquisition plan for GSS has
high schedule risk and will procure over 4,500 systems ahead of
the results of a 2010 limited user test and a Milestone C
decision scheduled for early 2011. The Committee also notes
that only 198 of over 4,500 GSS sets will actually deliver in
fiscal year 2011. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $28.8 million in OPA for GSS.

Operator driving simulator

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but
included no funds for operator driving simulators. Additional
driving simulators would allow deploying soldiers to maximize
their training time while providing a realistic experience
without risk to personnel or equipment. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for operator
driving simulators.

Immersive group simulation virtual training system

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but
provided no funding for the Immersive Group Simulation Virtual
Training System (IGS-VTS). The IGS-VTS is a fully immersive,
interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier
vehicle training. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in OPA for the IGS-VTS.

Combat skills marksmanship trainer

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for
additional combat skills marksmanship trainer systems.

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle virtual trainers

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but
provided no funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicle Virtual Trainer (MRAP-VVT). The MRAP-VVT is a fully
interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier
vehicle training. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in OPA for the MRAP-VVT.

Combined arms collective training facility

The budget request included $23.3 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) non-system training devices for
combined arms collective training facilities. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.2 million in OPA to accelerate the
installation of combined arms collective training facilities.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

The budget request includes $215.9 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) staff and
infrastructure line of operation. The committee recommends full
funding for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO), but recommends transferring all of
JIEDDF funds from title I to the same budget activities in
title XV, which fund the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
of the Department.
The committee believes JIEDDO--despite the Department's
decision to institutionalize it--should be in the OCO portion
of the budget request as it was established in response to
threats confronted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Navy

F-18 multiyear procurement savings

The budget request included $1,083.9 million to purchase 12
EA-18G and $1,787.2 million to purchase 22
F/A-18E/F aircraft. Since the Navy had not completed
negotiations for proposed multiyear procurement contract for
these F-18 aircraft, the Navy based the budget estimates on
executing a series on annual procurements.
The committee understands that a multiyear contract for F-
18s will result in $130.5 million savings in fiscal year 2011
compared to the budget request, consisting of $45.9 million
savings for EA-18G and $84.6 million for F/A-18E/F.
The committee has included a provision elsewhere in this
Act that would enable the Navy to sign the multiyear contract,
and, therefore, recommends a reduction of $130.5 million to the
budget request.

F/A-18E/F

The budget request included $1,787.2 million to purchase 22
F/A-18E/F aircraft. This is four more than were approved in the
fiscal year 2010 budget. This is also an increase of 5 aircraft
from the fiscal year plan for 17 aircraft included in the last
future-years defense program (FYDP) by President Bush.
The committee has expressed concern that the Navy is facing
a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets
retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint
Strike Fighter is available. The committee raised this issue in
the committee reports accompanying: (1) S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110-
77) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008; (2) S. 3001 (S. Rept. 110-335) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009; and (3) S. 1390 (S.
Rept. 111-35) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010.
Two years ago, the committee received testimony from the
Navy about a projected shortfall in Navy tactical aviation. The
Navy indicated that, under assumptions current at that time, it
would experience a shortfall of 69 tactical aircraft in the
year 2017, a number that swells to 125 when requirements of the
United States Marine Corps are included.
Last year, the Chief of Naval Operations said that the
projected gap may be as high as 250 aircraft total for the
Department of the Navy.
This year, the Navy says that through various ``management
techniques,'' the maximum shortfall is now projected to be
around 150 aircraft, or 3-4 carriers' worth of airplanes.
This change is not based on a change in overall
requirements. The committee is disappointed that, despite
promises that the Department of Defense intends to review the
whole issue of tactical aircraft force structure in the pending
Quadrennial Defense Review, no decision on force structure came
from that effort. The committee had hoped that the Department's
tactical aviation procurement strategies would have been
informed by the Quadrennial Defense Review.
The committee is still seeking details behind the changed
assumptions that lead to the new estimates. At first
impression, some of these appear to be legitimate actions that
the Navy should take. For example, changing the fielding plan
for the Marine Corps F-35B to replace older F/A-18 aircraft,
rather than first replacing AV-8B aircraft that still have
service life remaining, seems to be reasonable. Other changed
assumptions do not appear to be so legitimate. For example, a
portion of the shortfall reduction comes from reducing land-
based Marine Corps F/A-18 squadron sizes from 12 to 10
aircraft. The committee has seen no analysis that would
indicate that the effect of taking such action has been
assessed in terms of war fighting capability. In fact, it
represents the sort of action to modify requirements
arbitrarily that the committee feared would be taken in the
face of the impending shortage.
The change does not derive from implementing a service life
extension program (SLEP) for older F/A-18s. The Navy says that
any decision on undertaking a SLEP to solve some portion of
that shortfall will not be made until the time the President
submits the budget request for fiscal year 2012.
The committee understands that a SLEP to extend the life of
select legacy F/A-18s from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours is
currently estimated to cost on average $26.0 million per plane.
In light of such costs, and in anticipation of the Navy's
negotiating a multiyear procurement contract that could result
in substantial savings over current procurement costs, the
committee expects the Navy to present a thorough business case
analysis with the fiscal year 2012 budget of the appropriate
mix of alternatives for addressing the potential shortfall of
aircraft, including both SLEP and new procurement.
The committee is encouraged by the increase in F/A-18E/F
procurement in the fiscal year budget, both compared to fiscal
year 2010 and compared to the plan for fiscal year 2011 in the
last Bush FYDP. The committee understands that this increase
was part of the Department's effort to address the shortfall
and buy enough aircraft in the FYDP to make a multiyear
procurement achieve the substantial savings that would make
such a commitment attractive. On April 30, 2010, the Secretary
of the Navy informed the Navy was still working through the
details of negotiating with the contractor team on a multiyear
contract that would take advantage of the authority provided by
section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
The committee applauds the Navy's efforts to reduce the
shortfall, but believes that more action now is necessary. The
committee is concerned that delays in the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program could exacerbate the problem beyond what it
appears to be now. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $325.0 million to buy six additional F/A-18E/F
aircraft in fiscal year 2011.

MH-60R/S mission avionics

The budget request included $232.1 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for advance procurement for the MH-60R
($162.0 million) and the MH-60S ($70.1 million). Within that
total, the request included $36.0 million ($32.3 million for
MH-60R and $3.7 million MH-60S) for economic order quantity
(EOQ) funding associated with a potential multiyear procurement
contract for MH-60R/S mission avionics that the Navy had hoped
to award in fiscal year 2011.
In the committee's view, the Department should provide the
certifications required under section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, in the same year as it seeks authorization for EOQ
funding.
The committee understands, however, that due to an internal
oversight within the Navy, the Navy was not able to obtain the
certifications from the Secretary of Defense required under
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, and therefore
will not be able to award any contract in 2011 for EOQ funding
associated with a potential multiyear procurement request.
The committee understands that the Navy believes that it
can preserve savings from a potential multiyear procurement
contract by applying the 2011 EOQ funds instead to regular
advance procurement activities in 2011.
Therefore, the committee recommends shifting all funds
requested for EOQ to regular advance procurement activities.

AN/AAR-47 missile warning system computer processor upgrade

The budget request included $21.9 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for common electronic counter
measures, but included no funds for the AN/AAR-47 missile
warning system. The AN/AAR-47 warns of approaching missiles by
detecting radiation associated with rocket motors and
automatically initiates flare ejection. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in APN for AN/AAR-47
missile warning system computer processor upgrade.

Readiness support for Navy unfunded aviation spares and repair parts
maintenance priorities

The budget request included $18.5 billion for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN) of which $1.2 billion was for aircraft
spares and repair parts, which is also one of only three
unfunded requirements submitted by the Chief of Naval
Operations. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before
the committee that this unfunded requirement is executable, and
would directly support and restore Naval readiness.
The committee notes that the same unfunded priorities for
ship and aircraft depot maintenance were identified in fiscal
year 2010 but were not fully supported by the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
As a result a 1-year backlog of deferred aircraft depot
maintenance was not executed. The committee is concerned that
failure to address this backlog and failure to support this
unfunded request for active and reserve aircraft spares and
repair parts in fiscal year 2011 for active and reserve units
will continue to jeopardize and erode aircraft materiel
readiness, further reduce the service life of the fleet,
increase long-term sustainment costs, and further increase
strategic risk for the Nation.
Additionally, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified
before the committee that failure to support unfunded aircraft
depot maintenance requirements could result in reducing flying
hours and deferred training exercises which are vital to naval
readiness and our responsibility to maintain a trained and
equipped force. Exacerbating the issue, increased operational
tempo in the United States Central Command area of operations
has already resulted in added materiel strain on the fleet. The
committee notes that as demand for aircraft use and flying
hours increased, the demand and requirement for additional
spares and repair parts increased 40 percent in fiscal year
2011 largely due to V-22, EA-18G, F/A-18E/F, and E-2C/D
operational tempo increases.
The committee continues to urge the Secretary of the Navy
and Chief of Naval Operations to fully restore aircraft spares
and repair parts requirements in the fiscal year 2012 base
budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $423.0 million in
APN for aircraft depot maintenance spares to support 3,700
individual fleet aircraft.

Weapons industrial facilities

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

Gun mount mods

The budget request included $44.0 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy (WPN), for various types of gun weapon system
and sub-system modifications and upgrade requirements,
including $35.4 million for various modifications for the Mk 38
Mod 2 Minor Caliber Gun System, but included no funding
improving the depot support capability for the Mk 38 Mod 2
system nor for the Mk 110 Gun System.
The committee believes that the Navy needs to move more
expeditiously to establish and expand the level of depot
support for these weapons systems. The committee recommends an
increase of $11.0 million in WPN for improving depot support
capability for gun weapons systems, including $6.0 million for
the Mk 110 system and $5.0 million for the Mk 38 Mod 2 system.

Virginia-class tube test equipment

The budget request included $132.0 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Virginia-class submarine support
equipment, but no funding to procure tube test equipment for
the class.
In order to maintain the readiness of submarine weapon
systems, the Navy maintains a number of land-based test
platforms at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC). The Navy
has installed test platforms at NUWC for all active classes of
submarines, except for the Virginia-class submarines. The
committee believes that funds should be used to provide NUWC
with capability to support the Virginia-class by providing
actual shipboard equipment that would allow NUWC to replicate
ship conditions as closely as possible in executing its fleet
support missions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.8
million for the procurement of tube test equipment for the
Virginia-class.

Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project

The budget request included $126.8 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for ship support equipment items
costing less than $5.0 million, but included no funding for
developing and implementing a remote monitoring and
troubleshooting capability that would allow Navy engineers to
provide global remote sustainment support to the fleet by
remotely reading on-board sensors, monitoring shipboard system
status, and providing expert advice to sailors as they maintain
and repair ship systems.
The committee believes that such a capability would yield
savings, but, perhaps more importantly, lead to better
readiness levels. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $2.9 million in OPN for completing a system design
update, developing deployment plans, and certifications and
deploying the initial system.

Helicopter hangar door upgrades

The budget request included $126.8 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for ship support equipment items
costing less than $5.0 million, but included no funding for
buying upgrade kits for DDG-51 helicopter hangar doors.
The helicopter hangar doors on DDG-51 destroyers have been
experiencing a significant number of failures. When the doors
are inoperable, the ship is prevented from being able to launch
and recover its embarked helicopter. The Navy has been
investigating a helicopter hangar door upgrade program which
would be a comprehensive solution to the readiness issue facing
the largest ship class in the U.S. Navy.
The committee believes that fielding an upgrade helicopter
hangar door would lead to better readiness levels. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in OPN for
buying DDG-51 hangar door upgrade kits.

Range support vehicle

The budget request included $27.7 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for standard boats, but included no
funding for buying any range support vessels that include
capability to recover torpedoes and other Navy unmanned
systems.
Most Navy installations that have a torpedo recovery
mission have antiquated torpedo recovery boat fleets. The
committee understands that most of these boats are
approximately 40 years old and are at the end of their useful
service life. These vessels are expensive to maintain, and have
recovery systems that risk damaging new unmanned surface and
undersea vehicles.
A new range support vehicle, with a new advanced multi-
mission launch and recovery system, would be capable of
executing all mission requirements, including lost weapon
search, instrument deployment, equipment and personnel
transfer, weapon trans-shipment, open ocean retrieval, Coast
Guard search and rescue, and support for special vehicles and
classified programs associated with anti-submarine warfare.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in OPN
for buying a new range support vessel.

Man overboard indicators

The budget request included $47.3 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for command support equipment, but no
funding to procure man overboard indicators (MOBI).
The Navy has tested a one-per-person MOBI transmitter.
Additionally, at least two expeditionary strike groups
recommended the Navy procure MOBI transmitters for each
embarked sailor, marine, and airman. The committee understands
that a large majority of ship commanding officers having MOBI
systems installed have requested additional MOBI transmitters
in order to protect all embarked personnel. In addition, the
U.S. Navy Safety Center has recommended that each embarked
sailor and marine be afforded MOBI protection.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.9
million for the procurement of additional MOBI systems.

Air Force

C-17

The budget request included $14.3 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for C-17 aircraft procurement in
the full funding line to purchase various support equipment
items, and $153.3 million for C-17 post production support
activities. The Air Force made this request in error, as they
should have requested $114.4 million of the post production
support funds in the full funding line, instead of the post
production support line.
The Air Force asked that the committee make a zero sum
transfer of this amount to the proper funding line. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $114.4 million in the
C-17 full funding line and a reduction to the C-17 post
production support line of the same amount.

Airborne signals intelligence payload

The budget request included $863.6 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, for the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial
vehicle. Of that amount, $18.3 million is requested to begin
production of the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 2C
(ASIP 2C).
The Government Accountability Office notes that the
Milestone B decision for this project will be made in November
2011, which means that the sensor will not be ready for
production in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, the committee
recommends a reduction of $18.3 million.

C-135 modifications

The budget request included $44.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C-135 Modifications
Program, including $8.4 million to begin procurement of the
Block 45 upgrade program, and no funding for fielding any
infrared countermeasures systems on the KC-135R tanker fleet.
The Block 45 upgrade program for the KC-135 will address
reliability, maintainability, and obsolescence issues currently
experienced in the tanker fleet by replacing current cockpit
equipment with the following new systems: (1) digital flight
director; (2) digital radar altimeter; (3) digital autopilot;
and (4) electronic engine instrument displays.
The committee believes that the Air Force should take
greater steps to keep the KC-135 tanker fleet viable for
meeting combatant commander requirements. The Air Force plan
now appears to be to wait for fielding infrared countermeasures
on tankers with the fielding of KC-X to provide a capability to
operate in increased threat areas. The committee believes that
the KC-X program should have that capability, but does not
agree that the Air Force should wait on KC-X. Even under the
most optimistic KC-X acquisition plans, the KC-135R fleet will
be operating for many years to come.
Therefore, the committee believes that the Air Force should
begin to outfit high priority aircraft in the KC-135R fleet
with pod-based large aircraft infrared countermeasures (LAIRCM)
systems to make them better able to support war fighting
requirements and recommends an increase in fiscal year 2011 for
that purpose.
The committee supports the Block 45 upgrade program, but
understands that the Air Force has decided to defer $5.0
million of the fiscal year 2011 Block 45 procurement request
until fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million for
LAIRCM installations on 10 KC-135 aircraft and a reduction of
$5.0 million to reflect delays in the Block 45 program.

E-8 modifications

The budget request included $188.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E-8 Modifications
Program, including $120.4 million to procure two re-engining
kits for the Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) aircraft.
The JSTARS system has been providing indispensible
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to those
serving in combat operations. In Afghanistan, the JSTARS wide-
area ground surveillance radar plays a critical role in the
military's ability to track and engage Taliban insurgents and
find improvised explosive devices. The demands placed upon the
JSTARS fleet underscores growing operational, sustainment, and
safety issues with the existing engines.
Because engine problems currently jeopardize both the
current operations and long-term viability of the JSTARS fleet,
the Air Force commenced a JSTARS re-engining program in May
2008. Last year, the Air Force sought to interrupt the re-
engining program when: (1) program officials saw cost increases
in the program; (2) an Air Force Fleet Viability Board (FVB)
report raised questions about the long-term prospects for
retaining the JSTARS fleet; and (3) questions arose about the
best way to meet ground moving target indicator (GMTI)
capability in the future.
The committee recognizes that a significant portion of the
cost increases that arose were the result of having to
restructure the acquisition program from a commercial-type
acquisition contract to one that follows normal Defense
acquisition rules. Buying re-engining kits at low rates will
not do anything to help keep costs under control. The lost
economies of scale from only procuring two ship sets instead of
four in fiscal year 2011 will raise the cost of the program.
The committee closely studied the FVB report. The major
concern in the report revolved around concerns that the
original aircraft conversion process had resulted in aircraft
with uncertain structural and engineering pedigrees. The
committee understands that the Air Force and the contractor
team are working through the data in a manner that will resolve
uncertainties. The committee had raised such concerns about
remaining airframe life during the execution of the original
JSTARS program. The committee was assured by Air Force
officials and the contractor team at the time that rigorous
oversight and controls on the program were going to ensure that
the aircraft delivered from the conversion program would have a
full measure of service life remaining after conversion.
The committee believes that the Air Force is wise to
consider long-term requirements for meeting GMTI requirements,
since new requirements for dismounted GMTI have come from the
combatant commanders. The JSTARS system may not be the optimal
system for certain niche requirements, but field testing of
JSTARS has shown promise for achieving dismounted GMTI
capability with the aircraft. Unless the Defense Department
were to decide that it can afford to divest itself of broad
area GMTI capability, the committee believes that the JSTARS
system will have an important place in the future force
structure. While the Defense Department studies this mission
area, the committee believes it is prudent and involves little
risk in continuing the re-engining program to address near-term
operating issues, and to address long-term sustainability
concerns identified by the FVB report.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $102.5
million for two additional ship sets to retain economies of
scale in this effort and put the Air Force on a track to
execute the entire program over the future-years defense
program to mitigate the negative operational, sustainment, and
safety effects of operating with the current engines.

Milsatcom terminals

The budget request included $140.5 million for milsatcom
terminals for the family of beyond line of site terminals (FAB-
T) in Air Craft Procurement, Air Force, line 75. The FAB-T
program has been delayed and procurement funds are now needed
to continue FAB-T research. The committee recommends that
$116.4 million be transferred to Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 33601F line 180.

Evolved expendable launch vehicle

The budget request included $1.2 billion for the evolved
expendable launch vehicle (EELV) in Missile Procurement, Air
Force, line 24. The committee recommends an additional $24.0
million for the EELV, including $10.0 million to continue the
process of EELV modernization to ensure that the EELV is able
to be tracked using global positioning system tracking
capability, and $14.0 million for crew augmentation. The
additional $14.0 million is recommended to support additional
launch crews to accommodate the increase in the launch rate in
2011.

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

The budget request included $26.3 million in Missile
Procurement, Air Force, line 28 for the Air Force portion of
the acquisition of the sensors and the third National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
satellite vehicle. The committee recommends a reduction of
$16.3 million.
The NPOESS was a joint Department of Commerce/National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) program
that was restructured after the budget was submitted. With the
restructuring, the Department of Defense (DOD) will be
responsible for the early morning orbit and NOAA will be
responsible for the afternoon orbit. Although DOD has indicated
its intention to develop a successor program for the morning
orbit there is no program plan at the moment. In addition,
fiscal year 2010 funds are available to support any NPOESS
follow-on decisions.

Joint threat emitter

The budget request included $29.6 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for making improvements at
combat training ranges, including $11.8 million for the joint
threat emitter (JTE) program. These improvements are aimed at
increasing the capability to support realistic air-to-air, air-
to-ground, ground-to-air, and electronic warfare training,
along with the ability to record and play-back events for
aircrew debriefing and analysis.
The committee believes that the Air Force should accelerate
its range modernization efforts to replace existing systems
with JTE and upgrade existing JTE systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 7.5
million in OPAF for the JTE modernization program.

Eastern processing facility

The budget request included $91.0 million for the Spacelift
Range System in Other Procurement, Air Force, line 43 but no
funds for the Eastern processing facility. The committee
recommends an increase of $14.0 million to complete the Eastern
processing facility.

Kodiak Launch Complex

The budget request included $91.0 for the Spacelift Range
System (SLRS) in Other Procurement, Air Force, line 43 but no
funds for the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC). The committee
recommends an increase of $9.5 million to sustain the KLC to
support Air Force and other U.S. government launches.

Defense-wide

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system

The budget request included $858.9 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for procurement of Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) interceptors. The committee notes that there is
currently a production and delivery delay of more than 3 months
for THAAD interceptors because of a pending failure review
board investigation of a failed safety component, the Laser-
Initiated Ordnance System optical block. The committee commends
MDA for conducting a thorough failure investigation and
resolving the problem before resuming production and delivery
of interceptors. Given this production delay, the committee
recommends a reduction of $25.0 million in Procurement,
Defense-Wide, for THAAD production. This recommendation is made
without prejudice to the THAAD system, and reflects the fact-
of-life delay in production and delivery, and the consequent
inability of the program to execute the full level of requested
funds within fiscal year 2011.

Special Operations Force Deployable Nodes

The budget request included $58.4 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for special operations force (SOF) communications
equipment and electronics, including SOF Deployable Nodes
(SDN). SDN are a family of secure satellite communications
devices that provide special operations personnel with
deployable video, voice, and data transmission capabilities.
The SDN family of devices come in light, medium, and heavy
variants to meet the mission-tailored requirements of special
operations units. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations
Command has identified a $28.0 million shortfall in funding for
SDN-Light and SDN-Medium devices.
The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide for SDN-Light and SDN-Medium devices
for U.S. Special Operations Command.

Enhanced Combat Optical Sight

The budget request included $30.1 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for Small Arms and Weapons. However, it included
no funding for Enhanced Combat Optical Sights (ECOS) for
grenade launchers used by special operations forces. U.S.
Special Operations Command has a validated requirement for
5,386 ECOS, but has not procured any to date.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, Small Arms and Weapons, for the
procurement of ECOS by U.S. Special Operations Command.

Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle

The budget request included $30.1 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for Small Arms and Weapons, including $2.7 million
for Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifles (SCAR). The
SCAR family of rifles includes 5.56 and 7.62 mm variants, each
with replacement barrels of different lengths to ensure
modularity to meet mission requirements. The SCAR provides
special operations personnel with improved reliability,
lethality, and versatility over legacy rifles. The Commander of
U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a $1.6 million
shortfall in funding for these rifles.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide for the SCAR family of rifles for
U.S. Special Operations Command.

Ground Mobility Vehicle modification kits

The budget request included $30.9 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for Tactical Vehicles, but did not include any
funding for Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV) modification kits.
The GMV is a Service-provided High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle modified to meet special operations mission
requirements. Special operations-peculiar modifications provide
enhanced survivability, mobility, payload, and communications
capabilities. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
has identified a $55.0 million shortfall in funding for GMV
modification kits.
The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, Tactical Vehicles, for GMV
modification kits for U.S. Special Operations Command.

Special operations binocular/monocular visual augmentation devices

The budget request included $8.3 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for binocular/monocular vision augmentation
devices. These devices allow special operations personnel to
detect, recognize, and identify targets under varying light
conditions or at ranges at which the operator would not
normally be able to see. The Commander of U.S. Special
Operations Command has identified a $20.9 million shortfall in
funding for these visual augmentation devices. Currently,
special operations personnel are forced to share visual
augmentation devices to accomplish missions.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.9 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide for binocular/monocular visual
augmentation devices for U.S. Special Operations Command.

Clip On Thermal Imager

The budget request included $18.6 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for the special operations forces (SOF) visual
augmentation, lasers, and sensor systems. However, no funding
was included for Clip On Thermal Imagers (COTI). These imagers
attach to night vision goggles to significantly increase their
performance in extreme low light or foliated conditions and
provide the user with much greater situational awareness on the
battlefield. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
has identified a $4.9 million shortfall in funding for these
imagers.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Visual Augmentation, Lasers and
Sensor Systems, for COTIs for U.S. Special Operations Command.

Items of Special Interest

Assessment of helicopter support

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide,
not later than January 15, 2011, the congressional defense
committees his assessment of the helicopter requirements for
civil support missions in Alaska. The Secretary's assessment
should be based upon, and update if necessary, the
determination of Department of Defense civil support
requirements pursuant to section 1815 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The Secretary shall report his findings and the actions he
proposes to take, if any, with respect to any capability gaps
identified by his assessment.

Combat search and rescue helicopter fleet

The committee is concerned that the missions of the fleet
of the Air Force combat search and rescue HH-60 helicopters,
which has been expanded to include medical evacuation in
Afghanistan, is dramatically increasing the routine ``wear and
tear'' on these aging aircraft.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
consultation with the Commander, U.S. Air Force Special
Operations Command, to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act to
address aircraft maintenance, upgrade, and replacement efforts
currently underway to ensure that this mission can continue to
be effectively executed.

Development and fielding of Paladin Integrated Management program

The M109A6 Paladin is the 6th version of the M109 self-
propelled howitzer, originally designed in the 1950s and
produced in the 1960s. According to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology, the Paladin will begin to reach obsolescence by
2012 with the engine becoming unsupportable and increased
track, suspension, and generator failures.
Last year, in the Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S.
Rept. 111-35) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010, the committee directed the Army to prioritize
the development and fielding of the Paladin Integrated
Management (PIM) program due to the cancellation of the Non-
Line of Sight Cannon program. The Army responded by making PIM
a top priority and planned for full rate production beginning
in 2012. The committee is aware that due to program
mismanagement, the full rate production will not begin until
2017 based on the Army's current timeline. The committee is
concerned by the Army's apparent inability to develop and
execute a Paladin modernization program in less than 7 years.
Delay in the PIM program will negatively impact the operational
effectiveness and reliability of the Army's only self-propelled
howitzer, as well as its broader indirect fire systems
development program.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to reassess the PIM development and production schedules
and report to the congressional defense committees, not later
than November 1, 2010, its plans to compress the overall
timeline. The report shall include cost, schedule, and
performance alternatives that provide high, medium, and low
risk options to developing, producing, and fielding PIM on a
compressed schedule.

F-16 upgrades

The committee has received and reviewed the Air Force's
report on procurement of so-called ``4.5 generation'' fighter
aircraft required by section 121 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
From this document, it is clear that the Air Force would prefer
to ensure its F-16 fleet will remain capable through the end of
its projected service life in 2025 by making appropriate
upgrades to the fleet, rather than purchasing new F-16s. The
committee notes that while mid-life extension programs and
other upgrades have extended the capability of the existing F-
16 fleet, there are still gaps in fourth generation
capabilities that will need to be addressed. In addition, there
are some investments in capability improvements that would have
a potentially very positive effect on operating and support
costs for the remainder of the life of the F-16 fleet. One such
effort would be upgrading the current F-16 radar with an active
electronically scanned radar (AESA) that has been developed and
flight tested on the F-16. The committee understands that the
Air Force estimates that this AESA radar offers an 8 to 10 fold
reduction in operations and sustainment cost, and a 5 to 10
fold increase in reliability over the mechanically scanned AN/
APG-68 radar.
The committee strongly supports Air Force efforts to
maintain and modernize the F-16 to avoid potential shortfalls
in numbers or capabilities of these aircraft. As a part of that
plan, the committee directs the Air Force to consider including
AESA retrofit funding for engineering and manufacturing
development and low-rate initial procurement in the budget
request for fiscal year 2012, and recommends that any such
retrofit program be executed expeditiously in order to minimize
any potential shortfalls in force structure or capability.

40mm target practice rounds

The committee is aware that the MK281 target practice round
is non-dud producing and an environmentally safe training
cartridge for the M203 grenade launcher and MK19 grenade
machine gun weapon systems. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than November 30, 2010, that details the
Army's 40mm training cartridge requirements, acquisition
history and strategy, including past and projected
reprogramming actions, an assessment of the 40mm training
cartridge industrial base, and a description of the annual
consumption of 40mm target practice cartridges for the last 5
years.

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle

The Committee is aware that vulnerabilities to improvised
explosive devices in the current fleet of utility (thin-
skinned) and armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled
Vehicles (HMMWV) has reduced the operational usefulness of
these vehicles in support of overseas contingency operations,
particularly, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Committee also notes
that this limited use of HMMWVs in theater has resulted in far
fewer than expected combat losses and significantly lower
maintenance demands and costs. Despite the appropriately
limited use of HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan due to these
force protection considerations, the HMMWV will remain the
foundation of the Department's light tactical wheeled vehicle
fleet for years to come. The Army alone will have over 152,000
HMMWVs in its inventory, of which 60,000 will be armored.
The Committee supports the Army's and Marine Corps' plans
to initiate a selective HMMWV recapitalization program that
prudently resets, rebuilds, and extends the life of the
existing utility and armored vehicle fleets at their current
capabilities. At the same time, the Army and Marine Corps will
investigate new armor technologies that may increase the
HMMWV's protective capabilities and that could be applied in an
additional recapitalization program. The Committee understands
that should new approaches to HMMWV armor prove technologically
feasible and affordable, the Army intends that the
recapitalization program to apply this capability would be
based upon a full and open competition among public, private,
or public-private partnership providers.
The Committee supports this approach as a means of getting
the most value out of what will be a very large utility and
armored HMMWV vehicle fleet for many years to come. This
approach will also look seriously at technologies to increase
the HMMWVs force protection and survivability and potentially
increase their relevance and availability for deployed
contingency operations. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Acquisition to submit to the congressional defense committees,
not later than March 31, 2011, a report from each, detailing
the military department's acquisition strategy for HMMWV
recapitalization. The required reports shall include:
(1) the requirements and analysis of alternatives
regarding recapitalization of the existing HMMWV fleet,
for active and reserve components, at the current
levels of capability of utility and armored variants;
(2) the strategy and plans for research, development,
testing, competition, and procurement, including
schedules and funding profiles, associated with a new
program to recapitalize HMMWVs with increased
survivability, mobility, or operational capability; and
(3) the relationship of the military department's
HMMWV recapitalization programs, for both current and
potential future capabilities, with plans for the
development and procurement of the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle.
Finally, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretaries of
the Army and Navy named above to submit a report each
describing their analysis and acquisition decisions at the
conclusion of live fire testing of new armor alternatives,
their business case analysis leading to a decision to compete a
recapitalization program, and their decision to award a
contract or contracts at the conclusion of a competition, if
held.

Rapid equipping soldier support equipment

The committee notes with concern that the Army has been
slow to obligate and expend funds provided by Congress for its
rapid equipping soldier support equipment program. As of March
this year, the Army had failed to obligate $320.0 million
provided in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 appropriations. The
committee supports making funds available to the Army to meet
the emergent requirements of deployed forces and take advantage
of new technologies that have high military value and are
immediately available for use. In this regard the committee has
been willing to accept the uncertainty associated with
providing the Department obligating authority without knowing
specifically if or for what the funds will be used. The
Department has the responsibility to prudently judge whether or
not, as well as when and for what, to use these funds. However
the committee expects the Army to aggressively manage this
program to ensure that funds are obligated and expended within
a reasonable time for the purposes intended. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide a monthly
report to the congressional defense committees detailing the
obligation and expenditure of funds in the rapid equipping
soldier support equipment program until funds made available in
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 are obligated. The Assistant
Secretary should include in his initial report a description of
how the funds are managed and what official is responsible for
directing their use to ensure timely financial execution. Each
subsequent report should include a justification for delays in
obligation of such funds, if beyond the fiscal year for which
they were made available.

Report on expeditionary amphibious warfare ship force structure

The Marine Corps provides a combined-arms, expeditionary
force in readiness able to deploy rapidly by sea or air. Marine
air-ground task forces are in high demand for missions such as
sustained combat operations; irregular warfare; forward
presence; maritime security; humanitarian assistance; disaster
relief; and security cooperation.
The committee has heard testimony that the joint
requirement for amphibious forcible entry is having a
simultaneously employable two Marine Expeditionary Brigade
(MEB) assault capability, reinforced and supported by a
Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) squadron. Carrying one MEB
assault echelon requires approximately 17 operationally
available amphibious warfare ships, resulting in a combined
total requirement of 34 operationally available ships. These 34
ships would carry a force of approximately 15,000 to 18,000
Marines and their equipment, vehicles, aircraft, and logistics
support. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have
determined that the Navy needs to have a total inventory of 38
ships to achieve a 34-ship level that is operationally
available throughout the year. This larger number of ships
allows for ships that are unavailable due to extended
maintenance availabilities.
The Navy's ``Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan
for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011'' uses the 313-
ship battle force inventory as its baseline. In light of
current fiscal constraints, the report states an amphibious
inventory of approximately 33 amphibious ships will be
maintained for the Marine Corps' assault echelon. The senior
leadership of the Department of the Navy, including the
Commandant, has testified to the committee that a 33-ship force
of amphibious vessels represents an acceptable level of risk.
The Navy's report also indicates that the amphibious
assault ships USS Nassau (LHA-4) and USS Peleliu (LHA-5) will
be decommissioned earlier than had been planned, resulting in a
reduction in amphibious warfare force inventory levels to a
level of 29 ships within the current future-years defense
program. This reduction may create a higher level of strategic
risk. It is not clear to the committee that either the
Department of the Navy or the Department of Defense has yet
assessed and incorporated these revised force levels into
updated planning to determine if this smaller force can meet
combatant commander requirements.
The committee notes the Navy's ability to reestablish a 33-
ship force may be adversely affected by a constrained
shipbuilding budget, among other factors. The new San Antonio-
class of amphibious transport dock ships and LHA-6 class
amphibious assault ships continue to experience construction
delays and late deliveries. Moreover, in-service San Antonio-
class ships are now experiencing structural and material
deficiencies that oblige the Navy to remove them from service
at least temporarily to conduct unscheduled maintenance and
repair availabilities.
The Navy also has revised its long-range shipbuilding plans
in ways that will reduce the capability of its amphibious force
structure. The Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) was originally
planned to be a part of the larger Maritime Prepositioning
Force (Future) (MPF (F)). The MPF (F) set of capabilities were
being developed under a sea-basing concept that would have
provided a means to conduct combat operations and other
missions in areas of the world where access to port facilities
was not available.
The Navy has now restructured the previous MPF (F) concept
in favor of enhancing existing afloat prepositioning
capabilities for use in low-threat environments. As a result of
this change, the Navy may delay acquisition of large, medium-
speed roll-on/roll-off ships by more than a decade.
Additionally, the MLP has been redesigned as a smaller, less
capable ship than the ship for which Congress authorized and
appropriated advance procurement funding in fiscal year 2010.
Therefore, the committee directs the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) to conduct a capabilities-based study of the
Navy's latest 30-year shipbuilding plan for amphibious warfare
ship force structure. The study shall address each of the
foregoing developments by assessing their effect on: (1) the
Navy's ability to satisfy joint and combatant commander
requirements for U.S. Marine Corps amphibious capabilities; (2)
the Navy's ability to support U.S. Marine Corps force-in-
readiness requirements, to include operational tempo and
personnel tempo; and (3) training and readiness of the Marine
Corps to execute its full set of expeditionary amphibious
missions. The committee directs that the CBO provide this
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2011.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
complete an operational capabilities-based assessment that
reviews and reconciles amphibious requirements, ship retirement
schedules, and the 30-year shipbuilding plan. The report will
include: (1) combatant commanders' requirements for sufficient
expeditionary amphibious capabilities; (2) Marine Corps'
requirements for sufficient expeditionary amphibious
capabilities to fully support combatant commanders'
requirements; (3) effects of early decommissioning of
amphibious ships prior to their replacement on Marine Corps
training, capacity, force structure, and combat capability; (4)
review of Marine Corps operations and contingency plans that
require expeditionary amphibious capabilities; (5) review of
how Marine Corps expeditionary capabilities and Navy
expeditionary amphibious ships and capacity fit within the U.S.
military's regional concept of operations and defense-planning
scenarios; and (6) description of the cost savings associated
with retiring amphibious ships on their current schedule and an
explanation of how the Navy will invest such savings in other
programs or to address other funding requirements. The
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense provide this
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2011.

Surface ship construction and industrial base issues

The committee recognizes that the Navy's most recent Long-
Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels continues the
Navy's long stated goal of a minimum fleet of 313 battle force
ships. The committee notes that this plan is based on a 2005
Force Structure Assessment and a new Force Structure Assessment
is required to address expanded requirements identified in the
2009 Quadrennial Defense Review for irregular warfare support,
ballistic missile defense, intratheater lift, and humanitarian
missions. The committee encourages the Navy to complete this
review as expeditiously as possible so the results can be
incorporated in the next Long-Range Plan.
The committee continues to have significant concerns
regarding the implications of the plan for the non-nuclear
surface ship industrial base. If the Navy and industry, working
together, are unable to control requirement driven cost growth
and deliver the ships in the plan for the projected costs, the
inevitable reductions in quantity will likely impact the Navy's
ability to reach the required fleet size and further jeopardize
the industrial base. The committee notes that the current
shipbuilding plan includes the cost of the SSBN (X) program and
the committee encourages the Navy to closely scrutinize
requirements for this program in order to minimize its impact
on the recapitalization of the Navy's battle force.
Furthermore, the committee urges the Navy and the
contractors to negotiate as expeditiously as possible fair and
reasonable construction contracts for ships previously
authorized in order to reduce uncertainty and maintain and
foster affordability in the procurement of large surface
combatants and other naval vessels.
In reviewing the Long-Range Plan for the Construction of
Naval Vessels in conjunction with recent program performance
highlights, the committee notes the following observations and
expectations:
The stated requirement for amphibious ships is 38 vessels;
however, the Long-Range Plan projects accepting moderate risk
by having 33 ships by 2016, but then declining to 29 or 30
ships after 2034. Although there have been improvements in
recently delivered ships, cost and quality issues have been all
too common in the procurement of large and medium amphibious
ships, making an already constrained shipbuilding budget more
difficult to execute. A new dock landing ship class, LSD(X), is
important to the recapitalization of the amphibious force. The
requirements for this ship must be closely validated to ensure
affordability. The committee notes the Navy's plan to have a
gap year following the lead ship of the class and believes that
this may help alleviate cost, schedule, and performance issues.
Overall, the committee remains concerned with the Navy's
management of the amphibious ship accounts and expects
continued close scrutiny of these programs by Navy leadership.
In large surface combatants, the Navy's last official
report stated that the industrial base can only be effectively
sustained if naval ship yards were building the equivalent of
three DDG-51 destroyers per year, with additional work assumed
at one of the yards. Even if the Navy fully executes both of
the large surface combatant programs of record in the near-
term, the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request and
future-years defense program propose to buy an average of 1.5
large surface combatants per year. Even at projected
procurement rates, the number of cruisers and destroyers falls
below the required level of 88 ships in 2027 and remains below
that level for the following 13 years. At its worst, the number
of large surface combatants is 21 ships below the expected
requirement in 2034.
The Navy has testified that continued demand for large
surface combatants to meet forward presence and strike
operations requirements coupled with emerging ballistic missile
defense requirements drives the Navy to consider abandoning
lesser priority missions for more recent, higher priority ones.
In light of the current pressure on the large surface combatant
force, the committee is concerned that the Navy's projected
rate of production is insufficient, and anticipates that the
Navy will closely assess future demand for large surface
combatants, and operational and additional risk to the
industrial base of maintaining relatively low rates of
procurement for large surface combatants.
The committee remains concerned with the Navy's ability to
execute what it believes is an overly optimistic procurement
strategy for large surface combatants. The truncation of the
DDG-1000, the restart of the DDG-51 class and the proposed
Flight III variant of the DDG-51 inject a great deal of
instability into the SCN accounts. The Navy's testimony before
Congress has led this committee to identify six risk areas in
the Navy's plan for DDG-51s: (1) the availability of the Air
and Missile Defense Radar; (2) the extent and cost of
modifications to the underlying ship's design package to
support proposed changes to the ship; (3) increased limitation
on service life margins of the early restart ships; (4) combat
system software integration; (5) the overall complexity of
various separate programs that need to converge for successful
completion of the restart and Flight III programs; and (6) cost
and schedule growth for the Aegis Combat System Modernization.
The committee expects the Navy to keep it closely apprised of
developments in these risk areas so that it can monitor
appropriate risk mitigation efforts.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has made progress
during the past year and the recent decision to move to a
single design should improve affordability. The LCS fleet is
expected to comprise 55 vessels of the Navy's 313-ship fleet
force structure. Even modest cost growth in this large
component of the fleet magnifies the problem of achieving that
objective. The committee notes that the Navy's acquisition
strategy for the LCS program introduces competition for this
class of ships and is therefore cautiously optimistic that this
program is making progress.
In summary, the committee considers the specialized
shipbuilding industrial base for large surface combatants,
amphibious ships, Navy auxiliary ships, and littoral vessels as
a critical component of national security and expects the
Department of Defense to appropriately sustain this industrial
base. The committee expects the Department of the Navy to
include these considerations as it incorporates the updated
force structure assessment in the upcoming Long-Range Plan for
the Construction of Naval Vessels.
The committee understands that the Navy is conducting a
comprehensive review of the shipbuilding industrial base and
calls upon the Navy to update the committee on the scope and
timeline for such a study. The committee understands the
objective of the study is to identify the challenges facing the
Navy and the associated shipbuilding industrial base and the
strategies for mitigating the effects of those challenges. The
committee expects that this study will inform its deliberations
in connection with the fiscal year 2012 budget. As a general
proposition, the committee expects that the Department of
Defense will provide the Navy with the support it needs to
focus on the matters referred to above.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Limitation on use of funds for alternative propulsion system for the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, before spending any additional funds on the F136 engine
that is being developed as an alternative propulsion system of
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Secretary of Defense
would have to certify that development of the alternate
propulsion system:
(1) will:
(a) reduce the total life cycle-cycle costs
of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program;
(b) improve the operational readiness of the
fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft;
and
(2) will not:
(a) disrupt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
program during the research, development, and
procurement phases of the program; or
(b) result in the procurement of fewer F-35
Joint Strike Fighter aircraft during the life
cycle of the program.

Limitation on use of funds by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
for operation of National Cyber Range (sec. 212)

The budget request included $10.0 million for the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in PE 35103E for the
National Cyber Range (NCR) in the Cyber Security Initiative. In
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84), the conferees noted concern with DARPA
that it had not yet identified a transition partner for the
NCR, nor were there funds programmed in any other
organization's budget to support continued operations of the
NCR. The committee remains concerned about the lack of a
transition path.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to prohibit
any expenditure of funds for the NCR until 90 days after the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics submits a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on plans for
transitioning the NCR to sustainment and operations.
Furthermore, funds expended on the NCR 90 days after the report
is submitted can only be for research and development
activities to ensure and assess the functionality of the NCR.
This required report should determine the possible options
for transition recipients, and for each option described,
should clearly articulate the steps that should be taken,
proposed milestones, and funding necessary for full transition.
Included in the range of options, the report should consider
the establishment of a government consortium of the NCR as a
government-owned government-operated, or a government-owned
contractor operated facility.

Enhancement of Department of Defense support of science, mathematics,
and engineering education (sec. 213)

Section 2192 of title 10, United States Code, provides the
Secretary of Defense certain authorities in support of
improving education in the scientific, mathematics, and
engineering skills--commonly referred to as Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)--necessary to
meet the long-term national defense needs of the United States
for personnel proficient in such skills. Pursuant to these
STEM-related authorities, the committee commends the Department
of Defense for recently developing and releasing a STEM
Education and Outreach Strategic Plan Framework, and looks
forward to its implementation.
To further the important strategic goal of ensuring that
our Nation and the Department has an adequate future talent
pool of scientists and engineers for national competitiveness
and defense needs, the committee recommends a provision to
section 2192 of title 10, United States Code, permitting the
Secretary of Defense to carry out these activities through the
military departments, which in many cases have close working
relationships between their research laboratories and local
academic institutions.
The committee also recommends a provision to section 2194
of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of
Defense to permit the directors of defense laboratories to
enter into cooperative agreements with appropriate entities to
assist laboratory personnel in STEM-related activities with
local academic institutions.

Program for research, development, and deployment of advanced ground
vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and components (sec. 214)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a cost-shared program, in
cooperation with industry, academia, and other federal
agencies, including the Department of Energy, to develop and
deploy advanced technology ground vehicles and their component
parts. The purposes of this program would be to maximize
collective investments in development and deployment of
advanced ground vehicle technologies and to identify and
support technological advances critical to sustained, long-term
development of ground vehicle technologies for use by the
Department of Defense (DOD).
In carrying out such a program, the committee recommends
that DOD work in close collaboration with federal and non-
federal partners to leverage investments in ground vehicle
power and propulsion technologies and accelerate technology
innovation and commercialization. The committee recommends DOD
consider a variety of joint opportunities including research
and development initiatives, pilot programs, and establishment
of public-private partnerships such as research centers,
prototype facilities, and test beds. Such a program should
include research and development and deployment of technologies
including, but not limited to, batteries, advanced materials,
power electronics, fuel cells and fuel cell systems, hybrid
systems, and advanced engines.

Demonstration and pilot projects on cybersecurity (sec. 215)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in support of and in coordination with
the Secretary of Homeland Security, to develop and conduct
pilot demonstrations to determine the potential contribution of
commercial technology and capabilities to the defense of
government and defense industrial base cyber networks and
systems, and various means by which the government can acquire
or apply those commercial technologies and capabilities.
The committee strongly supports the potential piloting
projects recently developed within the executive branch, and
recommends authorization of $30.0 million to execute the pilots
described in this section. The committee is heartened that the
administration is finally recognizing the enormous potential
role for the private sector in cybersecurity. The funding would
be authorized in line 196, Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 32019K.
The committee is persuaded that the major
telecommunications and Internet Service Providers,
collectively, have unparalleled visibility into global networks
which would enable them to detect cyber intrusions and attacks
as they are forming and transiting towards their targets. These
companies also already possess potent tools and techniques for
countering these attacks in order to defend their own
infrastructure and the networks and applications of their
customers. However, while each of the major companies possesses
impressive visibility, it is only by combining their collective
network visibility that a comprehensive, global warning and
assessment capability can be achieved. Furthermore, while these
companies already share information about threats and problems,
they do so on an ad hoc and non-real-time basis. An integrated
attack warning and response capability requires an engineered,
real-time exchange and consolidation of threat information and
response capabilities.
The committee believes that it is essential for the
administration to determine how a commercial consortium could
be formed, what the government's role would be in establishing
and managing such a consortium, and how the government could
and should participate. The committee is aware that there are
significant legal and policy issues that would need to be
carefully worked through, including possible anti-trust
concerns and legal restrictions on the sharing of the content
of communications with the government, even if that content is
malicious software. The committee's intent is that the
administration proceed as far as it can as soon as it can, on a
pilot basis, but completely within the confines of existing
policy and legal constraints. The administration should not
wait to begin those elements of this pilot that can be pursued
right away until it has sorted out and resolved all the issues
associated with a fully operational commercial consortium that
is integrated into government security operations centers.
The committee stresses that this commercial consortium
pilot depends on sponsorship from the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and that the DOD role would be to support DHS.
The committee is also very interested in the potential for
commercially outsourced, managed security services to rapidly
increase the security of key elements of the Defense Industrial
Base. If this pilot is successful, it could provide a model for
defending other privately owned critical infrastructure, as
well as federal departments and agencies, consistent with the
Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Services program executed by
the General Services Administration (GSA), which now includes
managed security services under the Networx contract vehicle.
This model also could be easily extended to encompass
outsourcing of network services and computing, including cloud
computing. The committee believes that there is evidence to
support the contention that such comprehensive outsourcing
would provide better service and far better security, at equal
or even reduced cost. The committee notes that GSA achieved
precisely these results through its own cloud outsourcing
program.
The committee hopes that these two pilots could demonstrate
that there are means to dramatically improve the Nation's
cybersecurity capabilities rapidly, affordably, and without
taxing the limited abilities of DHS and other federal
organizations to manage complex systems acquisitions. The
models demonstrated through these pilots also could complement,
and be integrated with, the Einstein 3 program, and existing
defense-in-depth cybersecurity capabilities within the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department
of Justice, and elsewhere.
A third pilot would involve creating a commercial construct
and processes that would permit DOD to rapidly acquire
operational or technical cyber capabilities from the private
sector, to incentivize commercial investments in technology and
capabilities, and to facilitate the transition of these
capabilities into both government programs and commercial
markets. A major goal would be to achieve agility in exploiting
innovations and closing vulnerabilities. The committee expects
that this pilot would contribute to the cyber acquisition
strategy that would be required by sec. 933 of this Act.
The provision would require DOD to conduct a fourth pilot
whose purpose would be to develop a process to enable the
evaluation and comparison of commercial cyber security products
and services across a common set of standards and a common
taxonomy. The committee intends that the Department exploit the
work of the private sector's development of the Consensus Audit
Guidelines and the security controls developed by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. These guidelines and
controls are based on the most significant attack patterns, and
could form a framework for organizing and integrating
commercial products and services.
The committee understands that these pilots will take some
time to initiate and complete, but expects the Department to be
aggressive, in keeping with the Department's own declared
anxiety about the rising cybersecurity threat and the need for
forceful corrective action.

Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters

Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense issues,
including: 1) that the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to
missile defense in Europe is an appropriate response to the
missile threat from Iran, and that it is consistent with the
guidance from Congress in 2009; 2) that the PAA is not intended
to, and will not, provide a missile defense capability relative
to Russia's deterrent missile force, or diminish strategic
stability with Russia; 3) to support efforts of the U.S.
Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to
cooperate with Russia on missile defense relative to Iranian
missile threats; 4) that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
system currently provides adequate defensive capability against
potential future long-range missile threats from Iran; 5) that
the United States should continue to improve and deploy missile
defense systems to defend itself against limited attack and to
strengthen regional stability; 6) that, as part of this effort,
the Department of Defense should pursue the development,
testing, and deployment of operationally effective versions of
all variants of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) for all four
phases of the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in
Europe; 7) that the SM-3 Block IIB interceptor should be
capable of addressing potential future long-range missiles from
Iran; 8) that there are no constraints contained in the New
START Treaty on the development or deployment of effective
missile defenses; and 9) that the Department should continue
the development and testing of the two-stage Ground-Based
Interceptor as a hedge against potential technical challenges
with the development of the SM-3 Block IIB interceptor.

Repeal of prohibition on certain contracts by the Missile Defense
Agency with foreign entities (sec. 232)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 222 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100-180). That section
prohibits the use of Department of Defense (DOD) funds for
entering into a contract with a foreign government or firm for
research, development, test, or evaluation in connection with
strategic missile defense.
As has been the case in recent years, and as the Ballistic
Missile Defense Review of February 2010 made clear, robust
international cooperation is an essential component of the U.S.
ballistic missile defense program. DOD has a growing number of
important cooperative projects with foreign nations, such as
the joint U.S.-Japanese development of the Standard Missile 3,
Block II A interceptor missile, or the joint U.S.-Israeli
development of several ballistic missile defense systems.
Section 222 is now contrary to the policy, practice, and
intent of the United States, and it hinders the ability of the
Missile Defense Agency to contract directly with foreign
governments and entities. Repealing that section would enhance
the opportunities for international cooperation on missile
defense.

Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 233)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
availability of any fiscal year 2011 funds for the Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) until several conditions
are met: 1) the Department of Defense (DOD) has completed the
Critical Design Review and the System Program Review for the
MEADS program and made a decision on how or whether to proceed
with MEADS or an alternative to MEADS; 2) the Secretary of
Defense has submitted a report to the congressional defense
committees providing a detailed explanation of the decision
concerning the future of MEADS; and 3) 60 days have elapsed
following the receipt of the Secretary's report. The provision
would specify a number of elements to be included in the
Secretary's report.
The committee is deeply concerned with the significant
uncertainties surrounding the MEADS program, a tri-national
development effort between the United States, Germany, and
Italy, to develop a next-generation lower-tier air and missile
defense system. As the system approaches a Critical Design
Review scheduled for August 2010, it is estimated to be about
$1.0 billion over budget and about 18 months behind schedule.
There are also concerns that MEADS will not meet all its Army
requirements, including the ability to be transported by C-130
aircraft.
Furthermore, the Army and DOD have decided that, in order
to meet their needs for integrated air and missile defense in
an interoperable fashion with other U.S. systems, the U.S.
MEADS command, control, and battle management system must be
the Integrated Battle Control System (IBCS), which is not part
of the original MEADS program agreement. There is also concern
that the interceptor missile for MEADS, the Missile Segment
Enhancement (a modification of the Patriot Advanced Capability
3 missile), may have technical or schedule risks associated
with an aggressive test schedule, which may delay its
availability for MEADS.
In addition, our international partners may have
reservations about proceeding with the previously planned MEADS
system. The German parliament is seeking information on less
expensive alternatives to MEADS, and it appears that Italy may
not procure the MEADS system.
All these factors suggest that the program could be on an
unstable path, including the possibility of significant
modification or even termination. Accordingly, the committee
believes that DOD and the Army should proceed cautiously and
deliberately with MEADS in order to avoid making decisions that
may be unnecessarily costly or that may need to be reversed.
In this regard, the committee cautions the Army against
spending fiscal year 2010 funds for MEADS efforts that may be
reversed, or that may require additional termination fees if
the program is later terminated.

Acquisition accountability reports on the Ballistic Missile Defense
System (sec. 234)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to establish and maintain an
acquisition baseline for each program element of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System, with specified elements, and to provide
annual reports to the congressional defense committees on the
acquisition baselines, starting in February 2011. The reports
would also include a description of the activities of the
Missile Defense Executive Board for the preceding fiscal year.
The committee notes that Congress has previously urged the
MDA to develop and report acquisition baselines on its program
elements to improve management, accountability, and
transparency, but MDA has not developed such baselines
previously, despite commitments to do so. The Government
Accountability Office has also recommended numerous times that
MDA should develop and use acquisition baselines for cost,
schedule, and performance in order to permit objective
assessments of their progress on missile defense acquisition
programs. The lack of MDA acquisition baselines has been a
significant impediment to adequate oversight of MDA programs,
and has made MDA activities much less transparent and
accountable than other Major Defense Acquisition Programs.
The committee recognizes that the current leadership of the
Missile Defense Agency has taken the initiative to develop
acquisition baselines and use them as a central management
tool. The committee commends MDA's leadership for taking this
important step, and looks forward to receiving the baselines
and using them to assess progress on MDA programs. The
committee believes it is important to require such baselines in
law to ensure that they will be an enduring feature of MDA
program management and oversight in the future.

Independent review and assessment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
system (sec. 235)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to select an entity outside the Department
of Defense to conduct an independent review and assessment of
the Department's plans for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
(GMD) system. Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this
Act, the outside entity would submit to the Secretary and the
congressional defense committees a report containing the
results of the review and assessment, and any recommendations
for how the Department could improve upon its plans for the GMD
system.

Budget Items

Army

Army basic research

The budget request included $406.9 million in Army basic
research to develop a foundational scientific and technological
understanding to solve Army-unique problems and develop
knowledge for an uncertain future. The Army's basic research
program makes investments in a number of thrust areas ranging
from biotechnology to quantum information science. Consistent
with these research thrusts, the committee recommends increases
in PE 61102A of $6.0 million for advanced energy storage
research and research into ultracold forms of matter for future
navigation systems. In PE 61103A, the committee recommends an
additional $2.0 million for new lightweight materials for
vehicle protection. The committee also recommends an increase
of $2.0 million in PE 61104A for materials processing research.

Army materials technologies

The budget request included $29.9 million in PE 62105A for
applied research on materials technology. The committee notes
that the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Department of
Defense (DOD) Energy Strategy recommended that DOD continue to
invest in mobile, in-theater synthetic fuels processes that
would address DOD's fuel problem by reducing battlespace fuel
demand. Consistent with that recommendation, the committee
recommends an additional $1.5 million for the research on
advanced biofuels.
The Army's current armor development technology objective
seeks to develop lightweight, affordable, manufacturable armor
protection against a variety of threats. In support of that
objective, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million
for applied composite materials research; $2.0 million for
research on high strength glass fibers for armor applications;
and $1.5 million for lighter body armor technology development.
Lastly, the committee recommends $2.0 million for PE 63005A for
advanced multifunctional armor technology, $1.5 million for PE
63001A for moldable fabric armor, and $2.0 million in PE 63734A
for improved projectile and hardened structure testing.
In addition to armor and other direct warfighting
applications, lighter and stronger materials can also improve
other logistical and support-related systems. To further these
capabilities, the committee recommends $2.0 million in PE
63005A to advance the development of composite shelters for the
maintenance of tactical ground vehicles.
The 2007 report on the Defense Nanotechnology Research
Program indicated that the Department is working to increase
investments in nanomanufacturing since ``this area remains a
significant barrier to the commercialization of nanomaterials
and nanotechnology-based products.'' The committee recommends
an additional $4.0 million for PE 62105A for research on
manufacturing of nanosensors for military applications.

Unmanned aerial systems research and development

The budget request included $43.5 million in PE 62211A
towards applied research of aviation technologies, both manned
and unmanned. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have seen
dramatically increased utilization during recent operations,
but there are shortfalls in higher performing propulsion
systems and integration issues that remain to be addressed. In
support of these efforts, the committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million in PE 62211A for unmanned aerial system
integration. In addition, the committee recommends an increase
of $8.5 million in PE 63003A for improved UAS engine
development, rotorcraft corrosion reduction efforts, and
improving capabilities to more rapidly insert new aviation
technologies, including enhanced systems to detect hostile
fire.

Advanced concepts and simulation

The budget request included $20.6 million in PE 62308A for
advanced concepts and simulation research. The 2006 National
Research Council study on ``Defense Modeling, Simulation, and
Analysis'' recommended research investment on video game-based
training and simulation to further training and education
activities in the Department of Defense. Consistent with that
recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for cognitive modeling and simulation research to
support tactical decision-making by military planners in
training and operational scenarios.

Ground vehicle research

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and
$89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and
automotive technologies. The Army has established a technology
objective to develop advanced survivability systems for the
protection of crew and passengers in current and future
tactical wheeled vehicles. To support these efforts, the
committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 63005A
for development of advanced ground vehicle survivability
technologies including, but not limited to, external armor
solutions, threat sensors, and other defensive measures, and
$2.0 million in PE 62105A and $2.9 million in PE 78045A for
research on advanced composite and alloy materials for vehicle
armor.
The Army has established a technology objective to develop
and demonstrate wheeled vehicle power and mobility
technologies, including commercial engines adapted to military
requirements that reduce cost, increase efficiency, and improve
reliability. To support these efforts, the committee recommends
an increase of $18.0 million in PE 63005A for development of
advanced power electronics, improved thermal management, and
development of other engine subsystems. To better understand
and prevent engine and vehicle wear, the committee recommends
$2.0 million in PE 62601A for research on engine and
transmission friction and wear.

Robotic systems

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and
$89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and
automotive technologies. The committee notes the increasing use
and value of robotic systems on the battlefield to perform
counter-improvised explosive device maneuvers; intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance; and other tactical missions.
The committee also 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 program will be unmanned. In
support of these goals, the committee recommends an increase of
$12.0 million in PE 62601A for the development of robotics
systems, vehicle autonomy, and advanced energy and propulsion
systems for robotic vehicles. The committee also recommends an
increase of $2.0 million in PE 63005A for the development of
autonomous and connected vehicle technologies for logistics,
force protection, and other applications.

Vehicle energy and power programs

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and
$89.5 million in PE 63005A for combat vehicle research and
development. The committee has been focused on and supportive
of efforts to increase the energy efficiency and performance of
combat and tactical vehicles through the application of
advanced energy technologies. These technologies can also
enable capabilities such as silent watch, extended range, and
the provision of mobile electric power, all of which serve to
significantly enhance the operational capability of
warfighters. To support the Army's goals in this area, the
committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 62601A
for hybrid electric vehicle testing and hybrid truck
development. The committee also recommends $1.5 million for
applied research on advanced materials for energy storage,
conversion, and distribution.
The committee notes that the Army has been experimenting
with a variety of hybrid systems to support Future Combat
Systems, trucks, and light tactical vehicles. Consistent with
the development of hybrid engines and systems to support
military applications, the committee recommends an increase of
$7.0 million in PE 63005A for improved auxiliary power, battery
systems, and overall power management. The committee recommends
$12.0 million for improvements in vehicle electronics and their
underlying architecture for more advanced and efficient systems
for the warfighter. The committee also notes that hybrid
engines and plug-in technologies hold particular promise for
use in theater and recommends an increase of $6.7 million for
development in PE 63005A.

Reactive armor technologies

The budget request included $60.3 million in PE 62618A for
ballistics technologies. The Army has established a technology
objective to develop armor and vehicle structure technologies
to influence all future generations of combat vehicles. To
support this effort and enhance industrial production capacity,
the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
research on reactive armor systems.

Advanced detection research

The budget request included $5.3 million in PE 62622A for
applied research towards improving personnel and platform
survivability. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5
million to PE 62622A for development of new technologies for
the standoff detection of radionuclides. In addition, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62234N
for the development of new materials for focal planes in
infrared detectors and an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62712A
for improved multispectral imaging technology for explosives
detection.

Acoustic sensors systems

The budget request included $42.6 million in PE 62624A for
applied research on weapons and munitions technology. The
Army's Sensor and Information Fusion for Improved Hostile Fire
Situational Awareness technology objective seeks to develop
enhanced acoustic and other sensors to detect, locate, and
classify a wide range of threats. In support of these efforts,
the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for
continued development of gunfire detection and location
systems. Similarly, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million in PE 63710A for situation awareness research and
technology development.

Military engineering technology

The budget request included $79.2 million in PE 62784A for
military engineering technologies. The Army has established a
technology objective to improve battlespace and terrain
awareness for forces by creating actionable information from
terrain, atmospheric, and weather impacts and their effects on
Army assets. In support of this objective, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million for geosciences and
atmospheric research.

Medical and warfighter technologies

The budget request included $27.7 million in PE 62786A for
warfighter technology and $96.8 million in PE 62787A for
applied research on medical technologies. To support
development of combat casualty care capabilities, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 62787A for research
on explosion blast interactions with protective equipment and
personnel. In addition, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million in PE 62787A for new modeling and treatment
approaches for traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, $3.0
million in PE 64771N for retinal transplant technologies for
vision restoration in blast trauma victims, and $1.0 million in
PE 62786A for research to enhance combat ration shelf life and
nutrition.

Thermal resistant fiber research

The budget request included $27.7 million in PE 62786A for
warfighter technologies, including those to improve solider and
small combat unit survivability. In order to help address the
threat of burn injuries to deployed warfighters, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.5 million for thermal resistant
fiber research.

Army advanced medical research and technologies

The budget request included $71.5 million in PE 63002A for
advanced medical technologies. The Army's medical research
program on this effort focuses on warfighter medical protection
performance standards that demonstrate and transition
technologies and tools associated with biomechanical-based
health risks, injury assessment and prediction, soldier
survivability, and performance during continuous operations.
Consistent with these efforts, the committee recommends an
additional $2.0 million for the development of biosensor
controller and monitor systems, $2.5 million for body
temperature conditioning technologies, $2.0 million for
enhanced medical training, and $2.0 million for eye trauma
research.
The committee commends the Army and Department of Defense
for its work developing advanced prosthetics technologies for
use by wounded warriors. In support of these efforts, the
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for lower limb
prosthetics development and an additional $4.0 million for
improved prosthetics manufacturing.
Telemedicine is becoming an important area of medical
technology in need of further development to continue to
deliver quality care to our troops in the battlefield and at
home. In support of developing telemedicine tools, the
committee recommends an additional $1.5 million for
telemedicine research and $3.0 million for handheld
telemedicine device development.
The committee further recommends an additional $5.5 million
for research on the integration of medical technologies to
address combat casualty care issues and $12.0 million to
support research on Gulf War illnesses.

Army weapon systems sustainment

The budget request included $89.5 million in PE 63005A for
research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. Many
of the legacy systems utilized by the Army are decades old and
require parts for frequent repairs. As the systems age, often
the parts and assemblies are no longer being manufactured,
making them expensive and difficult to locate. The committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63005A to help
reduce the life cycle costs of legacy Army systems by
addressing the costs associated with diminishing manufacturing
and material sources through reengineering, substitute part
testing and evaluation, and additional research. In addition,
the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE
62105A for weapon systems repair technologies.

Force projection technology

The budget request included $89.5 million in PE 63005A for
research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. The
committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE 63005A
for critical improvements to force projection technologies.
Thrust areas include research, development, and engineering
support for Army fuels and lubricants, water purification and
handling, military bridging, material handling, mechanical
counter-mine and counter-improvised explosive device equipment,
and other equipment to support Army requirements for the
mobilization and support of military personnel in deployed
locations. The committee also recommends an additional $4.5
million in PE 63005A specifically for improved water generation
and purification systems.

Training and simulation systems

The budget request included $15.3 million in PE 63015A for
next-generation training and simulation systems. To enhance
training for battlefield lifesaving skills, the committee
recommends an additional $1.0 million for combat medic training
systems.

Aircraft survivability systems

The budget request included $18.4 million in PE 63270A for
electronic warfare technologies. The Army has established a
technology objective to develop and integrate threat warning
sensors and countermeasures to protect aircraft against small
arms, rocket propelled grenades, man-portable air defense
systems, and other threats. Consistent with that objective, the
committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for development
of laser technologies to improve aircraft survivability against
missile threats.

Missile artillery advanced technology development

The budget request included $84.5 million in PE 63313A for
missile and rocket advanced technology development.
The committee is aware that after an investment of $1.5
billion over several years the Defense Department will cancel
the Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) program. This
cancelation was due to performance shortfalls, high projected
costs for each missile, and the availability of other
technologies to meet the Army's precision artillery fire
requirements.
The committee notes that ground launched rocket (unguided)
and missile (guided) artillery systems have been part of the
Army's mix of indirect fire capabilities for generations.
Despite the cancelation of the NLOS-LS program, the Army
retains an appropriate interest in technology development and
experimentation involving modern missile artillery of all
sizes, ranges, and targeting capabilities. Additionally, the
committee understands that upon termination of the NLOS-LS
program the Army will own the technical data rights to that
system's container launch unit. This container launch unit
could provide the basis for a deliberate, comprehensive, and
open development and experimentation effort taking advantage of
a variety of technologies with the potential to overcome the
performance shortfalls and cost challenges of the cancelled
NLOS-LS.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.5
million in PE 63313A for missile and rocket advanced technology
development.

Military engineering systems

The budget request included $27.4 million in PE 63734A for
advanced military engineering technologies. The committee
recommends an additional $1.0 million for permafrost research
to enhance the understanding and implications of permafrost-
related geophysical phenomenology on defense infrastructure and
systems for current and future operations.
Consistent with efforts to improve Department of Defense
energy security and efficiency, the committee recommends an
additional $8.0 million in PE 63734A for development of solar
cell technologies for use at military installations. In
addition, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million
in PE 61153N for research using nanomaterials for solar cells.

Adaptive robotic technology

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
development of adaptive robotic technology to improve
integrated missile defense capabilities. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63305A for
development of adaptive robotic technology for Army missile
defense and space mission requirements, including processes,
tools, models, and simulations for improved integration of
complex functions and operations.

Advanced environmental controls

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
advanced environmental control systems. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63305A for the
development of thermal management control systems that can
support sensors and electronic systems that operate in the
harsh environmental conditions required by missile defense
systems. The committee notes that advanced environmental
control systems have applicability to a variety of military
systems that operate in harsh environments.

Advanced imaging technologies

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for
advanced missile and rocket technologies. The Army has a
technical objective to develop tactical information
technologies for assured network operations and to enable
battlefield information sharing. Consistent with that
objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million
for imaging and networking research to enable rapid and precise
target discrimination and identification.

Alternative power technology

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
alternative power technologies. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million in PE 63305A for development of
alternative power technologies for missile defense and other
military applications. The Army relies on fossil fuel to
generate power for forward deployed missile defense systems,
including their sensors, command and control, and
communications systems. Such reliance is both expensive and
logistically burdensome. Alternative energy sources could
provide significant benefits for missile defense and other
military applications.

Hostile fire detection for helicopters

The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 64270A for
aircraft survivability equipment development, but included no
funds for hostile fire detection. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 64270A for hostile fire
detection development for helicopters.

Non-line of sight launch system

The budget request included $81.2 million in PE 64646A for
the non-line of sight launch system (NLOS-LS). The committee is
aware that in April 2010 the Army recommended termination of
the NLOS-LS program. This was due to performance shortfalls,
high projected costs for each missile, and the availability of
other technologies to meet precision artillery fire
requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease
of $81.2 million in PE 64646A for the NLOS-LS.

XM1125 smoke projectile

The budget request included $24.3 million in PE 64802A for
weapons and munitions engineering and development, but provided
no funds for artillery munitions development. The committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64802A for
development of the XM1125 155mm howitzer smoke projectile based
upon a new, safer chemical content.

Paladin Integrated Management program

The budget request included $53.6 million in PE 64854A for
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) system development. The PIM
program would upgrade and extend the life of the Army's current
M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer system. The committee is
concerned that this important artillery system upgrade for the
Army's heavy force should have the resources to reduce
technical risk and recover from this delay. The committee
recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 64854A for PIM
technology development.

Trojan Swarm

The budget request included $3.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in PE 33032A for the
Trojan program. The committee strongly supports the Trojan
Swarm initiative and applauds the Army's innovative approach to
rapidly fielding substantially greater communications capacity
and agile networking capabilities for deployed ground forces in
Afghanistan. Theater commanders and the Army leadership
understand that this conflict's center of gravity is located
where soldiers interact with the people of Afghanistan.
Traditionally, the focus for Army communications and
intelligence support was on brigade and higher echelons; this
counterinsurgency campaign requires that focus to be on
battalion and lower echelons. The Army, with support from the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, is
fielding a robust 3G cellular network for ground forces, for
both forward operating bases (FOB) and mobile patrols,
connected via airborne and satellite communications nodes.
The committee recommends that the Army work with other
Department of Defense organizations, the interagency, and the
Afghan Ministry of Telecommunications, to connect its FOBs via
spurs to the backbone fiber-optic network nearing completion in
Afghanistan. The committee also recommends that the Army
incorporate passive electronic surveillance capabilities, both
ground- and air-based, into the Trojan Swarm architecture. The
committee recommends authorization of an additional $10.0
million for these activities.

Army test and evaluation programs

The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 65602A for
technical test instrumentation and targets. The committee notes
that this account and related accounts fund the operations,
sustainment, and modernization of Army test ranges. These
ranges are critical to the delivery of operational systems to
deployed forces since they provide the facilities and
infrastructure for both the developmental and operational
testing of defense systems to validate their operational
effectiveness, suitability, and reliability.
The committee notes that the Dugway Proving Grounds is the
Department of Defense's premier testing facility for chemical
and biological defense systems. To support the continued
development of these capabilities, the committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million for field test equipment improvements.
To help address the integration of test and training
activities between Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, and
Holloman Air Force Base, the committee recommends an increase
of $1.2 million for tools for frequency management, airspace
deconfliction, and real-time monitoring of ranges.
The budget request also included $4.7 million in PE 65605A
for the Department of Defense High Energy Laser Test Facility
(HELSTF). The committee notes that the Army planned to use the
facility beginning in 2010 for tests associated with the High
Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator program. To support these
activities, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for HELSTF.

Enhanced Army energy testing

The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 65602A for
Army technical test instrumentation and targets. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 65602A to support
energy testing that would integrate renewable energy
technologies, including solar, geothermal, biomass, nuclear,
wind, and waste-to-energy, into a central storage system that
routes the energy to a smart distribution and monitoring
system.

Unserviceable ammunition demilitarization through chemical dissolution

The budget request included $61.1 million in PE 65805A for
munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety, but
provided no funds for unserviceable ammunition demilitarization
through chemical dissolution. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.6 million in PE 65805A to design and construct a
prototype chemical dissolution demilitarization system for the
disposal of high risk, high cost, unserviceable, or obsolete
ammunition.

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades

The budget request included $61.1 million in PE 78045A for
end-item industrial preparedness activities, but provided no
funds for ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades and
condition monitoring of helicopter components. The committee
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 78045A for
ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades and condition
monitoring of helicopter components to develop advanced
ultrasonic techniques to significantly reduce inspection time
and increase aircraft availability.

Navy

University research initiatives

The budget request included $108.7 million in PE 61103N for
university research initiatives. The Navy's survivability and
self-defense science and technology focus area has a specific
objective to develop advanced construction materials for
survivable platforms. In support of that objective, the
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 61103N
for blast and impact resistant structures.

Energetics research

The budget request included $98.2 million in PE 62114N for
applied research on power projection technologies. The
committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research on
advanced energetic materials to support efforts to counter new
types of asymmetric threats such as chemical-biological weapons
as well as increasing capabilities to defeat deeply buried
targets.

Advanced energy research

The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 62123N
towards applied research on a broad range of technologies
focused on all naval platforms and their protection, including
advanced energy and power systems. The committee recommends an
increase of $1.9 million in PE 62123N for advanced wind energy
research. In addition, the committee recommends similar
increases for energy research in the other services. For the
Air Force, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million
in PE 62102F for research on advanced heat exchangers. For the
Army, the committee recommends an increase in PE 62075A of $2.5
million for portable solar power generators, an increase of
$2.0 million for silicon carbide devices for quieter power
generators, and an increase of $2.0 million for integrating
nanoscale technologies into improved batteries. The committee
also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 61111D8Z for
cryo-cooled superconducting systems to improve the efficiencies
and integration of thermal management systems.

Navy force protection research

The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 62123N for
applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy's
power and energy science and technology focus area has a goal
to develop efficient power conversion technologies with a wide
range of energy sources to provide reliable power for a range
of naval systems. To support this goal, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.5 million for research on
integrated power systems for future platforms that have all-
electric propulsion and weapon loads.
The Navy's survivability and self-defense science and
technology focus area seeks to enhance force protection by
using innovative sensors to help detect and defeat incoming
attacks. In support of that initiative, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.5 million for the development of
port security sensors for under-hull inspection of ships.
Consistent with the Navy's platform mobility technology
objectives to develop new advanced platform designs supporting
new directions in naval warfare, such as increased agility, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for improved
design and development tools for high-speed boats constructed
from advanced composites.

Warfighter sustainment technologies

The budget request included $113.7 million in PE 62236N for
applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. The
committee notes the continued need for optimization of
composite materials for use in a range of maritime vessels and
equipment. For this reason, the committee recommends an
additional $1.5 million in PE 62236N for composite material
optimization research.
In support of continuing Navy and Department of Defense
initiatives to reduce corrosion costs, the committee recommends
an additional $2.0 million for efforts on the development of
sustainment and remanufacturing processes, asset health and
logistics management techniques, and materials aging and
corrosion abatement technologies.
The Department of Defense anti-tamper program seeks to
deter the reverse engineering and exploitation of critical
technology in order to impede technology transfer, stop
alteration of system capability, and prevent the development of
countermeasures to U.S. systems. In support of these efforts,
the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
62236N for research on anti-reverse engineering nanodevices, as
well as an increase of $1.5 million in PE 65790D8Z for research
on anti-tamper software.

Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research

The budget request included $49.5 million in PE 62435N for
applied research on ocean warfighting environments. The Navy's
platform mobility science and technology focus area includes
the goal of development and delivery of system and equipment
technologies to improve autonomous and unmanned vehicle
mobility. In support of this goal, the committee recommends an
increase of $3.0 million for advanced unmanned undersea vehicle
research. For undersea warfare applied research in PE 62747N,
the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for
accelerated development of an acoustic search glider.
In order to support Navy efforts to enhance the
understanding of optical propagation within challenging ocean
environments in support of mine countermeasures and underwater
autonomous network communications, the committee recommends an
additional $1.0 million for research on extended range
underwater imaging sensors and optical communications networks.

Mobile intelligence and tracking systems

The budget request included $117.9 million in PE 63114N for
advanced technologies for power projection. The Navy has a
science and technology objective to develop data fusion and
analysis technologies for actionable intelligence generation to
defeat adaptive irregular threats in complex environments. In
support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million for research on data processing and fusion
technologies to support multiple simultaneous detections,
tracking, identification, and targeting of asymmetric and
mobile threats in combat operations.

Formable textiles

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology, but included no funding
for development of formable textiles for complex shaped
aerospace composite applications.
This effort has supported the development of infrastructure
necessary to provide a stable, consistent environment to
support an aircraft manufacturing program utilizing materials
which hold promise for reducing manufacturing costs of
aerospace-grade, complex curved structural composite parts by
enabling, via the materials, improved formability, greater
utilization of automated manufacturing technologies as opposed
to the current labor intensive hand lay-up methods.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to
enable further development of formable textiles for complex
shaped aerospace composite applications.

Mobile repair capability

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology, but included no funding
to develop advanced coating process technologies for naval
aviation platforms and components.
Previous development work has shown that direct metal
deposition (DMD) technology may be used to repair of a variety
of worn/corroded Navy aircraft components. In fact, the Navy
has successfully demonstrated repairs on high-strength steel
and various other alloy materials in a laboratory environment
using these processes. The committee believes that the Navy
should continue developing this DMD technology to expand the
repair capability to allow deployments of this repair
technology directly on Navy vessels. Such an expansion of the
program would allow Navy personnel to make local repairs, thus
reducing the demand on shore based maintenance operations and
increasing operational availability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for developing a mobile capability for making DMD
repairs on naval equipment.

Rare earth alternatives

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology, but included no funding
to develop domestic sources of rare earth materials that could
be used to produce permanent magnet motors.
Application of permanent magnet motors has the potential to
expand significantly within the Department. At this time, we do
not have access to domestic sources of the raw materials for
these magnets. The committee believes that the Department needs
to identify and develop domestically produced alternative
materials, material technology, and manufacturing methods
involving rare earth elements. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million to support such a
program.

Single generator operations

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology, but included no funding
for development of a lithium battery technology that could
replace one of the three generators normally in operation or
reserve aboard all large Navy ships.
If lithium battery technology could be scaled up to a
capacity of roughly 2.5 megawatts, such a battery would replace
one of the three ship service generators normally in operation
or in reserve aboard all surface combatants. Such a battery
system could provide a lower cost, higher quality source of
electrical power that would replace redundant back-up power
sources dedicated to subsystems throughout the ship.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
enable the development of such lithium battery technology.

High-Integrity Global Positioning System

The budget request included $40.9 million in PE 63235N for
the High-Integrity Global Positioning System. The committee
recommends no funding for this program. The committee notes
that there is still no demonstrated user for the concept,
moreover the cost of implementing the concept would be very
high and require additional expensive user equipment. It is
also not clear how the approach is being considered or how the
required hardware modifications are being coordinated with the
Joint Tactical Radio System open architecture approach.

Hybrid heavy lift logistics vehicle

The budget request included $98.3 million in PE 63236N for
warfighter sustainment advanced technology developments, but
included no funding to develop any concepts for providing
innovative tools for supporting force and their logistics.
The committee is aware of a proposal to establish a program
to engineer, design and test key components, and achieve a
critical design review of a very large hybrid aircraft that
could be used as a heavy lift transport in wartime. The project
could help address the U.S. military's future airlift
requirements by providing a highly-efficient hybrid airlifter
that will be able to transport a complete combat force (troops,
vehicles, helicopters, and supplies) great distances without
loss of unit cohesion or physical readiness to fight. Hybrid
heavy lift aircraft have the potential of being more fuel
efficient than fixed-wing aircraft by burning as little as 40
percent of the fuel as a traditional fixed-wing aircraft, when
compared on a fuel consumed on a ``per ton/mile'' basis.
The committee believes this possible development is worth
exploring to increase the options for meeting such logistics
requirements in the future, and recommends an increase of $1.5
million for that purpose.

Lighter-than-air research platform

The budget request included $98.3 million in PE 63236N for
warfighter sustainment advanced technology developments, but
included no funding to develop long distance ferry
capabilities.
The committee believes that unmanned capabilities will
continue to replace functions that currently require an
aircrew. The committee is aware of a proposal to conduct
further research on such an unmanned lighter-than-air
capability, which can also serve as a research platform for the
Navy. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million to
support development of a lighter-than-air research platform.

Advanced actuators for submarines

The budget request included $608.6 million in PE 63561N for
advanced submarine systems development, including $25.1 million
to reduce submarine self noise, $4.9 million to reduce total
ownership costs, and $4.2 million for developing new ship
concepts. However, the budget request included no funding for
developing quiet advanced electrical actuators.
The committee believes that the Navy should develop
advanced drive electric motors for use in Navy submarines to
reduce noise signature through the use of noise-cancelling and
vibration reduction technologies. The goal of such a
development would be to enable the Navy to design and build
all-electric submarines, or to backfit existing submarines with
such systems to make them more electric. In either case, the
committee believes that introducing such technology could
result in reduced operations and support costs and increased
readiness in the fleet.
The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million to
support developing quiet advanced electrical actuators.

Submarine shock mitigation

The budget request included $608.6 million in PE 63561N for
advanced submarine systems development, but included no funding
for developing full-scale controllable shock mitigation devices
to protect weapons aboard submarines.
The Navy has designed various rafting systems that are
intended to mitigate shock and vibrations for major portions of
the combat systems and other equipment systems within
submarines to make submarines more producible and sustainable
throughout their service lives. The committee understands there
is available technology that could be applied to mitigating
shock and vibration to which Navy submarine weapons are
exposed, and reduce the demands for making special ship
construction provisions for isolating weapons from shock. If
successful, such a shock mitigation system could reduce demands
for more expensive future ship design and construction efforts,
thereby achieving savings.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $3.0
million to support developing full-scale controllable shock
mitigation devices to protect weapons aboard submarines.

Submarine payloads

The budget request included $608.6 million in PE 63561N for
advanced submarine systems development, including $8.3 million
for various submarine payloads and sensors development
activities.
The Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations
established goals to increase the employment of unmanned
vehicles in future operations. Some of our submarines (SSGNs
and later Virginia-class submarines) have large volume payload
tubes to interface with the ocean. These tubes provide the
capacity to carry larger unmanned vehicles. A prototype launch
and recovery module for an SSGN tube is being built with
delivery planned for December 2010. This is an enabler for the
rapid integration of payloads into submarines at a reduced
cost. With addition fiscal year 2011 funds, the Navy could
demonstrate the use of payloads to conduct various
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions that
have not been possible before.
The Navy needs a more formal program to integrate unmanned
payloads into submarines and leverage these capabilities for
future requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $20.0 million to support advanced submarine payloads
development activities and to allow the Navy to define a more
formal plan for this activity.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a report with the fiscal year 2012 budget
submission that defines the Navy's plans for integrating
current and future unmanned payloads into submarines.

Ship hydrodynamic test facilities improvement

The budget request included $1.8 million in PE 63564N for
ship preliminary design and feasibility studies, but included
no funding for continuing improvements to support the Navy's
own ship hydrodynamics test facilities.
The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division has
implemented a 5-year, five-phase, fixed-price contract to
replace the wave-making system in the maneuvering and sea
keeping basin with modern systems capable of supporting current
and future Navy needs.
Fiscal year 2011 would represent the final year of that
effort, but the Navy did not fund the final phase of the
contract. The committee believes that the Navy should complete
this upgrade effort to support current and future design
activities, and recommends an additional $10.0 million for that
purpose.

Common network interface system

The budget request included $24.3 million in PE 63582N for
combat systems integration, but included no funding for
continuing development of the common network interface (CNI)
system.
The Navy completed funding for the so-called CNI Flight 0
in 2009. The Navy has installed CNI Flight 0 on five of the
LHA/LHD vessels, and has planned several spirals into 2013. The
Navy partially funded the next spiral of CNI capability
(``Flight 0+''), but has chosen now to shift the resources
required to finish that development to other programs. The Navy
had also intended to outfit the remaining LHA/LHD vessels with
either CNI Flight 0 or Flight 0+.
The committee has consistently supported moving the Navy to
open architecture in its ship systems.
The committee believes that the Navy should: (1) complete
development of CNI Flight 0+; (2) backfit the Flight 0+
capability on the Flight 0 ships; and (3) install CNI on
additional LHA/LHD vessels. The committee recommends an
additional $3.0 million for those purposes.

Decision and energy reduction tool

The budget request included $40.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 63635M for
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System, but no funds for a
decision and energy reduction tool to apply computer simulation
techniques to model and predict the performance of fuel-
efficiency technologies.
The committee recommends an authorization of $45.0 million,
an increase of $4.5 million for this purpose.

Navy energy research

The budget request included $30.4 million in PE 63724N for
the Navy energy program. This program works to evaluate, adapt,
and demonstrate energy related technologies for Navy aircraft
and ship operations. In support of these goals, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.5 million for the development of
fuel cell technologies for naval applications, and an
additional $3.0 million for improvements to high-density energy
storage development.

Flame retardant textile fabric

The budget request included $4.1 million in PE 63739N for
Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but included no
funding to develop more cost effective, flame retardant
fabrics.
Intumescent materials are materials that undergo a chemical
change when exposed to heat or flames, becoming viscous then
forming expanding bubbles that harden into a dense, heat
insulating multi-cellular char. Previous research showed that
intumescent flame retardants generate far higher levels of char
than conventional retardants. In doing so, they provide
extremely high levels of fire resistance to underlying surfaces
(garment). However, a major drawback of using such materials in
textile applications, usually as applied coatings, has been
that even the most water-insoluble of these intumescent
materials do not survive the textile-laundering processes.
The committee believes that the Navy should develop these
materials further by investigating: (1) the best fiber
combination for treatment with advanced flame retardant
chemicals; (2) the best flame retardant finishing agent for
treating those textiles; and (3) the best technique for
applying that flame retardant finishing agent to the textiles.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to
develop this important technology.

Optical interconnect

The budget request included $4.1 million in PE 63739N for
Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but included no
funding to develop low cost, high quality fiber optic
interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The
Department of Defense continues to demand increasing data
processing, communication, and system control capabilities. The
next-generation data and communication management systems
needed for weapons systems will depend upon tightly integrated
optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect.
This solution optimizes space utilization while achieving high
bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic
interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety and
security. The Navy has requirements for next-generation optical
interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems,
and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy
vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million to develop this important technology.

Air and missile defense radar

The budget request included $274.4 million in PE 64501N for
advanced above water sensors, including $228.4 million for the
air and missile defense radar (AMDR) program.
The Navy's AMDR program is intended to produce a next-
generation radar system designed to provide ballistic missile
defense, air defense, and surface warfare capabilities. The
fiscal year 2010 budget includes $113.6 million for AMDR
technology development contracts and the fiscal year 2011
budget request includes $145.3 million for AMDR technology
development contracts.
In December 2009, the Navy released a request for proposals
for AMDR technology development. The Navy intends to award
these technology development contracts after completion of
Milestone A, which has been delayed. The Navy had planned to
have a Milestone A decision in the third quarter of fiscal year
2010, but the Navy now expects that decision in August, after
the Navy completes key analyses.
Based on this delayed decision, the Government
Accountability Office has estimated that $22.5 million of the
fiscal year 2010 funds are not needed to fund fiscal year 2010
activities and could be applied to fiscal year 2011
requirements.
Therefore, the committee believes the Navy should use 2010
resources available for AMDR instead of reprogramming them,
which obviate the need for $22.5 million of the funds requested
in fiscal year 2011.

TB-33 thinline towed array

The budget request included $118.9 million in PE 64503N for
SSN-688 and Trident modernization programs, including $11.6
million for making further developments of the TB-33 thinline
towed array system.
Since last year, the Navy has restructured the TB-33
program to provide an additional year of development activity,
including fabricating a production representative unit for
conducting operational testing. After that testing, the Navy
plans to begin production of the TB-33 in fiscal year 2012.
The committee believes that the Navy requires additional
resources to complete fabrication of that production
representative unit and complete special test modules to
evaluate the final TB-33 design.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million to
complete development of the TB-33 thinline towed array.

Advanced manufacturing for submarine bow domes

The budget request included $155.5 million in PE 64558N for
new design SSN activities, but included no funding to continue
a program to develop advanced manufacturing processes and
techniques for fabricating submarine bow domes and rubber
boots.
The committee believes that developing the capability to
build large structures consisting of composite materials that
are cured outside an autoclave will provide manufacturing
flexibility, maintain reliability and quality requirements, and
could allow fabrication of much larger structures, such as
domes and boots for larger submarines.
The committee recommends an additional $1.3 million to
continue this program.

Common command and control system module

The budget request included $155.5 million in PE 64558N for
new design SSN activities, but included no funding for
developing a common command and control system module for
application to Virginia-class submarines or an Ohio-class
replacement program, SSBN(X).
The committee understands that the Navy could design a new
command and control module for submarines that could also
significantly reduce construction costs on all submarine
classes, but certainly would enable rapid reconfiguration of
mission equipment in these spaces, reduce the demands on watch
standers, and reduce the total ownership costs to the Navy for
supporting disparate command and control configurations.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million in PE 64558N to continue these development activities.

Submarine airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capability

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for
submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no
funding for developing concepts and technologies that could
support a covertly launched, organic submarine intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) system.
The committee expects that the Navy will begin development
of a submarine-based unmanned aerial vehicle system in fiscal
year 2012.
In anticipation of that, the Navy could use additional
funding to begin tasks leading to a design of a capsule that
could enable a submarine to covertly launch a UAV. These tasks
would include selecting final materials, improving reliability,
testing for environmental and system safety, and integrating
the UAV system with the submarine communications and command
and control suites.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.6 million to
further develop this submarine-launched UAV capability.

Submarine artificial intelligence-based combat system software module

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for
submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no
funding for developing an artificial intelligence-based combat
system software module.
The Navy has begun an effort to develop a mission focused,
decision-tailored command decision support system (CDSS) to use
within the current submarine open architecture combat system
that would introduce intelligent agent-based automation,
advanced visualization, and collaboration technologies.
Such a command decision support system should improve
decision making by submarine commanding officers and senior
staff, leading to improved mission effectiveness with reduced
control room manning.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to
continue development of an artificial intelligence-based combat
system software module.

Submarine environment for evaluation and development

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for
submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no
funding to continue the submarine environment for evaluation
and development (SEED) program.
This program has provided a low-cost test bed for industry
and academia to create and evaluate innovative ideas and to
integrate their products into currently deployed and conceptual
systems. This test bed avoids the complication and expense of
testing such ideas and products on more costly shore-based
hardware or actual fleet equipment until the Navy can determine
whether the ideas merit further development.
The committee supports this activity and recommends an
increase of $5.5 million to continue and expand this activity.

Submarine weapon acquisition and firing system

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for
submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no
funding to continue development of an automated weapon
acquisition and firing system (WAFS).
An automated WAFS could provide an accurate target solution
and aid submarine crews in properly configuring the weapon and
executing procedures to acquire the target. The crew could rely
on such an expert system to automatically determine optimal
ballistic settings, based on the target solutions and weapon
tactics best practices, and thereby eliminate the need for
crews to rely on reference documents.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to
continue development of a WAFS capability.

SSGN weapon launcher technology insertion

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for
submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no
funding to continue Navy's common weapon launcher program to
integrate common weapon launchers on SSGNs.
The Navy plans to complete integration of the common
weapons launcher into the Virginia-class combat system in
fiscal year 2010. However, the Navy has not funded extending
this capability to the SSGN fleet, which will operate as attack
submarines throughout much of their mission profiles. This
means that the Navy would have to forego the opportunity to
achieve savings by consolidating training and logistics for the
launcher systems on these boats with that of the Virginia-class
submarines.
The committee believes that such an omission is short-
sighted, and recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
integrate the common weapon launcher on SSGNs.

Automated fiber optic manufacturing capability

The budget request included $153.7 million in PE 64567N for
ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation
activities, but included no funding for continuing development
of an automated fiber optic manufacturing capability.
Last year, the Navy completed production of a fully
automated factory work cell that will support aircraft carrier
construction/overhaul and Virginia-class submarine programs.
The Navy believes that this manufacturing capability will allow
the shipbuilding industry to produce factory terminated fiber
optic cable assemblies and systems much more efficiently, which
should generate millions of dollars in shipbuilding program
cost savings. The Navy is also using fiscal year 2009 and 2010
resources to develop portable capabilities for field
installation, field repair, and maintenance derived from the
technologies of the automated manufacturing line. Such portable
capability would be useful both by ship construction personnel
during construction and overhaul, and by ship's force personnel
in performing maintenance when ships are not in the yards.
The committee believes that the Navy should continue these
efforts in fiscal year 2011, and recommends an additional $4.0
million for that purpose.

Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle

The budget request included $45.9 million in PE 64755N for
ship self defense (detect and control) projects, but included
no funding for the autonomous unmanned surface vehicle (AUSV)
program. The AUSV program supports the U.S. Navy's anti-
terrorism, force protection, and homeland defense missions. The
AUSV can protect commercial harbors, coastal facilities such as
commercial and military airports and nuclear power plants,
inland waterways, and large lakes. The vessel will utilize a
variety of advanced sensing and perimeter monitoring equipment
for surveillance and detection of targets of interest.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million to
continue this development.

Next-generation Phalanx

The budget request included $5.9 million in PE 64756N for
ship self-defense (engage: 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 $12.0 million in PE 64756N
for the continued development of the next-generation Phalanx.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

The budget request included $84.5 million for ship self-
defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including
$5.4 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) develop advanced radio frequency digital circuits
enabling wider frequency coverage;
(2) design an architecture that will ensure seamless
operation with a variety of U.S. Navy combat systems;
(3) integrate NULKA into the Navy's Aegis weapon
control system open architecture; and
(4) provide shipboard test and trial support.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for
the NULKA development program to continue these efforts.

Composite tissue transplantation for combat wound repair

The budget request included $12.3 million in PE 64771N for
medical development activities, but included no funding to
continue the composite tissue transplantation for combat wound
repair program.
In 2009, the Navy began an effort to establish a
multidisciplinary center for the systematic study of composite
tissue transplantation. The Navy intends for this center to
conduct mechanistic studies on the immune response and
rejection of transplanted tissues and establish a capability to
conduct clinical trials in hand transplantation. The program
includes a strategy to collect and analyze clinical data and
materials to further the knowledge base on composite tissue
transplants and will be used to develop novel immunosuppressive
treatments.
In 2010, the Navy is expanding these efforts to conduct the
actual clinical trials for hand transplants.
The committee believes this effort needs to continue in
fiscal year 2011, and recommends an increase of $2.0 million to
do that.

Navy information technology programs

The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 65013N for
information technology development. To support initiatives to
improve network centric operations, data fusion, and human
systems interfaces, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million for information systems research and technology.

Navy manufacturing technology

The budget request included $46.2 million in PE 78011N for
Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes
that in 2006, the Defense Science Board recommended that
investments in the manufacturing technology program be
increased to a level of 1 percent of the total research,
development, test, and evaluation budget. The Board also found
that the manufacturing technology program has invested in
efforts that have reduced systems cost and improved systems
performance. Consistent with those recommendations and
findings, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
for integrated manufacturing enterprise development to
streamline manufacturing techniques, business practices, and
practices to reduce costs of Navy platforms.

Strike study

The budget request included $81.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 11221N line 162 for
strategic submarine and weapons systems support. The committee
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million. Of the amount requested
$10.0 million was for a study for ambiguity and other issues
that associated with conventional and nuclear payloads on
strategic ballistic missile submarines. The committee
recommends no funds for the study. The committee notes that the
National Academy of Sciences conducted an extensive study on
this issue and the additional study would be redundant.

Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform

The budget request included $81.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 11221N line 162 for
strategic submarine and weapons systems support but no funds
for the Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform (VMEP). The
committee recommends an additional $1.5 million for information
assurance certification for the VMEP system so that it can be
installed on strategic submarines.

Tomahawk cost reduction initiatives

The budget request included $10.6 million for various
upgrades to the Tomahawk missile and the Tomahawk mission
planning center, but included no funding for making changes to
the missile to reduce recurring production costs. The largest
expense in the Tomahawk missile is the engine. The committee
believes that the Navy and contractor team could improve
manufacturing efficiencies on key components of the engine to
reduce recurring production costs enough to more than pay for
any non-recurring investment necessary to design and test those
improvements.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.6
million to fund non-recurring engineering to design and
implement: (1) manufacturing system improvements; and (2)
engine and missile interface improvements.

Aircraft metal alloys

The budget request included $133.6 million in PE 63123N for
various aviation improvement programs, but included no funding
for further developing new metal alloys for aircraft
applications.
The Navy has funded basic research on new metal alloys that
show promise for application to military aircraft components.
This has resulted in designing and developing two new ultra-
high performance alloys, M54 for airframe applications
(primarily landing gear), and C64 for gears. The committee
understands that the performance of these alloys far exceeds
currently used materials, because they provide substantial cost
and weight savings while being virtually maintenance free in
service and safer for the environment than using current
materials. Current environmental concerns for existing
materials arise from the fact that current alloys used in
landing gear steels have to be coated in environmentally
devastating cadmium. Developing these alloys further could lead
to certification and qualification of these alloys and
manufacturing of test articles. The committee understands that
test articles using these alloys would then be evaluated
according to priorities established in the Defense Department's
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program.
The committee recommends an additional $2.8 million for
maturing these alloys.

Aircraft windscreen laminates

The budget request included $133.6 million in PE 63123N for
various aviation improvement programs, but included no funding
for developing a sacrificial windscreen laminates that would
also provide protection from laser and electromagnetic attacks.
The committee believes that there is an increasing risk in
laser and electromagnetic interference (EMI) attacks against
Defense Department aircraft. The Navy has been developing
sacrificial windscreen laminates that maintain current
performance in preventing damage from erosion, but, in
addition, provide passive EMI and laser protection. Unlike
complicated electronic devices, this passive system is
continuously providing protection to aircrews and critical
aircraft electronics, such as targeting and communications
systems. The committee understands that the Naval Air Systems
Command has concluded that this new laminate material could be
fielded with only modest additional development, and could
provide a long-term solution to this increasing threat.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $1.7
million to develop improved aircraft windscreen laminates.

Tracking helicopter structural life

The budget request included $133.6 million in PE 63123N for
various aviation improvement programs, but included no funding
for developing a system to track helicopter structural life.
The Department of the Navy lacks a comprehensive program
for tracking the structural life of its helicopters.
Implementing such a program would allow the Navy to better
track their helicopters and its components based on actual
aircraft flight usage. Traditional tracking methods are based
on paper records and assume the aircraft flies a predetermined
or ``design'' flight pattern.
With the advent of onboard flight data recorders, the
actual flight pattern can be determined by collecting on-board
flight recorder data and determining the exact damage caused to
the aircraft by each flight. By tracking the components based
on actual flight usage, unnecessary and premature component
removals could be eliminated. Furthermore, aircrew safety would
be enhanced by knowing exactly how the aircraft flies and
predicting when a component should be removed to prevent
failure of the component and a potential mishap.
The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million to
develop a structural life tracking program for Department of
the Navy helicopters.

System for triaging key evidence

The budget request included $245.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 26313M for
Marine Corps Communications Systems. The committee recommends
an authorization of $247.1 million, $1.8 million above the
request, to enhance the capabilities of the System for Triaging
Key Evidence (STRIKE). STRIKE is a successful digital media
exploitation system in use by a wide variety of organizations
and forces. It provides a capability to rapidly determine, in
the field, what information is stored on phones, computers,
portable media, and other devices; what stripped down
information should be extracted and downloaded; and to analyze
content. The device can dramatically reduce the amount of
material that needs to be transmitted to rear echelons for
analysis, and provides immediate, on-scene support to tactical
forces.

Marine Corps personnel carrier data management system

The budget request included $26.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 26623M for
initial development activities for the Marine Corps Personnel
Carrier (MPC). The committee recommends an authorization of an
additional $2.0 million for a performance feedback and
assessment system to assist the program manager in acquiring
and applying operational data to the design and maintenance of
the MPC.

Unique identification web-based tracking and accountability software

The budget request included $100.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 26623M for
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. The
committee recommends authorization of $4.5 million above the
request for unique identification data management and tracking
software for a web-based, enterprise-wide application with
secure mobile computing.

Air Force

Cyber research and training

The budget request included $351.0 million in Air Force
defense research sciences to fund fundamental broad-based
scientific and engineering research in areas critical to Air
Force weapon systems. In support of research in the growing
field of cyber security, the committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million in PE 61102F for the development of related
modeling and simulation training capabilities. Similarly, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 61101E
for research on security for critical and vulnerable control
networks.

Air Force materials research

The budget request included $137.3 million in PE 62102F for
applied materials research. The Air Force's Energy Program
Policy has a stated objective of increasing renewable resources
on Air Force bases. In support of that objective, the committee
recommends an increase of $1.0 million for efforts to design,
implement, and test systems and processes capable of producing
renewable energy at large scales for military installations.
The committee notes that the 2003 National Research Council
study ``Materials Research to Meet 21st Century Defense Needs''
identified a number of high priority research areas in advanced
materials in order to address defense requirements. The study
recommended investing in technologies that would integrate
nondestructive inspection and evaluation into the original
design of both materials and structures. Consistent with this
recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for the development of health monitoring sensors for
aerospace components. The committee also recommends an
additional $1.0 million for light alloy parts development.
The National Research Council recommended that the
Department of Defense ``make investments in research leading to
new strategies for the processing, manufacture, inspection, and
maintenance of materials and systems.'' Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62102F
for research on nano-manufacturing models, analyses, and
controls to develop the next-generation of manufacturing
processes and systems.

Aerospace vehicle technologies

The budget request included $144.7 million in PE 62201F for
aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee recommends an
additional $2.5 million for unmanned aerial system (UAS)
collaboration technologies to support the development of
advanced UAS and enhance the ability to integrate UAS pilots,
sensor operators, and information analysts, as well as to
better coordinate and collaborate their activities.

Reconfigurable electronics and software

The budget request included $111.9 million in PE 62601F for
space technologies. The Department of Defense's January 2007
``Response to Findings and Recommendations of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply''
highlighted the Department's need for microelectronic systems,
local field programmable gate arrays, with functions that could
be changed to support different types of systems. In support of
meeting that need, the committee recommends an increase of
$500,000 for research on reconfigurable electronics.

Seismic research program

The budget request included $111.9 million in PE 62601F for
space technologies. The committee remains particularly
concerned with ongoing developments in rogue state nuclear
programs. Consequently, the committee recommends an additional
$5.0 million for the Air Force seismic research program. This
program has and will continue to enable the United States to
monitor compliance with the current moratorium on nuclear
testing.

Space plasma research

The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 62601F for
space survivability and surveillance applied research focused
on developing technologies to protect spacecraft against the
harmful effects of the space environment. In support of these
efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million
in PE 62601F to improve ground testing capabilities to better
understand the effects of space plasmas on spacecraft
performance and mission life.

Directed energy research

The budget request included $53.4 million in PE 62890F
towards high-energy laser research. In support of these
efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million
in this account for improved directed energy research and
development coordination by the Directed Energy Joint
Technology office. The Secretary shall provide to Congressional
defense committees no later than February 2011, a long-term
plan of the roles and responsibilities of the Joint Technology
Office for High Energy Lasers for supporting the overall
mission of the Department in directed energy.

Air Force advanced materials research

The budget request included $33.4 million in PE 63112F for
the development of advanced materials for weapon systems. The
committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to support the
Metals Affordability Initiative, a joint government and
industry consortium aimed at strengthening the metals
industrial base through collaborative technology development
and transition projects. The overall program helps improve
current processing technologies and develop novel techniques
for primary metal production, part manufacturing, and weapon
system support. The committee also recommends a specific
increase of $1.5 million in PE 62204F in order to accelerate
development of gallium nitride materials, a compound in high
demand for high performance electronics in the defense realm.
The committee also notes the need to improve the readiness
and maintainability of airframes beyond the fiscal year 2010
budget request amount in PE 63112F. In support of this
objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million
for research on nondestructive testing technologies and $2.0
million for improved composite repair in theater. To improve
manufacturing technology and the availability of frequency
selective surface structures for a variety of specialized
antenna applications, the committee recommends an additional
$2.0 million in PE 63680F.
Finally, to support Air Force efforts to develop cheaper,
alternative sources of aviation fuel, the committee recommends
an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63112F for sewage-derived
biofuels research.

Advanced fuels and propulsion

The budget request included $136.1 million in PE 63216F to
develop advanced aerospace power and propulsion technologies.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63216F for algal biofuel research. In addition, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63734A for
alternative biofuel research.

Air Force advanced propulsion systems

The budget request included $136.1 million in PE 63216F for
aerospace propulsion and power technology. To support efforts
under the High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstrator project as
part of the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine
program, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 million to
develop supersonic turbine engines that can support the
development of a long-range high-speed strike missile. The
committee notes that the Department of Defense is continuing
its investments in the development of unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) capabilities for intelligence, strike, and other
missions. In support of foundational systems capabilities
efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million
for the development of scalable UAV engines.
Finally, to support continued development of high-
temperature power electronics to meet critical needs of the
Joint Strike Fighter and other aircraft platform systems, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for research
and development using silicon carbide power modules.

Carbon nanotubes

The budget request included $83.7 million for advanced
spacecraft technology in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63401F line 22, but no funds for
carbon nanotubes. The committee recommends $2.0 million for
research to support a U.S.-based source of high purity carbon
nanotube solutions for space and other defense applications.

Collaboration gateway

The budget request included $5.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 63260F for
Intelligence Advanced Development, but no funds for a
collaboration gateway for disseminating, accessing, and sharing
video imagery across classified and unclassified networks. The
committee recommends an authorization of $2.0 million above the
requested amount for this project.

Global Positioning System operating control segment

The budget request included no funds in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63423F line
33. The budget request did include $381.9 million for the
Global Positioning System III (GPS III) operating control
segment (OCX) in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Air Force, PE 35265F line 212 with the budget request for the
GPS III space vehicle development. The committee believes that
the funds for the OCX should remain in PE 63423F line 33, where
the funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2010. The committee
recommends a $381.9 million reduction in line 212 and an
increase in line 33 to effect the transfer.

Space situational awareness

The budget request included $61.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 63438F
for Space Control Technology but not funds to integrate data
from the Missile Defense X-band radar or the Sea-based X-band
platform into the space surveillance network. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to integrate this data
into the space surveillance network.

Space protection program

The budget request included $8.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63830F line 40
for the space protection program. The committee recommends an
additional $5.0 million. The space protection program develops
an integrated space protection strategy to support the national
security space enterprise to identify and recommend solutions
to protect space capabilities. As the threats to space systems
continue to grow, improving the ability to identify assess and
protect against this wide range of threats is essential.

Next-generation military satellite communications

The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDTEF), for next-generation
military satellite communications to identify technologies that
could be used on future military communications satellites.
Congress provided $50.0 million for continued research and
development in next-generation military satellite
communications, including for protected communications in
fiscal year 2010, following cancellation of the
Transformational Communications satellite (T-Sat) program. The
committee is disappointed that no funds were included in the
fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in a
new program element, PE 64436F line 52. This new PE is created
to continue the efforts to explore communications technologies
that could be utilized on future blocks of current
communications satellite or eventually on next-generation
communications satellite. These risk reduction efforts should
include continued efforts to reduce the cost, weight, and
complexity of current radiation hardening techniques.
One of the many problems with the T-Sat program was that it
was started with very immature technologies. In the future when
new or evolved communications satellites are needed, the
committee wants to ensure that the technologies are
sufficiently mature to be fielded with low cost and schedule
risk.

Operationally Responsive Space

The budget request included $94.0 million for Operationally
Responsive Space (ORS) in Air Force Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation PE 64857F including $20.2 million for ORS-
1, a small satellite being built at the request of U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM) to satisfy the Command's urgent need number
3. ORS-1 is currently on schedule to launch at the end of 2010,
which would demonstrate the ability to design, build, and
launch a satellite within 2 years of a decision to start. This
is a significant accomplishment.
While ORS continues to make progress in all of its three
tiers, the funding for fiscal year 2011 is not adequate to
continue the necessary efforts for the crosscutting portions of
the ORS office, including modeling and simulation, satellite
command and control, future planning and other activities to
support the overall ORS partnerships. The committee recommends
an additional $20.0 million to restore funding for this effort
to the fiscal year 2010 level. The additional funds will help
ORS to continue to identify unique approaches for small
responsive satellites and improve responsive capabilities.
The committee commends the ORS Office and the other
agencies and military services for participating in this
innovative approach to space. The committee is concerned,
however, that the ORS Office has not been able to take full
advantage of various streamlined acquisition approaches and
directs the Air Force to assist ORS in identifying areas where
improvement is needed and to grant ORS the necessary
authorities. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees that would outline a plan for ORS to utilize
directly streamlined acquisition authorities no later than
February 1, 2011.
The committee supports the ORS efforts to explore flexible
payloads for use on responsive satellite buses with common
interfaces. These payloads include synthetic aperture radar and
other payloads to enhance the ability of the warfighter to
monitor the battlespace and to augment conventional
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets.
One of the areas that the ORS Office has not focused on is
next-generation launch capabilities. At the present there is
adequate launch capability but it is expensive. The committee
is aware of a different approach to designing launch vehicles
that might reduce in the long run the cost of launch, and that
might be suitable for small and medium (Delta II) class and
below launch. The committee recommends $15.0 million for the
radially segmented launch vehicle for ORS and the Space Test
Program to continue concept development and determine the
technical validity of the approach.

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite

The budget request included $325.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35178F line 58
for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite (NPOESS). The NPOESS was a joint Department of
Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
and Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather satellite program.
The committee recommends $100.0 million, a reduction of $225.5
million.
Shortly after the budget request for fiscal year 2011 was
submitted, the administration decided to dissolve the NPOESS
program and directed DOD and NOAA to develop separate programs.
As part of this structuring DOD was assigned responsibility for
the early morning orbit and the DOC-NOAA was assigned
responsibility for the afternoon orbit. Neither DOD nor DOC-
NOAA has identified a new program plan to implement the
restructuring decision. As a result the fiscal year 2010 funds
are available to develop a new follow-on program and all of the
fiscal year 2011 funds will not be needed. The committee is
disappointed with the decision to dissolve the joint NPOESS
program and is concerned that the new, yet to be determined,
program may not be able to ensure continuity in weather
satellites.
The DOD last launched a weather satellite, the Defense
Meteorological Satellite (DMSP) in 2009, and has two more DMSP
satellites in storage, DMSP-19 and DMSP-20. These satellites
have been in storage for many years and will require a service
life extension program before they could be launched to fill
any gaps caused by the restructuring of the NPOESS program.
The committee urges the DOD and the Air Force to decide on
a follow-on program as quickly as possible to ensure that there
are no gaps in weather coverage. The committee does not believe
that relying on the DMSP-19 and DMSP-20 as a means of avoiding
or delaying a new program is a realistic option. When it was
restructured, the NPOESS program was already 6 years behind. On
the other hand, the NPOESS program was technically sound and
had made substantial investments in a variety of weather and
environmental sensors that should be preserved. The committee
sees no benefit to be gained from redesigning sensors already
designed, and in some cases delivered, under the NPOESS
program.
The committee directs the DOD and the Air Force to prepare
a program plan designed to launch a first satellite as soon as
possible following the planned launch of DMSP-19 in early
fiscal year 2013. The program plan for the follow-on should be
provided with the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The
committee supports a strategy that will result in the first
NPOESS successor satellite to be ready to launch as soon as
technically feasible. The U.S. cannot tolerate a gap in weather
coverage.

Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking Initiative

The budgeted request included $60.5 million for nuclear
weapons support Air Force Research, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation, PE 64222F line 60 but no fund for the Nuclear
Enterprise Surety Tracking Initiative (NESTI). The committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the NESTI to develop
secure electronic systems to track the location and status of
nuclear weapons and critical nuclear components.

Space-based space surveillance system

The budget request included $426.5 million in Space
Situation Awareness, Air Force Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, PE 64425 line 70. The committee recommends a
reduction of $30.0 million for the Space-based space
surveillance system (SBSS) follow-on. The SBSS block-10 program
has been delayed; as a result, $30.0 million of the $38.0
million included in the budget request for the follow-on
program will not be needed in fiscal year 2011.

Space-based Infrared System

The budget request included $530.0 million for the Space-
based Infrared system (SBIRS) for Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64441 line 72 including $175.2
million for ground development. The SBIRS program is a missile
early warning, technical intelligence, and battlespace
awareness system with Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) sensors and
Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites. The committee
recommends an additional $15.0 million for HEO ground
integration and data exploitation.
The GEO-1 satellite has been plagued by schedule delays and
cost overruns. In previous years additional funds were needed
to resolve GEO-1 problems. As a result funds to support ground
integration and HEO data exploitation were diverted to resolve
the GEO-1 issues. Congress provided additional funds in fiscal
year 2010 to increase the analytic efforts to support HEO
sensors so that the full capability of the HEO sensors can be
understood and exploited including the benefits from HEO stereo
applications. More work remains to be done, particularly as
additional HEO sensors become available.
Although the delivery and launch schedule for the GEO-1
satellite continues to slip, the committee notes that the Air
Force expects the GEO-1 satellite will be ready to ship no
later than March 2011, assuming the ongoing software problems
are resolved.
The committee directs the Air Force to include adequate
funding in the fiscal year 2012 budget request to continue
exploitation of the HEO sensors and to ensure a robust
exploitation program for the GEO-1 satellite, assuming that it
launches in late 2011 or early 2012.
The committee notes that the overhead persistent infrared
(OPIR) architecture study, which was due last summer, is still
not completed. This study is essential for making decisions
with respect to future OPIR requirements including those for
SBIRS satellites and sensors and the Precision Tracking
Satellite System being developed by the Missile Defense Agency.

Third generation infrared surveillance

The budget request included no funds for third generation
infrared surveillance (3GIRS) in Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Air Force, PE64443F line 73. The committee
recommends an increase of $25.0 million. The Air Force has no
technology development line for next-generation infrared
technology. While the Air Force has decided to continue with
the Spaced-based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) system, the
committee believes that at some point there will be a need to
augment, update or replace the SBIRS system. To ensure that
technologies are sufficiently mature when needed, the committee
recommends the additional funding to ensure continued focus on
next-generation focal plane arrays and other technologies.

Air Force test and evaluation

The budget request included $61.6 million in PE 64759F for
Air Force major test and evaluation investment. The committee
notes the importance of preserving the capability to test
missiles and their sub-systems, such as sensors and structures,
at very high speeds. To support the enhancement of these
capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5
million for upgrades to the high-speed test track at Holloman
Air Force Base.

Space test program

The budget request included $47.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 65864F line
104 for the space test program (STP). The committee recommends
an increase of $15.0 million to support the possibility of
increasing small experimental satellite and sensor launches
from one every 2 years to one every 18 months and to increase
the number of piggyback launches including those using the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle secondary payload adapter
ring.

B-2

The budget request included $260.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 11127F line
120 for B-2 Squadrons, including $92.3 million for extremely
high frequency (EHF) increment 2 to develop a low observable
EHF antenna and radome and install Family of Beyond Line of
Sight terminals (FAB-T)on the B-2 aircraft.
At the end of December 2009, the Air Force decided that the
previous technical approach using a mechanically steered EHF
antenna presented an unacceptably high risk and decided to
pursue an active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna.
With this decision the schedule for achieving an initial
operational capability for EHF increment 2 has been delayed at
least 4 years from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2019. The
approach adopted would be the first time an AESA antenna for
EHF communications was developed for aircraft. Moreover, the
critical elements of the new approach are only at technical
readiness levels 3 and 4.
The committee is concerned that this shift may result in
even further delays to the ability of the B-2 to have EHF
communications capability. The committee is also concerned
about the decision making process and the technical rationale
underpinning the shift in approach. As a result, the committee
directs the Air Force to establish an external independent
technical review team to review the technical approach adopted
and the Government Accountability Office to review the decision
making process utilized by the Air Force. The independent
technical review team should specifically examine the Air
Force's proposed shift from a mechanically steered EHF antenna
to an AESA antenna, and the cost, schedule, and technical risks
of this proposed shift. No more than 50 percent of the funds
available for the B-2 for EHF increment 2 in fiscal year 2011
may be obligated until the reviews have been completed and
submitted to the congressional defense committees.

Cyber operations security institute

The budget request included $2.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 28021F for
Information Warfare Support, but no funds for the Cyber
Operations Security Institute (COSI). COSI is a public-private
partnership supporting the Air Force Global Strike Command in
the area of visualization, video war-gaming, and command and
control of cyber tools. The committee recommends an
authorization of $1.5 million above the requested amount for
COSI.

Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence

The budget request included $140.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 33140F for
the Information Systems Security Program (ISSP). The budget
request did not include funds for the Air Force's Application
Software Assurance Center of Excellence (ASACOE) aside from
salaries for government personnel.
The Air Force Air Material Command's Electronic Systems
Center established the ASACOE in 2005 after a very serious
cybersecurity breach resulted in the loss of the personnel
records of 33,000 Air Force officers. A vulnerable custom
software application was the avenue for the intrusion. The Air
Force realized that it had a major problem with vulnerable
software applications that was accelerating as more and more
applications and services were becoming web-based and
accessible through the Internet. In a far-sighted move, the Air
Force established the ASACOE to start to fix that problem.
However, the committee understands that the Center has been
funded almost entirely from internal sources on an ad hoc basis
and will soon enter a ``stand by'' status due to lack of
funding.
The ASACOE's mission is to (1) foster security into the
software development and maintenance life cycle, and (2) enable
the defense of software applications against attacks. This
Center is unique in the Department of Defense and has received
high marks for its work. It has developed best practices and
methodologies for securely developing and testing software,
including automated tools to discover vulnerabilities and to
monitor running applications in real time.
The committee is concerned that the level and manner of
funding for the ASACOE is not commensurate with the scope of
the software applications vulnerability problem in the Air
Force and the rest of the Defense Department. The committee
recommends an authorization of $7.0 million above the requested
amount for the Air Force ISSP program to sustain the ASACOE and
extend the scope of its work. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration,
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 15, 2011, on the role of the ASACOE in securing
software applications for the Air Force and the Department of
Defense overall.

Malware research technology demonstration and validation

The budget request included $140.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 33140F for
the Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for
malware research technology demonstration and validation. This
initiative will provide capabilities for testing,
demonstrating, and transitioning technologies for cybersecurity
to support Air Force rapid and agile cyber acquisition efforts.
The committee recommends an authorization of $1.8 million
for this project, for a total authorization of $141.8 million
for this program element.

Milsatcom terminals

The budget request included $186.6 million for milsatcom
terminals including $136.3 million for the family of beyond
line of site terminals (FAB-T) Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Air Force, PE 33601F line 180. The FAB-T program
has been delayed and research and development funds are now
needed to continue FAB-T research. The committee recommends
that $116.4 million be transferred from Air Craft Procurement,
Air Force line 75.

Environmental awareness for unmanned systems

The budget request included $169.0 million in PE 35206F for
development of advanced airborne reconnaissance systems
technologies, such as sensors, data links, targeting networks,
and quick reaction capabilities, in support of both manned and
unmanned reconnaissance platforms.
Today, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems rely almost
entirely upon the Global Positioning System (GPS)-based
navigation systems. While such navigation systems have worked
well for UAVs to this point, there is the risk that future
operations could be thwarted by foes using GPS denial
techniques. A navigation system that would operate with an
awareness of the environment aboard could be relied upon to
operate in GPS-denied environments, and could allow UAVs to
operate over longer missions by having them automatically adapt
their flight profiles to the prevailing conditions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.0
million for developing an architecture for UAV avionics
software systems that would permit UAVs to operate with an
awareness of environmental conditions and automatically adapt
to those conditions.

Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance Program of Record

The budget request included $78.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 35206F for
the Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance Program of Record (WAAS
POR).
The administration plans to issue the request for proposals
(RFP) for the WAAS POR in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2010, and to award a development contract in the third quarter
of fiscal year 2011.
The committee concludes that this schedule is premature for
the following reasons. The Department of Defense (DOD) has
operational experience with WAAS imagery systems only through
early versions of the Army Constant Hawk and Marine Corps/Air
Force Angel Fire programs. These systems' limitations are
significant in the areas of resolution, frame rate, area of
coverage, night time performance, and timeliness. In addition,
the analytic tools, communications, storage and retrieval
capabilities to support these and subsequent quick-reaction
capabilities (QRC) remain limited. Operations research studies
sponsored by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
and the Joint Staff have concluded that the benefits of these
early WAAS systems are limited. These studies suggest the
possibility that substantially improved WAAS systems could be
more valuable for the ``find-fix-finish,'' forensic analysis,
and force overwatch missions could be more valuable, with
larger coverage areas, resolution, frame rate, and so forth,
but this has not been demonstrated.
DOD will soon deploy several additional WAAS QRCs that, if
properly resourced and supported, will answer the questions
about value and illuminate requirements for any future program
of record. Forward-deployed commanders and senior DOD officials
are eager to see these QRCs deployed. These include the first
increment of Gorgon Stare, the Blue Devil block I, the second
version of Constant Hawk, and a very capable, small form-factor
WAAS camera for the Army and Marine Corps Shadow unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV). In addition, soon after these
deployments, DOD will deploy the second increment of Gorgon
Stare and Blue Devil Bock II, each with the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Autonomous Realtime Ground
Ubiquitous Surveillance (ARGUS) camera, which will approach or
match the draft requirements for the WAAS POR in the visible
spectrum.
DARPA has initiated two additional rapid development
projects directly relevant to the WAAS mission. One is Wide-
Area Network Detection (WAND) that will pair the ARGUS camera
with real-time signals intelligence and geolocation
capabilities. The other is an advanced infrared sensor that
will match the daytime capabilities of the current ARGUS
camera.
The Blue Devil Block I QRC will also test the operational
value of real-time WAAS imagery coupled with precision SIGINT
and high-resolution full-motion video, and networked with other
sensors. Block II will attempt to field capabilities similar,
and derived from, the DARPA WAND project.
Whereas the ARGUS-like area coverage may be necessary for
sizable urban areas, it is ``overkill'' for operations in rural
areas, and may well be too expensive to proliferate anyway. The
smaller, lighter, and cheaper Wide Focal Plane Array Camera
that the Navy is developing for the Shadow UAV appears to be
better suited for operations in rural areas and where there is
a potential need for large numbers of systems.
In light of this large number of innovative, near-term WAAS
programs heading for trial in Afghanistan, and the considerable
uncertainties remaining about WAAS requirements and benefits,
the committee is not willing to commit to a near-term locking
in of WAAS POR requirements. Indeed, the QRC efforts of the
Army, Air Force, Navy, and DARPA appear likely to continue to
innovate and to meet the evolving needs of forces deployed in
Afghanistan and elsewhere. The committee is more inclined to
buttress and enhance these ongoing QRC efforts to ensure that
deployed forces are adequately supported.
In that regard, the committee notes that the Gorgon Stare
Increment II program is short of funds for the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to provide necessary
processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED). The same is
true for the Blue Devil Block II.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of
$15.0 million for the WAAS POR, a reduction of $63.7 million
from the request. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends an increase of $22.5 million in PE 35102BQ, line
213, for NGA WAAS PED. The committee's recommendation would
defer issuance of an RFP and contract award for the WAAS POR
for at least 1 year.

Global Positioning System augmentation

The budget request included $446.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, for the Global
Positioning System III space vehicle in PE 35265F line 212. The
committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to study the
idea of using mini-GPS satellites to augment the coverage of
GPS III and heritage GPS satellites. The committee believes
that there is a possibility that a mix of 24 GPS III satellites
and 6 or more mini-GPS satellites could provide additional
coverage in areas where it is difficult to acquire a GPS signal
such as mountainous areas and urban areas. It is also possible
that additional mini-GPS satellites could fill any gaps in GPS
coverage caused by on-orbit failures of a GPS satellite.
The mini-GPS satellites would be small satellites using one
of many existing small commercial satellite buses with L1, L2,
and L5 signals only, and no additional capabilities. The
committee directs the Air Force to review the possibility of
using mini-GPS satellites and to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees setting forth the results of
the review no later than December 1, 2010. The report should
include an estimate of the cost of each mini-GPS satellite.

Global Positioning System operating control segment

The budget request included $828.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35265F line
212 for Global Positioning System III (GPS III) including
$381.9 million for the operating control segment (OCX).
The committee believes that the funds for the OCX should
remain in PE 63423F line 33, where the funds where appropriated
in fiscal year 2010 and separate from the funds for development
of the GPS III space vehicle. The committee recommends a $381.9
million reduction in line 212 and an increase in line 33 to
effect the transfer.

Joint Space Operation Center System

The budget request included $132.7 million for the Joint
Space Operation Center (JSpOC) system in Research, Development,
Testing, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35614F line 213. The
JSpOC system is focused on upgrading the ability of the JSpOC
to track, monitor, predict, and to respond in real time to
events in space. The committee recommends an additional $6.0
million to continue the Karnac study, which is a joint Air
Force and Department of Energy National Laboratory effort to
utilize and modify existing capabilities developed to support
the nuclear weapons program to improve the JSpOC capabilities,
including using nontraditional data and three dimensional
modeling and simulation capability. This is the second of a 2-
year program. The committee urges the Air Force to include
funds for the last year of Karnac in the fiscal year 2012
budget request.

Nuclear detonation detection system

The budget request included $72.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35913F line
215 for the nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection system to
detect, locate, and report any nuclear detonations in the
atmosphere or in space. The committee recommends an additional
$30.0 million to integrate the Space and Atmospheric Burst
Reporting System (SABRS) on the fourth Space-based Infrared
System Geosynchronous satellite (SBIRS GEO-4). SABRS is the
follow-on to the NUDET system currently on the Defense
Satellite Program satellites. The SABRS NUDET sensors were to
be on all SBIRS GEO satellites. Although there are plans for
initial SABRS sensors to be on other satellites there is no
plan for the fourth SABRS sensor. In 2007, the Air Force
committed to integrating the third SABRS sensor on the GEO-3
satellite but later decided not to fund integration of any
SABRS sensors on any SIBRS GEO satellites. The additional funds
will ensure the SABRS NUDET sensor is integrated on the SBIRS
GEO-4 satellite.

Defense-wide

Cognitive computing

The budget request included $90.1 million in PE 62304E for
cognitive computing, including $9.0 million for the development
of a social networking site for veterans. The committee
recommends a reduction of $9.0 million to terminate this
specific project since its activities do not appear to align
themselves with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's
vision of addressing challenging problems. Furthermore, such
activities, if truly deemed necessary, should be undertaken by
either a service or an appropriate agency that has the
necessary policy and legal expertise to ensure personal privacy
and the confidentiality of health data on such a site.

Advanced chem-bio protective materials

The budget request included $169.3 million in PE 62384BP
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but no
funds to develop advanced non-woven chemical and biological
protective materials. The committee recommends an increase of
$1.5 million in PE 62384BP for development of non-woven
advanced materials that are capable of protection and defeat
against airborne chemical and biological agents and toxins.
Such materials would have application for both individual and
collective protection missions.

Chemical and biological infrared detector

The budget request included $169.3 million in PE 62384BP
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but
included no funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection
technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 62384BP to continue development and
miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for
chemical and biological agents. The objective is to demonstrate
a functional prototype that operates at high speed and
sensitivity with low false alarm rates. Such a system could
reduce the logistical burden compared to other technologies.

Department of Defense Research & Engineering Cyber security activities

The budget request included two new budget lines for cyber
security activities within Department of Defense Research &
Engineering (DDR&E): $10.0 million in PE 62668D8Z for Cyber
Security Research and $10.0 million in PE 63668D8Z for Cyber
Security Advanced Technology Development. The committee notes
the broad range of cyber security-related activities in the
Department, including the services and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the lack of more
coordination across these entities.
The committee is concerned that DDR&E perceives the need to
develop its own funding lines instead of working with the
Department of Defense Office for Networks and Information
Integration to coordinate and influence the services' and
DARPA's activities in this arena. Hence, the committee
recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in each of the above
program element lines.

Weapons of mass destruction analysis reachback tool

The budget request included $212.7 million in PE 62718BR
for research and development of weapons of mass destruction
defeat technologies. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million in PE 62718BR for development of a decision-making
and analysis tool for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to
provide rapid analysis of chemical, biological, or radiological
events to combatant commanders. The number of such reachback
requests from combatant commands has increased significantly
over the past several years, and there is a need for improved
analysis and planning capabilities.

Non-lethal weapons technology

The budget request included $26.5 million in PE 1160401BB
for Special Operations Technology Development. However, no
funding was included for development of non-lethal weapons
technology. Non-lethal weapons provide increased capabilities
to special operations forces to engage and immobilize personnel
and vehicles with minimal risk of significant injury or damage
to the target. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
has identified a $3.0 million shortfall in funding for
development of non-lethal weapons technologies for special
operations specific missions and target sets.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
the development of non-lethal weapons technologies for the U.S.
Special Operations Command.

Combating terrorism technologies

The budget request included $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z
for combating terrorism technology support. The committee notes
that improvised explosive devices continue to be a primary
weapon of choice in attempted and successful acts of terrorism
in the United States, against its friends and allies, and
against our uniformed and civilian personnel in theater. In
order to promote the development of advanced blast resistant
construction materials and buildings, the committee recommends
an increase of $2.5 million for impact and blast loading
laboratory testing technologies.

Foreign language correlation and translation

The budget request included $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z to
develop and deliver capabilities that address needs and
requirements with direct operational application to combating
terrorism. Part of these efforts include technologies to
capture, translate, and correlate information in multiple
foreign languages. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in this account for activities related to these
efforts.

Reconnaissance and data exploitation system

The budget request included $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z
for development of technologies to support combating terrorism,
but included no funding to continue development of a
reconnaissance and data exploitation system.
The Department of Defense (DOD) needs improved
intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) tools.
With the rapidly increasing and pervasive deployment of
unmanned, limited payload ISR platforms such as unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV), the need for minimal size, weight, and power
ISR sensor systems is paramount.
DOD has been developing a reconnaissance and data
exploitation (REX) system that will allow sensors systems to
fuse the output of hyperspectral imaging sensors and other
electro-optic (EO) sensors and achieve integrated real time
target detection capability. Because of its limited demands on
platforms for space and weight, the REX payload promises to be
able to integrate into a wide variety of airborne and ground-
based platforms whose limited payload capacities have precluded
such an option. In particular, REX will allow the rapidly
expanding fleets of small military UAVs to: (1) take advantage
of the powerful automated target detection inherent in
multispectral sensors; and (2) enable sensor operators to cue
high resolution EO sensors to support target identification.
Completing development of the REX system should permit DOD to
take better advantage of existing technologies, which should
reduce the time needed to deploy capabilities to support the
combatant commanders and also reduce the costs of doing so.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $7.0
million for developing the REX system.

Plant-based vaccine development

The budget request included $177.1 million in PE 63384BP
for chemical and biological defense advanced development, but
no funds for using plants to produce vaccines against
biological threats. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million in PE 63384BP for plant-based vaccine development,
including a potential vaccine against multiple threat agents.
The committee is aware of significant progress made by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in demonstrating the
rapid production of candidate vaccines using plants. Advancing
this potential could permit production of vaccines quickly
after a biological threat or disease first appears.

Defense Logistics Agency energy research

The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 63712S for
generic logistics technology demonstrations. The Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) is responsible for acquiring and
managing all of the fuel required by the military. The DLA
energy readiness research and development program has thrust
areas that include research on alternative energy, including
fuel cells and the conversion of waste and biomass into fuels.
Noting the strategic importance of reducing the military's
dependency on fossil fuels and in support of these objectives,
the committee recommends an additional: $4.0 million for
biofuels research, $1.5 million for research on the conversion
of biomass into logistics fuels, $8.0 million to continue the
vehicle fuel cell and logistics program, and $2.0 million to
accelerate the evaluation process of green products, primarily
in the biofuel sector.
The committee also recommends an additional $1.0 million to
continue to improve the use of radio-frequency identification
technology for better tracking across the DLA supply chain.

Printed circuit board industrial assessment

The budget request included $402.8 million in PE 63890C for
ballistic missile defense enabling technologies, including
$36.6 million for the Producibility and Manufacturing
Technology project, but it included no funds to support the
Department of Defense (DOD) Executive Agent for Printed Circuit
Board Technology. This Executive Agent position was created
pursuant to section 256 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417) and is
part of a partnership between the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
and the Navy. The Executive Agent is intended to support the
needs of DOD for assured high quality printed circuit boards in
a variety of critical weapon systems. The committee directs
that, of the funds available in PE 63890C, MDA use up to $2.0
million to support the Executive Agent to conduct an industrial
capabilities assessment of the printed circuit board industrial
sector, including the supply chain, to meet future DOD
technology needs. The Executive Agent shall provide the
industrial capabilities assessment to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

U.S.-Israeli short-range ballistic missile defense

The budget request included $121.7 million in PE 63913C for
U.S.-Israeli cooperative ballistic missile defense programs,
including $46.7 million for co-development of a short-range
ballistic missile defense system called ``David's Sling Weapon
System.'' This system is intended to provide an affordable
defense of Israel against short-range missiles and long-range
rockets of the type fired by Hezbollah from Lebanese territory
in the summer of 2006. The United States is co-managing the
development of the system to ensure that it is compatible with
U.S. missile defense systems and to provide an option for the
U.S. military to procure the system in the future, if needed.
The committee recognizes that the threat to Israel from such
short-range missiles and rockets has increased. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to accelerate
the development of the David's Sling short-range ballistic
missile defense system.
The budget request included no funds for the Israeli ``Iron
Dome'' short-range rocket defense system. However, in mid-May
of 2010, the Department of Defense requested that Congress
approve $205.0 million of fiscal year 2011 funds to accelerate
and expand Israeli procurement of the Iron Dome system. The
committee recommends an increase of $205.0 million in PE 63913C
for the Israeli Iron Dome system.

Corrosion control research

The budget request included $4.8 million in PE 64016D8Z for
corrosion programs. In support of Department of Defense efforts
to reduce maintenance costs due to corrosion, the committee
recommends an additional $3.0 million for corrosion research
activities.

Chem-bio defense system development and demonstration

The budget request included $407.1 million in PE 64384BP
for chemical and biological defense system development and
demonstration, but no funds to continue developing a don/doff
upgrade to the Joint Service Aircrew Mask (JSAM). The committee
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 64384BP to
continue developing a don/doff in-flight upgrade to the JSAM to
permit aircrews to put on the mask quickly in flight if there
is a chemical or biological threat present. This would obviate
the need for aircrews to wear the mask when it is not needed.
The committee understands from the Department of Defense
that there is a funding imbalance in Budget Activity 5 for the
Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative program. This
results in requested funds that are excess to need and also in
the wrong funding lines. Therefore, the committee recommends a
decrease of $15.0 million in PE 64384BP, and a transfer of a
total of $50.0 million to funding lines for Budget Activities
1, 2, and 3, as reflected in the funding tables, and as
indicated by the Department.

Defense Technical Information Center unjustified growth

The budget request included $61.1 million in PE 65801KA for
the Defense Technical Information Center. This budget request
represents an increase of $11.8 million over last year. The
committee notes that the budget justification material does not
adequately explain an increase of this amount and therefore
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million.

Center for Intelligence and Security Studies

The budget request for PE 301301L for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) within the General Defense Intelligence Program is
classified. The committee recommends authorization of $3.0
million above the requested amount to sustain DIA's program at
the Center for Intelligence and Security Studies to improve the
capability and quality of intelligence analysts and arranging
internships with security clearances in the intelligence
community.

Technology development for tactical unmanned aerial systems

The budget request included $16.3 million in PE 34210BB for
the development of new capabilities for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance, including technology upgrades
for tactical unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Tactical UASs are
used heavily by special operations personnel for situational
awareness and target acquisition. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million to continue development of
technologies to improve the capabilities of tactical UASs by
increasing payload, reducing noise signature, and improving
engine performance.

Wide-area aerial tactical situation awareness

The budget request included $16.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, in PE 34210BB
for Special Applications for Contingencies for the Special
Operations Command (SOCOM). The committee recommends an
authorization of $1.7 million above the requested amount to
assist SOCOM in integrating a new 413 megapixel wide-area
airborne surveillance (WAAS) camera system on SOCOM's Viking
400 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system. This camera and the
Viking 400 would provide a WAAS capability in between that
which is being demonstrated by the Navy on the Shadow UAV and
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the
military services on the Reaper UAV and other large platforms.

Center of excellence for geospatial science

The budget request included classified amounts in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, in PE 35102BQ
for the Defense Geospatial Intelligence Program. The committee
recommends authorization of an additional $1.0 million to
continue funding for the Center of Excellence for Geospatial
Science, which provides scientific support for the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency as well as education and
training for students seeking careers in the intelligence
community.

Industrial Base Innovation Fund and supply chain

The budget request included $21.8 million in PE 78011S for
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manufacturing technology
efforts. A February 2006 report by the Defense Science Board
regarding the Department of Defense's Manufacturing Technology
Program points out that manufacturing technology plays a
critical role in addressing development, acquisition, and
sustainment problems associated with advanced weapons programs
and recommended increased funding in this area.
The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million to
continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund program. The
committee directs that DLA, jointly with the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy, continue to make
investments in manufacturing research that address defense
industrial base shortfalls especially related to surge
production requirements and diminishing sources of defense
material. In addition, the committee also recommends an
additional $2.0 million in support of the Northwest
manufacturing initiative.
Furthermore, to improve supply chain efficiencies, the
committee recommends $1.5 million to PE 62705A to improve radio
frequency identification tracking devices.

Lithium ion battery safety research

The budget request included $13.9 million in PE 1160483BB
for the development of technologies for underwater systems used
by special operations forces. Lithium ion technology has shown
promise for reducing the size of batteries while also improving
their performance characteristics. However, lithium ion battery
technology needs additional development to improve safety for
use in underwater systems. The committee recommends an increase
of $1.6 million for lithium ion battery safety research.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution issues

The budget request included $3.1 billion for the research
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). A key change in the portfolio was a 59
percent increase in basic research funding activities compared
to a 4 percent decrease in advanced technology development. The
committee notes that while an increase in basic research is
beneficial and reverses a trend that has affected the broader
national science and technology enterprise, it is concerned
that the ability to transition technology will be adversely
impacted unless there is a more appropriate balance between
basic research and advanced technology development. The
committee will be monitoring the impacts of this portfolio
adjustment over the coming year.
In addition, while DARPA's fiscal performance has notably
improved, the committee is still concerned about the timeliness
of sustained funding execution. The committee recommends a
reduction of $143.4 million from DARPA's overall budget to
reflect continuing concerns about timely and effective
execution of funds by the agency.

Items of Special Interest

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

The budget request included $1.5 billion in PE 63892C for
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) research and development,
and $94.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide, for the
procurement of eight Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) Block IB
interceptors for the Aegis BMD system. In addition, the budget
request includes funding in two new Aegis BMD-related funding
lines to support the new Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to
missile defense in Europe: $281.4 million in PE 64880C for
development of land-based SM-3 capabilities and $318.8 million
in PE 64881C for co-development, with Japan, of the SM-3 Block
IIA interceptor.
The Aegis BMD system is the centerpiece of the PAA to
missile defense in Europe, which will involve the deployment,
at sea and on land, of four increasingly capable variants of
the SM-3 interceptor (Blocks IA, IB, IIA, and IIB) over the
four phases of the PAA from 2011 to 2020. Given its inherent
mobility and flexibility, as well as its evolving capability to
defend against all ranges of ballistic missiles from nations
like Iran and North Korea, Aegis BMD will also be the core of
other regional missile defense architectures, for example in
the Middle East and East Asia.
The committee strongly supports the development, testing,
production, and deployment of operationally effective Aegis BMD
and SM-3 capabilities in sufficient numbers to support the
needs of regional combatant commanders and to implement the PAA
in Europe. However, the committee has several concerns relating
to the Aegis BMD program.
First, the committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) is focused on production of the SM-3 Block IB, and is not
planning production of more SM-3 IA interceptors. Consequently,
the supplier base for unique SM-3 IA components will soon no
longer be qualified to supply those components if needed in the
future. If there is a problem or delay with the development of
the SM-3 IB, a delay in the planned first flight test of the
SM-3 IB, or the test is not successful, it would create a
situation where no operational SM-3 interceptors (Block IA) can
be produced, at a time when increasing the interceptor
inventory is essential. The committee directs the Department of
Defense (DOD) to consider what actions could be taken to
mitigate this risk and expects DOD to take appropriate actions
to keep SM-3 IA suppliers qualified and able to produce
additional SM-3 IA if necessary, including the possibility of a
reprogramming action with fiscal year 2010 funds. The committee
is aware that MDA has studied a variety of such options and
that there are near-term mitigation options available,
including procurement of Block IA kill vehicle kits or
additional Block IA interceptors, if action is taken before the
suppliers go out of qualification.
Second, the committee notes that the planned production
schedule for the SM-3 IB has a steep increase between fiscal
year 2011 with 8 interceptors and fiscal year 2012 with 66
interceptors, an eightfold increase. Although the committee
supports the objective of fielding adequate numbers of SM-3
Block IB interceptors after testing has demonstrated their
capability, this will be a challenging ramp-up in the
production rate. The committee is concerned that this planned
production increase may cause unanticipated production
problems, including production delays, similar to the
experience with far lower production rates for the Block IA
interceptor. The committee urges MDA to consider risk
mitigation options for this steep production increase,
including the possibility of budgeting some research and
development funds to cope with production challenges.
Third, the committee is concerned that the development
effort for the SM-3 Block IIB missile is not currently being
managed by the Aegis BMD program office, but rather within the
MDA technology development program office. The significant
milestones and capabilities achieved to date with the Aegis BMD
program have resulted in large part from the close
collaboration between the Aegis BMD program office and the
Navy, which has more than 30 years of experience in the
development, testing, fielding, and operation of the Standard
Missile series and the Aegis Weapon System. The committee
believes it is essential for this collaborative relationship to
continue with respect to the SM-3 Block IIB program, and
directs MDA to ensure that the Aegis BMD program office has the
central role in the management of the Block IIB program.
Finally, the current plan for deployment of the SM-3 Block
IIB interceptor would be limited to deployment on land because
of shipboard safety concerns related to the anticipated use of
hypergolic fuels in the Block IIB interceptor. The committee
directs MDA and the Navy to conduct an analysis of options for
alternative technologies or practices that would permit the
deployment of the SM-3 Block IIB on Aegis BMD ships, as well as
on land, and to report to the congressional defense committees
on the results of this analysis not later than April 30, 2011.

Ballistic missile defense overview

The budget request included $9.9 billion for ballistic
missile defense, including $8.4 billion for the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA), and $1.5 billion for Army and related missile
defense programs. This represents an increase of nearly $700.0
million over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2010.
The committee commends the administration for several
important recent initiatives in ballistic missile defense, all
of which are consistent with previous guidance from Congress.
In September 2009, President Obama announced his decision
to accept the unanimous recommendation of the Secretary of
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to pursue the Phased
Adaptive Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe. This
approach, centered on the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
system and its Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor, will
provide timely defensive capability against the existing and
evolving Iranian ballistic missile threat to Europe and the
potential threat to the United States in the future. (Several
Aegis BMD program management concerns are described elsewhere
in this report.)
In February 2010, the Department of Defense released the
report of the first-ever Ballistic Missile Defense Review
(BMDR), which was required by section 234 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
initiated by the committee. The BMDR provided a comprehensive
review of U.S. missile defense strategy, policies, plans, and
programs.
The BMDR established six policy priorities that are guiding
the current and planned missile defense program: 1) the United
States will continue to defend the Homeland against the threat
of limited ballistic missile attacks; 2) the United States will
defend against regional missile threats to U.S. forces, while
protecting allies and partners and enabling them to defend
themselves; 3) before new capabilities are deployed, they must
undergo testing that enables assessment under realistic
operational conditions; 4) the commitment to new capabilities
must be fiscally sustainable over the long-term; 5) U.S. BMD
capabilities must be flexible enough to adapt as threats
change; and 6) the United States will seek to lead expanded
international efforts for missile defense.
As Secretary of Defense Gates stated in his letter of
transmittal of the BMDR report, ``If fully implemented in
coming years, the plans reflected here will significantly
improve the security of the United States and its allies while
also enhancing international stability.'' The committee shares
this view.
Consistent with the BMDR, and in order to implement the PAA
and to fulfill the missile defense needs of regional combatant
commanders, the budget request included funds to increase the
planned inventory of SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) interceptors, as Congress had previously
directed. The current plan is for 436 SM-3 Block IA and IB
interceptors by 2015 and for 9 THAAD batteries with 431
interceptors by 2015, an increase of nearly 250 interceptors
above plans announced for fiscal year 2010. This represents a
significant enhancement in the capacity to defend our forward
deployed forces, allies, and partners against the existing
threat of short- and medium-range missiles and against the
evolving regional missile threat. According to Secretary Gates,
this effort is a ``top priority.''
The budget request also included funds for new sensor
programs to enhance the performance of the Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS) against missiles of all ranges. One such
initiative is the Airborne Infrared (ABIR) program, which seeks
to develop unmanned aerial vehicles with the ability to provide
early and accurate missile tracking data to regional missile
defense systems like Aegis BMD at sea and on land. Such an ABIR
capability could permit early intercepts of missiles in their
ascent phase of flight, before they can deploy countermeasures.
It would also improve defense against attacks with numerous
missiles, such as those practiced in recent years by North
Korea and Iran.
Another new sensor initiative is the Precision Tracking
Space System (PTSS). The MDA concept is that an operational
low-earth orbit (LEO) infrared satellite, such as PTSS, would
improve significantly the ability to track, throughout their
post-boost flight, missiles from countries such as Iran and
North Korea. The precision tracking capability that could be
provided by such a LEO satellite constellation could enable
earlier interceptor launches and earlier intercepts of missiles
in flight, including against numerous missiles, thus improving
defensive capability significantly.
The MDA has adopted a novel approach to developing
prototypes for the PTSS that should ensure mature technical
readiness levels are achieved before any decision is made to
procure operational satellites. This approach includes support
from government laboratories and the Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center. Since an operational PTSS system would
have to be part of the overhead persistent infrared
architecture operated by the Air Force, an early and close
relationship with the Air Force is necessary to ensure a smooth
transition to the Air Force, and MDA appears to be planning
such a relationship. The committee expects an operational PTSS
to be compatible with the Air Force multi-mission space
operation center protocols. The committee believes MDA and the
Air Force should explore concepts wherein the MDA would control
the prototype payloads and the Air Force would control the
prototype satellites.
The committee supports the approach adopted by MDA for
establishing requirements and developing PTSS prototypes, and
believes that MDA should consider taking advantage of the
platform potential that a PTSS prototype would provide and
explore the option of including a technically mature visible-
band surveillance sensor, in addition to the infrared sensor,
as part of the prototyping effort--as long as it would not
delay or otherwise interfere with the PTSS prototype
development effort.
As stated in the BMDR, because of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system deployed in Alaska and
California, ``the United States is currently protected against
the threat of a limited ICBM [intercontinental ballistic
missile] attack.'' In addition to the 30 operational Ground-
Based Interceptors (GBIs) planned for the system, the
Department is planning to complete installation of 7 spare
silos in Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely, Alaska, as a hedge
against the potential future expansion of a long-range missile
threat from a country such as North Korea or Iran. The
Department does not intend to procure operational interceptors
for these silos, but would have the option of emplacing
stockpiled test or spare interceptors in them in the future, as
a contingency operational capability, in case the need should
arise.
As part of Phase 1 of the PAA, the Department is planning
to deploy a forward-based THAAD-type radar, designated AN/TPY-
2, in southern Europe in the 2011 timeframe. In addition to
enhancing the European regional defensive capability of the PAA
systems, this deployment will provide substantially improved
and earlier missile tracking information of potential future
long-range Iranian missile launches. This improved information
would enhance the performance of the GMD system against such a
potential future Iranian missile threat to the United States
and could permit the GMD system to operate in a ``shoot-look-
shoot'' mode, rather than firing two GBIs at each target
missile. This could effectively double the number of potential
Iranian threat missiles that the existing GMD system could
engage.
The committee notes that section 232 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Department to submit to the congressional
defense committees, at the time of the fiscal year 2011 budget
request, a report containing an assessment and plan for the GMD
system. This report was to provide information on the
Department's plans for maintaining and sustaining the GMD
system through its service life. The committee is disappointed
that the required report was not submitted on time and still
has not been received as of mid-May. The intent of Congress in
requiring the report at the same time as the budget request was
to ensure that the report would be available for consideration
during deliberations on the fiscal year 2011 budget request. By
failing to submit the report, even within 3 months of the
deadline, the Department has not only failed to meet the intent
of Congress, but has prevented the committee from being able to
consider the results of the report. The committee expects more
timely responses to requirements in law.
One of the major policy initiatives of the BMDR is the
requirement for operationally realistic testing to demonstrate
the capability of missile defense systems before they are
deployed. This ``fly before you buy'' approach is long overdue
and is consistent both with longstanding congressional
direction and normal acquisition practice for Major Defense
Acquisition Programs. In order to ensure adequate testing of
its systems, MDA has created a new Integrated Master Test Plan
(IMTP) that takes the evaluation-based testing approach long
recommended by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
This approach seeks to provide the specific information needed
to validate and verify models and simulations necessary to
understand and have confidence in the performance of the BMDS.
For the first time, the IMTP includes plans for dedicated
operational tests to demonstrate the capability of missile
defense systems. The committee believes this is an important
and necessary step in fielding effective missile defense
systems.
The committee notes that the MDA targets program is still a
major concern for the missile defense test program, and for the
successful development of effective missile defense systems. A
number of notable target failures, such as the air-launched
target for THAAD flight test 11, have been very costly and have
caused significant delays. The committee believes that MDA
needs to further improve the quality, reliability, and
affordability of its targets.
The committee notes its serious concern with contractor
quality control problems experienced by MDA. The committee
commends MDA for focusing on quality problems and encourages
MDA to continue taking a strong approach to demanding and
enforcing quality control with its contractors, including
seeking defects clauses and warranties in any new contracts,
and any other appropriate means of holding contractors
accountable for their performance. The committee believes it is
unacceptable for contractors to produce components and systems
that do not meet the quality standards required to provide
effective defense against ballistic missiles, and that the
government should not pay for defective or inferior products.

Coordination of the Minerva Program, the Human Social Cultural Behavior
Modeling Program, and Strategic Multi-layer Assessment efforts

The committee commends the Department of Defense for
investing in research activities related to improving its basic
understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and
political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic
importance to the Nation, as well as understanding the dynamics
of terrorist and other irregular warfare actors. Currently,
activities related to this area that are being pursued include
the Minerva Program, the Human Social Cultural Behavior
Modeling Program, as well as Strategic Multi-layer Assessment
efforts.
However, the committee notes that given the broad range of
activities and the importance of this work, it is not clear
that appropriate coordination and collaboration is occurring to
maximize synergies between various research communities and to
avoid unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, it is not clear how
the results of these efforts will directly inform and impact
broader counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies,
psychological operations and other counter influence activities
and efforts to counter violent extremism.
Hence, the committee requests that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy and the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering submit a report by September 1, 2011, to the
congressional defense committees describing coordinating
mechanisms between the above mentioned activities and plans for
how the results of the Department's research efforts will be
used to aid counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies,
psychological operations and other counter influence plans, and
efforts to counter violent extremism.

Defense Science Board study on cyber research and development

Section 931 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required that the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD (AT&L)) provide a report by March 1, 2010, which has not
yet been delivered, on a strategy for organizing the research
and development organizations within the Department of Defense
to develop ``leap-ahead'' cyber operations.
The committee directs that the Defense Science Board (DSB)
conduct an independent assessment for the USD (AT&L) of this
strategy and its implementation over the course of fiscal year
2011, and report to the USD (AT&L) by February 1, 2012. The
committee directs that the DSB also examine the research
budgets and plans for cyberwarfare and cybersecurity of the
military services and the defense agencies and evaluate whether
the level of investment and the planned activities will meet
the future needs of the Department. The committee intends that
this report shall be available for congressional review no
later than March 1, 2012.

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation personnel issues

The committee is aware that test and evaluation activities
have increased in complexity and scope over the past several
years. As the demands of these test and evaluation activities
have increased, the demands have also increased on the
activities of the Office of the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation (DOT&E).
The committee is concerned that, as test and evaluation
demands have increased on DOT&E, their personnel capabilities
have not kept pace with the demands. Therefore, the committee
directs DOT&E to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 15, 2011, containing a DOT&E
strategic workforce plan, including DOT&E personnel
requirements, allocations, resources, and plans, to manage the
increased complexity and demands of test and evaluation
activities performed by DOT&E.

High speed encryption

Both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) are developing very high-speed
encryption technology. The NSA approach is significantly less
expensive and will be fielded soon. The more expensive and
longer-term NRO approach would provide on-demand protocol
agility. The committee's examination thus far of this issue
casts doubt on the need for such agility and therefore the need
for the large NRO investment. The administration has assured
the committee that a joint NRO-NSA study is underway to
determine what capabilities are required in the future. The
committee directs that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Networks and Information Integration, in coordination with the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, assume
oversight of this study and provide a report to the
congressional defense and intelligence committees by February
1, 2011.

Integrated Sensor is Structure

The budget request included $303.1 million in PE 63286E for
Advanced Aerospace Systems. Of that amount, $103.4 million
supports persistent or responsive intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) programs, including Vulture and
Integrated Sensor is Structure (ISIS). As noted last year, the
committee is concerned that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, and the military departments have numerous persistent
or responsive ISR capabilities in development and transition
plans for a number of DARPA programs to the services are not
clear.
In particular, the committee is concerned about the future
direction of ISIS. While the committee understands the vital
need for a long-duration, large aperture capability, the
transition plan for ISIS is being called into question with
recent Air Force funding actions. Hence, the committee will
continue to monitor the progress of this program in order to
ensure that this operational gap is addressed in the most cost-
effective manner.
In addition, the committee notes that the Department of
Defense (DOD) is pursuing a wide variety of air vehicles,
classified as aerostats, airships, and rigid aeroshell variable
buoyancy vehicles, and directs DOD to provide the congressional
defense committees with a report by March 1, 2011, that reviews
the status and future plans of these programs to ensure that
the most cost-effective systems are being pursued and that the
highest priority science and technology challenges for
persistent unmanned capabilities are being addressed.

Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft prognostics

The budget request included $929.3 million in PE 65500N for
the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program that is
developing a replacement for the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft.
In the MMA program, the Navy is developing the P-8A aircraft, a
derivative of the commercial B-737 aircraft.
As a part of the overall P-8 development program, the Navy
is funding prognostics and health management technologies that
are included in a performance based service specification
contract.
Development of the overall P-8 program appears to be
proceeding well, but the committee is concerned that the Navy
may be giving insufficient attention and funding to the
prognostics and health management technologies for this
aircraft. The committee has heard allegations that the Navy may
have diverted funds budgeted for these programs to solve other
emerging problems. If the Navy were to forego embedding such
technologies in the new production aircraft, it will have
little opportunity to add them later.
The committee believes that diverting funds from
prognostics and health management development activities would
be incredibly short-sighted. Such a diversion may help solve
near-term problems with other parts of the development program,
but that runs the risk of saddling the fleet with an aircraft
that would be more difficult and more expensive to maintain for
decades to come. The Navy should take action to ensure that the
MMA program and other new aircraft programs adopt advanced
preventative and predictive technologies to the maximum extent
practicable, in order to promote safety for our aircrews and
enhance mission readiness of the aircraft.

Multiple User Objective System

The budget request included $405.7 million for the Multiple
User Objective System (MUOS) in Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Navy, PE 33109N line 194. The MUOS provides
narrowband ultra high frequency (UHF) satellite communications
capability to a wide variety of users. The committee notes that
the MUOS program is more than 2 years behind schedule and that
several of the current UHF satellites on orbit have lost
capability and capacity or failed earlier than expected. The
committee has been concerned for several years that there will
be a gap or decreased availability of UHF communications.
Congress has supported efforts to develop additional on
orbit UHF capacity including the idea of hosted payloads.
Although the Navy started a hosted payload program in 2008 to
provide additional UHF capacity, it was cancelled in 2009. As a
result the Navy was forced to look at ways to augment UHF
capability using existing satellite systems. While this
exercise has been productive there is still not enough UHF
capacity. As a result the Navy finally decided to explore again
commercial options for UHF capability and recently issued a
request for sources to provide that capability. The committee
fully supports long-term UHF augmentation not only to protect
against further slips in the MUOS program but also to protect
any additional unforeseen failures of existing capacity.
If, in reviewing the responses to the sources-sought
notice, the Navy determines that it needs additional authority
or other assistance the committee urges the Navy to inform it
promptly.

Report on implementation of industry standardized hardware and software
interfaces

The committee is interested in exploring opportunities to
ensure that various aerospace and other systems adopt and use
industry standard interfaces. This would include common
hardware and software modules to increase compatibility and
move to more plug and play like concepts. The committee directs
the Air Force to review options for implementing a modular,
scalable, and rapidly deployable avionics standard for
aerospace vehicles and report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
later than March 1, 2011, on the feasibility and affordability
of such an approach.

Test Resources Management Center

In fiscal year 2010, the committee recommended increases to
PE 64759A and PE 64759F to strengthen the Department of
Defense's test and evaluation capabilities. The committee
understands that the Test Resources Management Center (TRMC) is
performing a review of the service's test and evaluation
investments and looks forward to the results of such a review
with the submission of the fiscal year 2012 budget. The
committee also encourages the TRMC to discuss any issues with
its workforce that may be associated with increased testing and
evaluation requirements across the Department. The committee
continues to encourage the services to continue to work more
closely with the TRMC in order for them to perform their
responsibilities regarding oversight and management of the
Department's test and evaluation enterprise that is critically
important for the successful fielding of weapon systems.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Explanation of tables

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in
connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
Minnesota (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to transfer not more than $5,620,000
in fiscal year 2011 to the Environmental Protection Agency's
Hazardous Substance Superfund to reimburse the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for past costs relating to the response
actions performed at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
located in Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Established in 1941, the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
(TCAAP) produced various types of ammunition for about the next
30 years. In 1983, the TCAAP was placed on the National
Priority List and is currently an active Superfund site. In
1987, the Department of the Army entered into an agreement with
the EPA and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that covered
the cleanup project at the TCAAP. The agreement provided for,
among other things, the recovery of expenses incurred by the
EPA. Specifically, the agreement provided that the EPA would
submit to the Army accountings for ``costs incurred in
performing oversight of this Agreement and costs of response
actions'' related to the TCAAP cleanup. Over the ensuring
years, EPA submitted to the Army various such accountings for
costs incurred pursuant to this agreement. Despite the terms of
the agreement, however, the Army has not reimbursed the EPA
apparently because the Army lacked the authority to transfer
the funds.
The provision would authorize the Army to transfer not more
than $5,620,000 for costs incurred by the EPA and is intended
by the committee to fully satisfy the costs incurred by EPA
related to the cleanup at TCAAP pursuant to the terms of the
agreement.
Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated penalties in
connection with Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer not more than $153,000 to
the Hazardous Substance Superfund for the payment of a
stipulated penalty assessed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on June 12, 2008, against Naval Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine, for failure of the Navy to timely sample
certain monitoring wells pursuant to a schedule included in a
Federal Facility Agreement entered into between the Navy and
the EPA for Naval Air Station, Brunswick on October 19, 1990.
Requirements relating to Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry investigation of exposure to drinking water
contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to take certain actions to ensure that
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
has access to all documents, records, and electronic data that
is relevant to studies of contamination and remediation of
drinking water systems at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The
provision also would restrict the use of funds for the
administrative processing or adjudication of claims filed
regarding water contamination at Camp Lejeune and would require
the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional
defense committees when disputes between the Navy and the ATSDR
cannot be resolved within 60 days of the dispute arising.
Commission on Military Environmental Exposures (sec. 314)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to establish a Commission on Military Environmental
Exposures that would provide expert advice to the President and
Congress on exposures of current and former members of the
armed forces and their dependants to environmental hazards on
military installations. The Commission would consist of nine
members appointed by the President, after consultation with the
leadership of the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans
Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives. The
Commission would have 1 year after convening to review the
matter and report to the President. The President would then
submit the report to the designated congressional committees
within 90 days.
The committee believes that this Commission is needed to
provide independent, expert advice to the President and
Congress on this important issue. The need for the Commission
has been demonstrated by a number of cases of potential
environmental exposure at military installations. For example,
at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina,
military members and their families may have been exposed to
contaminated drinking water from wells on the base in the early
1980s and earlier. Since then, the Department of the Navy and
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have been
struggling to determine the nature and extent of such exposures
and whether and to what degree service members and their
families stationed at Camp Lejeune during that period might
have developed adverse health conditions as a result of the
exposure. In another example, service members and families
stationed at Naval Air Facility (NAF), Atsugi, Japan, may have
been exposed to hazardous air emissions from a privately-owned
waste incinerator located just outside the fence line of the
base. As with the Camp Lejeune situation, the possible
exposures have been studied and subsequent illnesses have been
documented, but the connection between the exposures and the
subsequent health conditions remains largely unknown. In both
the Camp Lejeune and the NAF Atsugi situations, the facts
indicate exposure to some level of environmental hazard and
members of the military populations who lived at those
installations report various adverse health conditions. What
remains elusive is the extent to which those exposures caused
or contributed to the health condition and whether there are
better ways for the Federal Government to respond to, address
and, as warranted, provide compensation or health benefits as a
remedy to these potential exposures.
As a result of these situations and others, and in
recognition of the likelihood that similar such situations will
arise in the future, the committee recommends this Commission
review the potential for exposure to environmental hazards at
military installations and to provide advice on how to handle
these matters in the future. The Commission would not be tasked
with providing recommendation or advice on specific exposures
at particular military installations, but would instead review
the broader issue of exposures at military installations
generally and make recommendations on how best to handle them,
including evaluating risk, addressing possible health concerns,
and responding to requests for redress. The provision would
also require the Commission to inventory those military
installations on the National Priority List and estimate the
magnitude of the exposures at those sites and the number of
people potentially exposed.
The provision expressly states that the Commission shall in
no way be interpreted to delay, encroach on, or impede any
studies, reviews, assessments, or remediation associated with
environmental hazards. Instead, the Commission's work should
proceed without affect on work being done in connection with
assessment and remedy for any specific military installation,
including Camp Lejeune and NAF Atsugi.

Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues

Depot level maintenance and recapitalization parts supply (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that requires a
report, no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, from the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA), on the status of the DLA Joint Logistics Operations
Center's drawdown, retrograde, and reset program for the
equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan. The report shall also
include: the status of the overall supply chain management of
repairing this materiel; the scope of operation to repair and
re-supply materiel to the military services, including
projected costs and lists of major components needed; the
current and projected timeline for the completion of the
drawdown, retrograde, and reset program in Iraq; the percentage
and level of expected refurbishment to take place in the United
States and the percentage and level of expected refurbishment
overseas; and a comprehensive assessment of parts management,
including a timeline of cumulative backlogs or parts on
backorder, impacts on projected manufacturing competition time,
and plans to reduce and minimize backlogs in parts
availability.

Subtitle D--Energy Security

Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
goals for the alternative aviation fuel initiative of the Air
Force. The provision would also require the submission of
reports by the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Defense
Science Board.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Additional limitation on indemnification of United States with respect
to articles and services sold by working-capital funded Army
industrial facilities and arsenals outside the Department of
Defense (sec. 341)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4543 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that
Army arsenals and industrial facilities can sell their products
and services outside the Department of Defense (DOD) on the
same terms and conditions as other industrial facilities of
DOD.
The committee expects the Army to use this authority to
enhance the core capabilities of the arsenals and industrial
facilities only in cases where the products or services are not
available from any commercial source in the United States and
the sale of such products or services outside of DOD is
consistent with the interests of national security.
Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 342)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI) authority for 1
fiscal year and awaits the findings of the comprehensive depot
study before making an informed decision on the future of ASPI.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) extended the ASPI for 1 year and is
currently set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2011. In the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and House of Representatives directed a
comprehensive depot study to assess a wide range of
manufacturing and depot maintenance activities to include ASPI.
The committee has yet to receive the completed report.
The committee notes that since Congress established ASPI in
2001 as a demonstration program for Army arsenals, the program
has yet to sustain core capabilities of the arsenals and other
industrial facilities and by extension enhance military
readiness. ASPI has instead been primarily used to rent excess
arsenal administrative office space to commercial tenants,
which tends to be more profitable than leasing manufacturing
space, according to detailed analysis conducted by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
A November 2009 report from the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that of the 44 commercial tenants on Army
industrial facilities, only 4 are engaged in activities that
have helped to strengthen the arsenals' core manufacturing
capabilities or related workforce skills.
The committee is very concerned that through July 2009, the
Army has received over $73.0 million for ASPI through
congressionally directed funds in annual appropriations and
authorization Acts. CBO analysis has revealed an annualized
real return-on-capital of 1.25 percent on obligations and 1.62
percent on outlays through 2008.
Furthermore, the November 2009 GAO report found that ``the
Army has missed an opportunity to ensure that program execution
is aligned with its own priorities because Army guidance does
not specify which of the authority's 11 purposes the Army
considers to be its highest priorities . . . the Army has not
established performance goals and measures for ASPI.''
The committee notes the Army has not developed guidance nor
incorporated the priorities identified in the conference report
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008, (Public Law 110-181) which encouraged the Army to
recruit more tenants that enhance the arsenals' core missions
and workforce skills. Furthermore, the November 2009 GAO report
found that ``while the Army has developed some metrics to
assess the program, existing metrics measure only the number of
ASPI contracts secured and cost savings or cost avoidance to
the Army, rather than the extent to which the program is making
progress toward achieving the broad goals represented by the
purposes established in the ASPI authority.''
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to determine the highest priorities among the 11 ASPI
purposes as a component of a comprehensive strategy to achieve
its desired results, establish performance goals for ASPI, and
establish outcome-focused performance metrics to assess the
progress the Army has made toward addressing the 11 ASPI
purposes, including securing tenants that could use any
existing skilled workforce and provide for the reemployment and
retraining of skilled manufacturing workers.
The committee directs that the aforementioned report be
delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than
90 days after the enactment of this act.
The committee remains concerned that the cost savings to
the Army have not been significant and continues to encourage
the Army to explore the use of other existing and readily
available authorities to accomplish the same goals as ASPI as
detailed in enclosure 2 of the November 2009 GAO report.
Four-year extension of authority to provide logistics support and
services for weapons systems contractors (sec. 343)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 365(g)(1) of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314; 10
U.S.C. 2302 note) by extending the September 30, 2010, sunset
to September 30, 2014.
The committee notes this provision would not change the
authorities already granted by Congress, but would simply
extend the program for 4 more years. This provision was
requested by the Department of Defense to allow continued
exploration of potential projects and to develop an evaluation
to be submitted to Congress as to whether the authorities
should be made permanent or allowed to expire.
The committee supports the Department's current emphasis on
competitive procurements to support major weapon systems and
concur there should be more opportunities available for the
Defense Logistics Agency to provide the efficient and effective
support envisioned by this program.
The committee notes this provision is budget neutral as it
does not impact amounts appropriated.
Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense property (sec.
344)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the sale or other disposition of Department of Defense (DOD)
property except in accordance with statutes and regulations
governing such property. If property is disposed of in
violation of this prohibition, the property would be subject to
seizure by appropriate law enforcement officials. The
appropriate federal district court would have jurisdiction to
determine whether property was improperly disposed of and is
subject to seizure.
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that sensitive and stolen U.S. military items are
available for purchase on the internet. Items offered for sale
included sensitive parts for F-14 fighters, chemical and
biological gear, night vision goggles, and infrared patches
used to identify U.S. troops on the battlefield. GAO also
reported that certain civilian store owners were acting as
conduits for defense-related property--including Kevlar vests,
flak jackets, and gas masks--that were likely stolen from the
military.
DOD has informed the committee that:

``. . . the hazards posed by improperly disposed DOD
property include the use, by Taliban fighters, of
American infrared uniform patches, available on the
internet, to avoid American attacks and get close to
American targets (Afghanistan, June 2009); the use of
stolen military uniforms by Al Qaeda to execute an
attack on the American Embassy in Yemen, resulting in
the death of sixteen people (September 2008); the use,
by insurgents in Karbala, Iraq, of American military
uniforms to enter a U.S. military compound, resulting
in the deaths of five American service members (January
2007); and the use of American military-grade
communications systems, available online, to coordinate
terrorist attacks in ten locations in Mumbai, India,
resulting in 173 deaths and 308 injuries (November
2008).''

The committee concludes that DOD needs effective statutory
authority to address the improper disposal of DOD property and
ensure the recovery of such property regardless of to whom it
was furnished and who was responsible for its improper
disposal.
Commercial sale of small arms ammunition in excess of military
requirements (sec. 345)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
available the commercial sale of small arms ammunition and
ammunition components in excess of military requirements,
including fired cartridge cases, which are not otherwise
prohibited from commercial sale or certified by the Secretary
of Defense as unserviceable or unsafe.
The provision also specifies that no small arms ammunition
and ammunition components in excess of military requirements
may be made available for commercial sale under this provision
before such ammunition and ammunition components are offered
for transfer or purchase, as authorized by law, to another
Federal department or agency, or for sale to state and local
law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, and emergency
management agencies pursuant to section 2576 of title 10,
United States Code.
Modification of authorities relating to prioritization of funds for
equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 346)
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 address
concerns about the adequacy of the information that the Army
provides to Congress on the costs of equipping and manning the
modular force.
Specifically, the recommended amendment would streamline
the statutory language to clarify the Army's reporting
requirements and remove a reporting element concerning the
Army's definition of costs of modularity versus costs of
modernization and reset.
The recommended amendment would also add several new
reporting elements, including sections that would address
equipment items and personnel specialties identified as ``key
enablers'' that make the modular force as or more capable than
non-modular units it replaced. In particular, the Army would be
required to report on its key enabler requirements, on hand
items, planned purchases, authorized and actual personnel
levels, and shortfalls projected throughout the period covered
by the future-years defense program. This additional
information would better assist Congress in understanding the
true costs of equipping and manning the Army's modular force.
Additionally, the recommended amendment would update the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) reporting requirement
and link it to the Army's annual report. This approach would
allow the GAO to provide Congress with more complete, useful,
and up to date information than as currently provided by
section 323. The amendment would require GAO to provide an
assessment of the Army's report, but would also give GAO the
discretion to provide additional information as appropriate.
Finally, the recommended amendment would extend the
reporting requirements to 2017 to encompass the likely period
following the drawdown of overseas contingency operations for
which significant resources may be required to continue Army
equipment and personnel reset.
Repeal of requirement for reports on withdrawal or diversion of
equipment from Reserve units for support of Reserve units being
mobilized and other units (sec. 347)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement for a quarterly report from the Secretary of
Defense covering withdrawals or diversions of equipment from
reserve components as provided for in section 349 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 109-346). The intent of section 349 at the time of
its enactment was to provide oversight of equipment transfers
out of the reserve components in support of the growing
requirement of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
Since that time, operational equipment demands have largely
stabilized and plans for U.S. forces drawdown from Iraq render
this quarterly report less relevant. Additionally, information
provided to Congress by the Department in the annual National
Guard and Reserves Equipment Report and in Quarterly Readiness
Reports to Congress allow sufficient insight for oversight of
reserve component equipment issues.
Revision to authorities relating to transportation of civilian
passengers and commercial cargoes by Department of Defense when
space unavailable on commercial lines (sec. 348)
The committee recommends a provision that amend section
2649 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) expand the means
by which transportation may be provided to civilian passengers
and commercial cargo to include vehicles and aircraft operated
by the Department of Defense (DOD); and (2) when such
transportation is provided in response to an emergency,
disaster response, or humanitarian request, allow DOD to credit
any amounts received in reimbursement to the appropriation,
fund, or account incurring the expense of providing the
transportation.
Section 2649 of title 10, United States Code, currently
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transport civilian
passengers and commercial cargoes on vessels operated by DOD,
when such transportation is not commercially available. Under
the current language, reimbursement must be made at rates not
less than those charged by commercial companies for the same
services, and amounts received are deposited in the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
The committee expects that the use of any expanded
authority granted under the revision to section 2649 will
continue to be limited to emergency, humanitarian, and similar
exceptional circumstances.

Budget Items

Navy

Readiness support for Navy unfunded aircraft maintenance priorities
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $1.2 billion was for aircraft
depot maintenance. One of only three unfunded requirements
submitted by the Chief of Naval Operations was aircraft depot
maintenance. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified
before the committee that this unfunded requirement is
executable, would directly support and restore Naval readiness,
and ``buy down our backlog of air frames and engines''.
The committee notes that these same unfunded priorities
were identified in fiscal year 2010 but were not fully
supported by the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives. As a result a 1-year backlog of
deferred aircraft depot maintenance was not executed. The
committee is concerned that failure to address this backlog and
failure to support this unfunded request for active and reserve
aircraft depot maintenance in fiscal year 2011 for active and
reserve units will continue to jeopardize and erode aircraft
materiel readiness, further reduce the service life of the
fleet, increase long-term sustainment costs, and further
increase strategic risk for the Nation.
Additionally, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified
before the committee that failure to support unfunded aircraft
depot maintenance requirements could result in reducing flying
hours and deferred training exercises which are vital to naval
readiness and our responsibility to maintain a trained and
equipped force. Exacerbating the issue, increased operational
tempo in the United States Central Command area of operations
has already resulted in added materiel strain on the fleet.
The committee continues to urge the Secretary of the Navy
and Chief of Naval Operations to fully restore ship depot
maintenance requirements in fiscal year 2012 base budget
request.
The committee recommends an increase of $74.0 million in
OMN for aircraft depot maintenance to fund 21 deferred
airframes and 342 deferred engines.
Readiness support for Navy unfunded ship maintenance priorities
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $4.7 billion was for ship
depot maintenance. One of only three unfunded requirements
submitted by the Chief of Naval Operations was ship depot
maintenance. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified
before the committee that this unfunded requirement is
executable and would directly support and restore Naval
readiness.
The committee notes that these same unfunded priorities
were identified in fiscal year 2010 but were not fully
supported by the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives. As a result a 1-year backlog of
deferred ship depot maintenance was not executed. The committee
is concerned that failure to address this backlog and failure
to support this unfunded request for ship depot maintenance in
fiscal year 2011 for active and reserve ships will continue to
jeopardize and erode ship materiel readiness, further reduce
the service life of the fleet, increase long-term sustainment
costs, and further increase strategic risk for the Nation.
Additionally, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified
before the committee that failure to support unfunded ship
depot maintenance requirements could result in deferred port
visits and deferred training exercises which are vital to fleet
readiness and our responsibility to maintain a trained and
equipped force. Exacerbating the issue, increased operational
tempo in the United States Central Command area of operations
has already resulted in added materiel strain on the fleet.
The committee continues to urge the Secretary of the Navy
and Chief of Naval Operations to fully restore ship depot
maintenance requirements in fiscal year 2012 base budget
request.
The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in
OMN for ship depot maintenance to fund nine deferred surface
ship non-docking availabilities.

Air Force

Air Force amended budget submission for C-130s
In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Air Force
requested to move C-130s from the Air National Guard (ANG) and
Air Force Reserve to active duty. The committee notes a recent
request from the Air Force asks to reverse this move and keep
the C-130s in the reserve component.
The committee notes this budget rearrangement which moves
the C-130 aircraft back into the reserve component includes all
weapon system sustainment funding appropriate for fiscal year
2011. While flying hours for these aircraft will remain in the
active duty appropriation for fiscal year 2011, it is the Air
Force's intent in fiscal year 2012 and the out years to
transfer the flying hours back to the specific reserve
component accounts. The committee notes these flying hours will
be fenced in a training program element to be used specifically
for primary flight training at Little Rock, Arkansas, while the
requirement remains.
Additionally, the committee notes that six C-130s in the
Puerto Rico ANG unit will not be retired in fiscal year 2011.
The committee notes that adequate funds exist in the ANG
program to operate these aircraft through the end of fiscal
year 2011.
Readiness support for Air Force unfunded weapons system sustainment
priorities
The budget request included $46.0 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) of which $3.2 billion was for
depot maintenance and weapon system sustainment (WSS). WSS is
the number one priority in unfunded requirements submitted by
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force in fiscal year 2011. The
Vice Chief of the Air Force testified before the committee that
this unfunded requirement is executable and would directly
support and restore Air Force readiness.
The committee is very concerned that the Air Force only
funded WSS at approximately 65 percent of their requirement in
the fiscal year 2011 budget request, and that requirement only
increases to approximately 82 percent of their WSS requirement
if Other Contingency Operations funding is authorized. The
committee notes that even with $337.2 million in unfunded
requirements for WSS, the amount only increases to 85 percent.
The committee is very concerned that failure to fully fund
the Air Force's depot maintenance requirements will result in a
perpetual and persistent backlog of deferred maintenance
active, reserve, and Air National Guard aircraft. Such a
failure will continue to jeopardize and erode aircraft materiel
readiness, further reduce the service life of the fleet,
increase long-term sustainment costs, and further increase
strategic risk for the Nation.
Additionally, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force
testified before the committee that the Air Force currently
faces a ``$2.0 billion deficit'' with respect to deferred
aircraft and engines that require depot maintenance support.
Exacerbating the issue, increased operational tempo in the
United States Central Command area of operations has already
resulted in added materiel strain on the fleet and placed a
heavy demand on a wide range of aircraft.
The committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Air Force
and Chief of Staff of the Air Force to fully restore and
transition WSS requirements in fiscal year 2012 base budget
request and to develop a more sustainable WSS plan.
The committee recommends an increase of $337.2 million to
the Air Force's Operation and Maintenance accounts, as follows:
OMAF, $150.0 million for WSS to fund one B-2 programmed depot
maintenance (PDM) and B-1 high velocity maintenance initiative,
and dome/sensor repairs to alleviate degradation of space
collision avoidance systems and ensure Spacelift Range
compliance with Department of Defense Information Assurance
requirements to be implemented in fiscal year 2011; Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve, $99.0 million for WSS to
fund two A-10 service life extension programs, two A-10
scheduled structural inspections, six KC-135 PDMs, and six C-5
engine overhauls for Air Force Reserve units; and Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard, $88.2 million to fund one C-5
PDM, one C-5 major system inspection, and five KC-135 PDMs.

Defense-wide

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

The budget request included $683.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Of this amount, $500.0 million was
requested for the Global Train and Equip program to build the
capacity of foreign military forces to meet emerging security
threats. The amount requested for the Global Train and Equip
program exceeds the program's current authorized level for
fiscal year 2011 of $350.0 million 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) and section 1206 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
The administration is in the process of conducting a
comprehensive interagency review of the security assistance
authorities of the Department of Defense and the Department of
State, including the DOD Global Train and Equip program. The
committee understands that this review should be completed
prior to the completion of the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
The committee welcomes this review and looks forward to any
proposals for enhancing U.S. security assistance that result
from this process.
The committee also notes that the request for the DSCA
includes $5.0 million for the Stability Operations Fellowship
program (SOFP). The committee has previously recommended the
elimination of funding for the SOFP on the grounds that no
authority exists for the Department of Defense to conduct this
fellowship program. The committee believes that the SOFP goal
of educating foreign military personnel in stability operations
can be achieved through other security assistance programs,
including the International Military Education and Training
program, and again recommends the elimination of funding for
SOFP.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $155.0
million to OMDW for DSCA, consisting of a decrease of $150.0
million for the Global Train and Equip program and a decrease
of $5.0 million for the SOFP.

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

The budget request included $39.8 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). The committee
believes the military departments should continue to pursue the
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. More can and should be done to
protect important military test and training assets and to
preserve the land around these installations.
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in
OMDW for REPI and directs that the military departments give
priority to projects that benefit critical mission training
sites that have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce
encroachment through the creation of a compatible use buffer
zone.

Department of Defense support for program development and interagency
training for rule of law operations

The budget request included $2.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD). The committee directs that up to
$750,000 of this amount may be available to support a program
for continued strategic planning, program development, and
interagency training for rule of law operations.
The committee recognizes the continuing importance of
efforts to promote the rule of law for stabilization operations
and building governance capacity in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
committee notes that Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)
Number 3000.05, dated September 16, 2009, states that stability
operations are a core U.S. military mission and directs the
Department to assist other U.S. Government agencies and other
entities in the planning, preparation, and execution of
reconstruction and stabilization efforts, including
strengthening governance and the rule of law. While commitment
to the rule of law is central to the success of stability
operations, the committee believes insufficient progress has
been made by the agencies participating in rule of law
operations, specifically the Departments of State, Justice, and
Defense, to build strategic plans and stand up theater-specific
training programs that will prepare military and civilian
personnel of the U.S. Government to conduct rule of law
operations.
The committee applauds the efforts of the U.S. Army,
through the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School,
to make progress in this vital and dynamic area. The committee
is aware that a request for proposal is in process to initiate
a program to conduct strategic planning and a training program
in building rule of law capacity. However, it is important at
this juncture that the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
building on the Army's efforts, take a leadership role and
address the critical need for improved planning, training, and
coordination among U.S. Government agencies with relevant
experience and cultural understanding.
The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives not
later than January 31, 2011, assessing the capabilities and
capacities of the Department to conduct rule of law operations
and assist other U.S. Government agencies in planning and
executing rule of law operations, consistent with DODI Number
3000.05.

Department of Defense Education Activity Operation and Maintenance
funding

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of Defense Education Activity Operations and Maintenance
account includes the following changes from the budget request.
The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels are
discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee
report.

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students........... 30.0
Assistance for schools with military students due to rebasing..... 5.0
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities.................. 10.0
Total......................................................... 45.0

Unobligated Balances

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances

The committee notes that the sustained challenges
associated with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have
created a difficult fiscal management situation, especially for
the Army and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense
continues to under-execute its Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
appropriations for the active and reserve components. According
to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department
of Defense had $1.4 billion in average yearly unobligated
balances for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. The military
departments had $1.1 billion in average yearly unobligated
balances for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
The committee is disappointed that the Department of
Defense continues to underfund the full requirement of
important maintenance and readiness accounts in its annual
request in anticipation of Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) appropriations. The committee notes that whether made
available in annual or OCO and supplemental appropriations, the
Department and the Services must ensure that taxpayer dollars
are appropriately managed to provide the best possible
readiness for the force and avoid the expiration of obligating
authority.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.0
million to O&M, Defense-wide.

Items of Special Interest

Acoustic intelligence archive programs

The National Acoustic Intelligence Laboratory at the Office
of Naval Intelligence (ONI) within the National Maritime
Intelligence Center (NMIC) provides validated hydro-acoustic
signature data to intelligence community partners and U.S. Navy
acquisition programs in both raw and processed forms. The
acoustic intelligence (ACINT) archive contains digital and
analog media containing acoustic intelligence collected by all
means.
The committee understands that the ACINT analog archive may
be deteriorating with age due to a condition called oxide
shedding, in which the magnetized coating separates from the
tapes, making the data un-retrievable.
Given the importance of the data that may be lost if the
Department does not complete transferring this data to digital
media, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, within
60 days of enactment of this Act, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees containing:
(1) an assessment of the integrity of the ACINT
archive and the status of the previously funded
digitization program, including;
(a) the number of analog tapes digitized;
(b) the number of analog tapes that will not
be digitized when current funding expires;
(c) the cost of completing any unfinished
transfers to digital media; and
(d) lessons that may be learned from the
Navy's digitization efforts by other
intelligence organizations;
(2) recommendations for the secure digitization of
all analog tapes maintained by the National Acoustic
Intelligence Laboratory at the ONI within the NMIC;
(3) a description of the procedures to be used for
the disposal of analog tapes and maintenance of the
ACINT archive post-digitization; and
(4) budget requirements to continue the current
digitization program, dispose of analog tapes, and
maintain the ACINT archive post-digitization.

Air Force food transformation initiative

In October 2010, the Air Force plans to launch the first
stage of a planned initiative to transform its food service
operations, including dining facilities, flight kitchen snack
bars and catering services. Implementation is scheduled to
begin at six Air Force bases: Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska;
Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas; Fairchild Air Force Base,
Washington; Travis Air Force Base, California; MacDill Air
Force Base, Florida; and Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to undertake a comprehensive review of the initiative as
implemented at the first six bases and report its findings and
recommendations to the congressional defense committees within
6 months after the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The GAO review shall
address, at a minimum, the following:
Is the concept of a single food service provider
to serve appropriated funded dining facilities, non-
appropriated funded facilities and catering requirements a
viable approach to food service operations on Air Force bases?
Are there other models that should be considered
to provide more effective food service on Air Force bases?
What impact has the initiative had on quality of
service, the cost of service to airmen, the size of the
customer base, the hours of service, and the utilization of
food service facilities on Air Force bases?
What impact has the initiative had on the cost
and efficiency of Air Force food service operations and the
economic viability of such operations?
What impact has the initiative had on food
service personnel, including military personnel, civilian
employees of appropriated fund entities, civilian employees of
non-appropriated fund entities, and employees of Ability One?
What mechanism is used to obtain feedback from
food service users, and what impact has the initiative had on
morale of service members?
The committee urges the Air Force to limit the initiative
to the initial six bases until Congress and the Air Force have
had an opportunity to review the GAO report.

Kirtland Air Force Base jet fuel spill

Between 1950 and 1999, a 16-inch underground pipe used to
off-load jet fuel leaked an estimated two to eight million
gallons of fuel into the soil at Kirtland Air Force Base in New
Mexico. Investigations are underway on the exact size and
location of the plume. However, the committee has been informed
that this fuel has migrated over 400 feet downward to the
aquifer used by the city of Albuquerque for its drinking water.
One recent estimate puts the size of the fuel plume at over 1/3
of a mile in length and over a foot in height at its maximum
point, with its leading edge within 3,700 feet of the first of
several drinking wells used by the city of Albuquerque.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
report to the congressional defense committees on the Kirtland
jet fuel spill by no later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. The report should provide the
Department's assessment of the scope of the problem and the
steps that the Department has taken or plans to take to address
the problem.
The committee expects the Department of the Air Force and
the other military departments to request sufficient funds to
cover high priority (level one) remediation requirements and to
prioritize these requirements on the basis of risk factors in
accordance with established protocols.

Littoral combat ship report

The committee has concluded that the projected ship
decommissioning and construction schedule presented in the
Navy's program described in its ``Report to Congress on Annual
Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011''
could have a negative effect on some of the Nation's Navy
bases. This would arise because of a gap that will occur as a
result of small surface combatants being retired years before
Littoral Combat Ship replacements will arrive.
The Navy's 2010 document ``Report on Strategic Plan for
Homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship'' provided the committee
with the Navy's notional strategic plan for stationing the
Littoral Combat Ship through fiscal year 2020. In order to
fully understand the effects of the Navy's current
decommissioning and shipbuilding timeline, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees that would provide the
timeline and detailed homeport locations for the Littoral
Combat Ships that will be delivered through 2020. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the reports at the
time the President submits his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal
to Congress.
As the Navy finalizes its plans, the committee encourages
the Navy to expedite delivery of the Littoral Combat Ship to
those Navy bases that need replacement ships to mitigate
capability gaps that will result from the retirement of smaller
surface combatants.

Report and timeline for the Secretary of the Navy's energy goals

The committee notes that the five goals announced by the
Secretary of the Navy in October 2009 with respect to renewable
energy are ambitious, commendable, and essential to restoring
Navy readiness. However, the committee is concerned that the
Navy has yet to budget, plan, and articulate a comprehensive
strategy with milestones and metrics, on how the Navy will
actually accomplish those five energy goals.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
not later than February 1, 2011. The report should include cost
estimates, incremental steps, and measurable timelines upon
which the five goals set forth by the Secretary of the Navy
will be met.

Requirements for standard ground combat camouflage uniforms

Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) established
that the design and fielding of all future ground combat and
camouflage utility uniforms of the armed forces may uniquely
reflect the identity of the individual military services as
long as such uniforms, to the maximum extent possible, provide
members of every military service an equivalent level of
performance, functionality, and protection commensurate with
their respective assigned combat missions; minimize risk to the
individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine operating in the
joint battlespace; and provide interoperability with other
components of individual war fighter systems, including body
armor and other individual protective systems.
Section 352 also required the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to review performance, interoperability, costs and
logistics, and patents or other proprietary elements involved
in the services' ground combat camouflage uniforms. In April
2010, the GAO reported that the services have continued to
develop unique ground combat uniforms. GAO found no performance
standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for
evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no
requirements for the services to test interoperability between
their uniforms and other tactical gear.
While the GAO indicated that forums are available for the
sharing of technology, the committee believes these forums for
sharing could be better used. In particular, Department of
Defense Instruction (DODI) 4140.63, dated August 5, 2008,
established the Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board
and assigned the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, as chair
of the Board. The Board is responsible to ``ensure
collaboration and DOD-wide integration of clothing and textile
activities''. However, it appears that such coordination and
integration has failed to occur in practice.
Section 352(d) requires the secretaries of the military
departments to establish joint criteria for future ground
combat uniforms not later than 270 days after receiving the GAO
report. The joint criteria are required to take into account
the GAO findings and recommendations and ensure that new
technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground
combat uniform design may be shared between the military
services and are not precluded from being adapted for use by
any military service due to military service-unique proprietary
arrangements. The committee is concerned that the military
services continue to develop their own unique ground combat
uniforms without regard to this requirement.
The committee is particularly concerned by a December 2009
policy memorandum issued by the Chief of Naval Operations,
which permits only certain categories of Navy personnel to wear
advanced digital camouflage on the battlefield in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The committee believes that the most advanced
technologies and materials should be made available to all
military personnel serving in the theater of operations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the congressional defense committees by no later
than August 1, 2010, on the steps that the Department has taken
and plans to take to implement the requirements of section
352(d) and ensure that new technologies, advanced materials,
and other advances in ground combat uniform design may be
shared between the services, and are not prevented from being
adapted for use by any single service due to service-unique
proprietary arrangements. The report should specifically
address the steps that have been taken or will be taken by the
secretaries of the military departments, in conjunction with
the Joint Staff and combatant commands, to update their ground
combat uniform standards and develop operational performance
criteria for camouflage as a basis to evaluate its
effectiveness specific to the various combat environments for
the purpose of increasing the interoperability of the ground
combat forces; eliminating any unique features that could pose
a tactical risk in a theater of operations; maximizing
conformance with personal protective equipment and body armor;
and optimizing coloration and pattern for the ground combat
uniform for the terrain, climate, and conditions in which the
forces may be operating.
The GAO report noted that the services have used the Army
Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center
during development of their ground combat uniforms to test the
effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and in some cases
camouflage effectiveness of ground combat uniforms and
protective equipment. Given this emerging expertise, the
committee encourages the services to use the Army Natick
Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center to guide
their development of camouflage effectiveness criteria and
testing.
The committee strongly encourages the secretaries of the
military departments to explore additional methods for sharing
uniform technology across the services as they develop their
ground combat uniforms. The committee is concerned that the
services may not be sharing these technologies early and often
enough in the process. While the GAO found some examples of
uniform technology shared across the services, the committee
emphasizes the importance of sharing new technologies, advanced
materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design
between the military services.

Reserve component pre-deployment equipment fielding and training

The committee is aware that reserve component and National
Guard units face training equipment challenges when they are
mobilized and deployed in support of contingency operations
around the world. Reserve and National Guard units do not
always train with the equipment they will use in theater until
they are mobilized and arrive at their pre-deployment training
stations.
The committee understands that the Rapid Fielding
Initiative (RFI) was designed to create a rapid, centralized
fielding system to ensure that the newest equipment would be
available to units and individuals for training prior to
deployment. In June 2008, the Department of the Army
established a pilot program accelerating the RFI fielding
schedule from the post-mobilization to the pre-mobilization
phase of deployment training for specific reserve component and
National Guard units deploying in fiscal year 2010. The
committee understands that this pilot program is ongoing and
that the final data will be collected, analyzed, and a report
completed sometime in early 2011.
The committee is concerned that despite the efforts of the
RFI pilot, current training equipment availability and fielding
policy does not always ensure that reserve and National Guard
troops and units have sufficient time to train with new
equipment prior to their deployment. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to make additional efforts to provide the
individual and unit equipment that reserve and National Guard
units will use while deployed in a manner that allows for the
most effective and efficient training. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Chief of Staff of the Army to submit to
the congressional defense committees, not later than January
31, 2011, the results of the RFI pilot study, including his
assessment of equipping issues related to reserve and National
Guard pre-mobilization and pre-deployment training, and the
Army's plans for changes or improvements to ensure that their
reserve component forces have the equipment they need for
efficient and effective training prior to deployment.

Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting

The committee is disappointed that implementation of the
Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) began in 2001 and has
yet to fully replace the Global Status of Resources and
Training Status. Furthermore, the Government Accountability
Office found in a September 2009 report that the Department of
Defense (DOD) ``needs to strengthen management and oversight of
DRRS''. Accurate readiness reporting statistics as well as
capabilities are essential to the DOD being able to execute our
National Military Strategy.
The committee notes that in recent years, the Services have
directed their units to make several changes in the way they
report unit readiness. Specifically, the Army has updated its
readiness reporting policy and has directed its units to
provide additional information concerning the units' abilities
to perform directed missions as well as the units' core
mission. The Army reports this information in its readiness
reporting system that feeds information into DRRS. Leveraging
the Army's approach, the Marine Corps has recently developed
its own system in order to collect and analyze readiness data
to feed information to DRRS.
The committee wishes to better understand the extent to
which the changes will help the services to more accurately
capture data, interpret, and report on the readiness of their
forces. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller
General to review Army and Marine Corps readiness reporting
systems.
This review should assess any changes that the Services
have made to their approach to reporting readiness, identify
the steps that units have taken to implement the directed
readiness reporting changes, including the extent to which the
Services have aligned these changes with existing strategies
for training and deploying forces, such as the Army's force
generation cycle, and assess the impact of these changes on the
content of readiness information available to decisionmakers
within the Department and Congress.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit
this review no later than April 15, 2011 to the congressional
defense committees.
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 2011, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2010 2011
authorization 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army......................................................... 562,400 569,400 569,400
Navy......................................................... 328,800 328,700 328,700
Marine Corps................................................. 202,100 202,100 202,100
Air Force.................................................... 331,700 332,200 332,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The committee has supported the growth in the Army and the
Marine Corps over the past 4 years, and in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84),
Congress increased the authorized active-duty end strengths of
all the services, authorizing over 55,000 more active-duty
service members across all services. Section 403 of that Act
authorized the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army's
active-duty end strength to 592,400 in fiscal years 2011 and
2012 if he determined it necessary to support operational
requirements or organizational restructuring.
Last year, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Army
would be increasing its active-duty end strength by 22,000 in
order to ensure that deploying units would be properly manned.
The Department submitted a budget amendment to achieve 15,000
of that growth during fiscal year 2010. The committee supported
the Secretary and authorized active-duty Army end strength of
562,400 rather than the 547,400 originally proposed by the
Department, with the understanding that the additional 7,000
would be requested in fiscal year 2011. The committee supports
the 2011 request of 569,400, and expects the Army to use all
available authorized end strength, for which it has budgeted in
2011, to increase dwell time for individual soldiers and units,
improve readiness, and ensure that deploying units are
sufficiently manned.
The committee supports the administration's request and
recommends active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2011 for
the Army of 569,400, the Marine Corps of 202,100, the Navy of
328,700, and the Air Force of 332,200.

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 2011, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2010 2011
authorization 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................. 358,200 358,200 358,200
The Army Reserve............................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000
The Navy Reserve............................................. 65,500 65,500 65,500
The Marine Corps Reserve..................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600
The Air National Guard of the United States.................. 106,700 106,700 106,700
The Air Force Reserve........................................ 69,500 71,200 71,200
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 2011, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2010 2011
authorization 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................. 32,060 32,060 32,060
The Army Reserve............................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261
The Navy Reserve............................................. 10,818 10,688 10,688
The Marine Corps Reserve..................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261
The Air National Guard of the United States.................. 14,555 14,584 14,584
The Air Force Reserve........................................ 2,896 2,992 2,992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2011, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2010 2011
authorization 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............................................. 8,395 8,395 8,395
The Army National Guard of the United States................. 27,210 27,210 27,210
The Air Force Reserve........................................ 10,417 10,720 10,720
The Air National Guard of the United States.................. 22,313 22,394 22,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal year 2011 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, 2011,
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2010 2011
authorization 2011 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................. 1,600 2,520 1,600
The Air National Guard of the United States.................. 350 350 350
The Army Reserve............................................. 595 595 595
The Air Force Reserve........................................ 90 90 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The committee recommends maintaining Army National Guard
non-dual status end strength at 1,600, consistent with prior
years, 920 less than the administration's request. The
committee notes that under a Presidential waiver of end
strength limitations, the Army National Guard currently employs
over 3,000 non-dual status technicians, many of whom serve at
State headquarters. The committee is concerned that the
requested strength may be too high once the wars end,
particularly considering that non-dual status technicians are
federal employees and cannot be easily separated. The committee
considers the end strength limitations of this section
appropriate to meet permanent peacetime requirements.
Additionally, the temporary hiring authority for non-dual
status technicians found elsewhere in this Act should alleviate
the pressures created by the operations tempo of the dual
status technician population. Finally, the committee is still
waiting for two reports from the Department of Defense on the
full-time support requirements of the reserve components
generally, and the specific requirements for non-dual status
technicians.
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, 2011, as
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2010 2011
authorization 2011 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
funds to be appropriated for military personnel accounts of the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011.

Subtitle D--Armed Forces Retirement Home

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
431)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$71.2 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 from the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Modification of promotion board procedures for joint qualified officers
and officers with joint staff experience (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 612 of title 10, United States Code, to require
promotion selection boards considering officers who are serving
on, or have served on, the Joint Staff, or who are joint
qualified officers, to include as a member of the board at
least one joint qualified officer designated by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to authorize the Secretary of
Defense to waive this requirement for promotion selection
boards considering medical officers, dental officers,
veterinary officers, medical service officers, nurses,
biomedical science officers, chaplains, judge advocates, and
officers in the science and technology field for which joint
requirements do not exist. The provision would also amend
sections 615 and 618 of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify that these statutes regarding information furnished to
selection boards and action on reports of selection boards are
applicable to boards that consider officers who are serving on,
or have served on, the Joint Staff or are joint qualified
officers.
Nondisclosure of information from discussions, deliberations, notes,
and records of special selection boards (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 613, 628 and 14104 of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify that the nondisclosure provisions applicable to
promotion selection boards for officers on the active-duty list
and on the reserve active-status list are also applicable to
promotion selection boards for warrant officers and for special
selection boards.

Administrative removal of officers from promotion list (sec. 503)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 629 and 14310 of title 10, United States Code, to
require the administrative removal of an officer's name from a
promotion list, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
concerned, if the officer was recommended for promotion but was
discharged, dropped from the rolls, or transferred to a retired
status before being promoted.

Technical revisions to definition of ``joint matters'' for purposes of
joint officer management (sec. 504)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 668(a) of title 10, United States Code, to change the
definition of joint matters to matters related to the
achievement of unified action by integrated military forces and
to clarify that participation in any one of several enumerated
joint activities meets the requirement. The provision defines
integrated military forces as forces that involve participants
from more than one of the military departments or a military
department and (1) other departments or agencies of the United
States, (2) the military forces or agencies of other countries,
or (3) non-governmental persons or entities.

Modification of authority for officers selected for appointment to
general and flag officer grades to wear insignia of higher
grade before appointment (sec. 505)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 45 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
officers selected for appointment to grades of lieutenant
general, vice admiral, general, or admiral, whose nomination
has been confirmed by the Senate, to wear the insignia for that
higher grade for a period of up to 14 days before assuming the
duties of the position for which the higher grade is
authorized. The provision would also amend section 777 of title
10, United States Code, to remove the required 30 day waiting
period following congressional notification before officers
below the grades of major general or rear admiral are
authorized to wear the insignia of the next higher grade.

Temporary authority to reduce minimum length of commissioned service
required for voluntary retirement as an officer (sec. 506)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 3911, 6323, and 8911 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize the service secretaries to approve the voluntary
retirement of officers who have completed 20 years of service,
8 of which are active service as a commissioned officer. This
temporary authority would begin on the date of enactment of
this Act and end on September 30, 2013.

Age for appointment and mandatory retirement for health professions
officers (sec. 507)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 532 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
appointment of individuals with certain medical skills who will
not be able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service
before age 62 as regular and reserve commissioned officers. The
provision also amends section 1251 of title 10, United States
Code, to authorize the service secretary to defer until age 68
the mandatory retirement of certain health professions
officers.

Authority for permanent professors at the United States Air Force
Academy to hold command positions (sec. 508)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 9334(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to allow a permanent professor
at the United States Air Force Academy on an operational tour
or sabbatical duty away from the Academy to exercise command of
units to which they are assigned.

Authority for appointment of warrant officers in the grade of W-1 by
commission and standardization of warrant officer appointing
authority (sec. 509)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 571 and 12241 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize appointments of warrant officers, W-1, in both the
regular and reserve components, to be made by warrant or
commission.

Continuation of warrant officers on active duty to complete
disciplinary action (sec. 510)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 33A of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of the military department concerned to delay the
mandatory separation or retirement of a warrant officer against
whom action has been commenced with a view to trying the
warrant officer by court-martial.

Authority to credit military graduates of the National Defense
Intelligence College with completion of joint professional
military education Phase I (sec. 511)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2154 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
graduates of the National Defense Intelligence College to
receive credit for completion of joint professional military
education Phase I.

Expansion of authority relating to phase II of three-phase approach to
joint professional military education (sec. 512)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2154 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
adjunct faculty of the Armed Forces Staff College to teach the
joint professional military education Phase II course of
instruction at locations other than the Joint Forces Staff
College primary campus in Norfolk, Virginia.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Repeal of requirement for new oath when officer transfers from active-
duty list to reserve active-status list (sec. 521)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12201 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
requirement that an officer who transfers from the active
component to the reserve component execute a new oath of
office.

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered
for selection for promotion (sec. 522)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
service secretary to provide that a Reserve officer who is in
an active status but in a duty status in which the officer
earns retirement points only for membership in a reserve
component of an armed force shall not be considered for
selection for promotion while remaining on the reserve active-
status list.

Authority for assignment of Air Force Reserve military technicians
(dual status) to positions outside Air Force Reserve unit
program (sec. 523)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
assignment of Air Force Reserve technicians (dual status)
outside of the Air Force Reserve unit program.

Authority for temporary employment of non-dual status technicians to
fill vacancies caused by mobilization of military technicians
(dual status) (sec. 524)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 10217 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
reserve components to hire additional non-dual status
technicians to fill vacancies created by mobilized dual status
technicians for up to two years, or for the length of the
mobilization, whichever is shorter.

Direct appointment of graduates of the United States Merchant Marine
Academy into the National Guard (sec. 525)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 305 of title 32, United States Code, to authorize
federal recognition of graduates of the United States Merchant
Marine Academy as commissioned officers of the National Guard.

Subtitle C--Education and Training

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs
(sec. 531)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences and students participating in
the armed forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
Assistance Programs who have prior commissioned service to
serve, while on active duty, in pay grade O-1, or in pay grade
O-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 provide that an officer
detailed as a student at a medical school would serve on active
duty in the same grade with the same entitlement to pay as
specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United States Code.

Authority to waive maximum age limitation on admission to the service
academies for certain enlisted members who served in Operation
Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (sec. 532)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
service secretaries to waive the maximum age limitations for
admission to the military service academies in sections 4346,
6958, and 9346 of title 10, United States Code, for up to 5
enlisted members of the armed forces per year who (1) become 23
years of age while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom or
Operation Enduring Freedom or were candidates for admission and
were prevented from entering the academy before July 1 of the
year in which the members became 23 years of age because of
service in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring
Freedom, (2) possess an exceptional overall record that sets
them apart from other candidates for admission to the academy,
and (3) have not passed their twenty-sixth birthday on July 1
of the year in which the members enter the academy.

Active duty obligation for military academy graduates who participate
in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance Program (sec. 533)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 4348, 6959, and 9348 of title 10, United States Code,
to clarify that graduates of service academies who participate
in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance Program (HPSP) must serve their academy
service obligation on active duty after graduating from HPSP.

Participation of Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance Program recipients in active duty health
profession loan repayment program (sec. 534)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2173 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize loan
repayment for students who incurred student loans pursuing an
appropriate degree prior to enrolling in the Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
Program.

Increase in number of private sector civilians authorized for admission
to the National Defense University (sec. 535)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2167(a) of title 10, United States Code, to increase
from 20 to 35 the number of eligible private sector civilians
who work in organizations relevant to national security who are
authorized to receive instruction at the National Defense
University.

Modification of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps minimum unit
strength (sec. 536)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a
minimum enrollment of 75 for Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps units at institutions where total student enrollment does
not exceed 1,000, and a minimum enrollment of 100 at
institutions where total student enrollment exceeds 1,000.

Increase in maximum age for prospective Reserve Officers' Training
Corps financial assistance recipients (sec. 537)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2107 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the
maximum age for eligibility to receive a Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship from age 31 to age 35 in the
calendar year in which an individual is eligible for
appointment as an ensign in the Navy or as a second lieutenant
in the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps. The provision would
also amend section 2107a of title 10, United States Code, to
increase the maximum age for eligibility to receive an ROTC
scholarship from age 31 to age 35 in the calendar year in which
a specially selected member of the Army Reserve or Army
National Guard is eligible for appointment as a second
lieutenant in the Army Reserve or Army National Guard.

Modification of education loan repayment programs (sec. 538)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2171 and 16301 of title 10, United States Code, to
subject the loan repayment programs under those sections to the
repayment provisions of section 303a(e) of title 37, United
States Code, and to authorize the service secretaries to pay a
lump sum payment for the balance of any loans the services
agreed to pay under a written agreement existing at the time of
the service member's death.

Enhancements of Department of Defense undergraduate nurse training
program (sec. 539)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2016 of title 10, United States Code, to make technical
and clarifying changes to the Department of Defense
undergraduate nurse training program. The provision would also
change the date for initiation of a pilot program to increase
the number of nurses serving in the armed forces from no later
than July 1, 2011, to no later than August 31, 2012.

Authority for service commitment of reservists who accept fellowships,
scholarships, or grants to be performed in the Selected Reserve
(sec. 540)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2603(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
members of the Selected Reserve to fulfill a service obligation
incurred for acceptance of a fellowship, scholarship, or grant
by serving on active duty for a period of at least three times
the length of the period of the education or training, or in
the Selected Reserve for a period of at least five times the
length of the period of the education or training.

Health professions scholarship and financial assistance program for
civilians (sec. 541)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to establish a health professions
scholarship and financial assistance program for eligible
civilians. The program would provide financial assistance for
civilians to pursue a course of study leading to a degree
related to the health professions, with a corresponding
obligation of service as a Department of Defense or military
department civilian employee.
The committee commends the Department for its dedication to
helping to increase the number of health professionals
available to provide care for service members and their
families, and hopes this financial assistance program serves to
enhance the medical capabilities of the Department and the
services.

Annual report on Department of Defense graduate medical education
programs (sec. 542)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report annually on the status of
graduate medical education programs of the Department of
Defense. The committee recognizes that such programs are
essential to ensuring the quality and vitality of the military
health care system, and training of uniformed providers
essential to medical readiness. The provision is intended to
ensure visibility for the Department and Congress on the status
of training programs and enable actions to mitigate challenges
faced by such programs.

Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 551)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense
assistance program to local educational agencies that are
impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military
members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
The committee also recommends authorization of $5.0 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. 552)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$10.0 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 Department of Defense assistance to local
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with
severe disabilities.

Authority to expand eligibility for enrollment in Department of Defense
elementary and secondary schools to certain additional
categories of dependents (sec. 553)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
enrollment in Department of Defense elementary and secondary
schools of dependents of wounded, ill, or injured service
members who reside in temporary housing, and of service members
who reside in temporary housing due to an ongoing base housing
privatization project, regardless of whether the temporary
housing is on federal property.

Subtitle E--Leave and Related Matters

Leave of members of the reserve components of the armed forces (sec.
556)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
reserve component members to carry over leave accumulated
during periods of active service without regard to separation
or release from active service, subject to the leave carryover
limits contained elsewhere in that section. Under current law,
service members must use or sell earned leave prior to
separation or release from their active service. The provision
would also amend section 501 of title 37, United States Code,
to allow reserve component members to sell leave accumulated
and carried over under this authority in the event they
separate or retire from their reserve component.

Non-chargeable rest and recuperation absence for certain members
undergoing extended deployment to a combat zone (sec. 557)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, to provide rest and recuperation absence
of up to 15 days, including round-trip travel at government
expense, to certain service members entitled to hardship duty
pay while serving in a combat zone designated by the President.

Subtitle F--Military Justice Matters

Reform of offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other sexual
misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec.
561)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to separate Article
120, UCMJ, into three separate articles of the UCMJ: Article
120, UCMJ, would apply to the offenses of rape and sexual
assault of any person; Article 120b, UCMJ, would apply to
sexual offenses against children under the age of 16 years; and
Article 120c, UCMJ, would apply to other non-consensual sexual
misconduct offenses. Article 120a, UCMJ, which applies to the
offense of stalking, would not be changed. The changes in law
included in this provision were recommended by the Joint
Services Committee on Military Justice and the Secretary of
Defense to address deficiencies in existing law that have been
identified by military courts and which were addressed in the
report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the
Military (December 2009).

Enhanced authority to punish contempt in military justice proceedings
(sec. 562)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 848 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the
maximum fine for contempt in military justice proceedings from
$100 to $1,000. The provision also adds willful disobedience of
a lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of a
military judge, court of inquiry, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces, a military Court of Criminal
Appeals, a provost court, or military commission as a basis for
punishment for contempt.

Authority to compel production of documentary evidence prior to trial
in military justice cases (sec. 563)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 847 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
subpoenas duces tecum to compel production of documentary
evidence prior to trial by court-martial, consistent with other
federal criminal court practice.

Subtitle G--Awards and Decorations

Cold War Service Medal (sec. 566)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to authorize the issuance of a Cold
War Service Medal by the service secretaries.

Authority for award of Bronze Star medal to members of military forces
of friendly foreign nations (sec. 567)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1133 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
award of the Bronze Star to members of military forces of
friendly foreign nations for actions occurring in geographic
areas in which members of the United States military are
authorized to receive imminent danger pay.

Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-Service Cross to
Shinyei Matayoshi for acts of valor during World War II (sec.
568)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished-Service
Cross to Shinyei Matayoshi for acts of valor in World War II.

Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-Service Cross to
Jay C. Copley for acts of valor during the Vietnam War (sec.
569)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished-Service
Cross to former Captain Jay C. Copley for acts of valor during
the Vietnam War.

Subtitle H--Wounded Warrior Matters

Disposition of members found to be fit for duty who are not suitable
for deployment or worldwide assignment for medical reasons
(sec. 571)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit
involuntary administrative separation of a service member who
has been determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to be
fit for duty based on a subsequent administrative determination
that the member is unsuitable for deployment or worldwide
assignment based on the same medical condition that was
considered by the PEB. The service member could be retired or
separated for physical disability if a reevaluation by the PEB
results in a determination that the member is unfit to perform
the duties of the member's office, grade, rank, or rating.
The committee is disappointed that the Department of
Defense has not resolved the differing approaches of the
services to this problem despite numerous complaints,
inquiries, and expressions of concern about the inequitable
treatment of military personnel with medical conditions. The
committee expects the Secretary of Defense to issue uniform
guidance to the services about how to proceed in the
disposition of currently serving service members who fall into
this category.

Authority to expedite background investigations for hiring of wounded
warriors and spouses by the Department of Defense and defense
contractors (sec. 572)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1564 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
expedited background investigations required for the granting
of security clearances for service members expected to be
medically retired or separated, their spouses, and surviving
spouses of service members who die from a wound, injuries, or
illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, to assist
these individuals in obtaining employment with the Department
of Defense or a Department of Defense contractor.

Subtitle I--Military Family Readiness Matters

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1781a of title 10, United States Code, to require the
addition of two members to the Department of Defense Military
Family Readiness Council. One representative would be the
spouse of an officer serving in the grade of general or
admiral, and the other would be the Director of the Office of
Community Support for Military Families With Special Needs.
The committee believes that the Council would greatly
benefit from the inclusion of a representative who can advocate
for the needs of military families with special needs
dependents. The committee is concerned that funds have not been
reprogrammed to support significant improvements in programs
for military families with special needs, as required by
section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee expects
that when the plan to implement these statutory requirements is
complete, funding will be aligned within available defense-wide
and military department resources to fully meet requirements
for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, and that these programs will be
fully funded in future years.
The committee also believes that public transparency of
Council actions should be increased, and encourages the Council
to establish a website. This website should serve to keep
military families informed about upcoming Council meetings and
to post the outcomes of prior meetings, and to increase
transparency of Council activities and reports. The committee
understands that certain information is already available to
the public due to Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements,
but believes military families could be better served by the
establishment of a centrally located, easy to find and navigate
Council website.

Enhancement of community support for military families with special
needs (sec. 582)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
several modifications to requirements for the Office of
Community Support for Military Families With Special Needs. The
provision would:
(1) require that the office conduct periodic reviews
of best practices in the provision of medical and
educational services for children with special needs;
(2) authorize the secretaries of the military
departments to establish or support centers to provide
medical and educational services for military children
with special needs; and
(3) require the formation of an advisory panel
comprised of military family members to provide advice
to the Director of the office on services and support
for military children with special needs.

Pilot program on scholarships for military dependent children with
special education needs (sec. 583)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, beginning in
the 2011-2012 school year, to assess the feasibility and
advisability of awarding scholarships to military children with
special education needs for the purpose of ensuring access to
appropriate education and related services based on an
individualized education program. The program would identify
and assess obstacles faced by military families in obtaining a
free and appropriate public education for their eligible
children. The amount of the scholarship would be the lesser of
the cost of school tuition and fees or $7,500. The pilot would
terminate in September 2016.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to consult with the Secretary of Education in the development
of options and actions to enhance access to benefits available
to military dependent children under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 108-446).

Reports on child development centers and financial assistance for child
care for members of the armed forces (sec. 584)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and biennially
thereafter, on Department of Defense child development centers
and financial assistance provided by the Department for off-
installation child care.

Subtitle J--Other Matters

Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the armed
forces (sec. 591)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 654 of title 10, United States Code, to be effective 60
days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense has
received the report of the Department of Defense's
comprehensive review of the implementation of a repeal of 10
U.S.C. Sec. 654 (comprehensive review), and the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff certify to Congress that they have considered the report
and proposed plan of action of the comprehensive review, that
the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies
and regulations to implement the discretion provided by the
repeal of section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and that
the implementation of policies and regulations pursuant to the
discretion provided by the repeal is consistent with the
standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit
cohesion, and recruiting and retention for the armed forces.
The committee intends to hold hearings upon receipt of the
findings of the comprehensive review to ensure that the
findings of the review and the recommended policy revisions are
consistent with the standards of military readiness, military
effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for
the armed forces.

Recruitment and enlistment of charter school graduates in the armed
forces (sec. 592)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy by June 1, 2011, on
the recruitment and enlistment in the armed forces of graduates
of charter schools.
The committee is concerned that the recruiting commands of
the armed forces do not have adequate guidance about how to
categorize under the Department's three-tier system graduates
of the expanding number and types of charter schools in the
United States. U.S. News and World Report rated 8 charter
schools as among the top 25 high schools in America in 2009.
The committee believes that the Department must do more to
clarify its guidance to ensure that recruiters consider
graduates of such charter schools in the appropriate tier
category.
The committee also believes that a process should be
established that will enable charter schools and their
advocates to present their education credentials in a manner
that will ensure uniform, accurate designation as Tier 1
schools when appropriate.

Updated terminology for the Army Medical Service Corps (sec. 593)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3068(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to reflect
the current structure of the Army Medical Service Corps by
renaming the Pharmacy, Supply, and Administration Section as
the Administrative Health Services Section; the Sanitary
Engineering Section as the Preventive Medicine Sciences
Section; and the Optometry Section as the Clinical Health
Sciences Section.

Items of Special Interest

Access to appropriate facilities, services, and support for military
families with dependent children with special needs

The committee seeks information to determine if the complex
needs of military dependent children with special needs are
being met by Department of Defense (DOD) child care and
educational programs in accordance with the following
applicable federal laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act
(Public Law 101-336), the Rehabilitation Act of l973 (Public
Law 93-112), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (Public Law 94-142). Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than February
1, 2011, on the following:
(1) the current program for inspection of DOD child
development centers, DOD funded child care programs,
and DOD schools to ensure compliance with applicable
law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
disability and access to and receipt of a free and
appropriate public education through special education
and related services;
(2) whether or not any non-DOD entity is involved in
such inspections, and if not, the feasibility of
including non-DOD organizations in such inspections;
(3) the results of the inspections conducted during
calendar years 2008, 2009, and 2010;
(4) a summary of the challenges faced by military
families with dependent children with special needs in
obtaining needed child care or special education and
related services;
(5) resources available to military families with
dependent children with special needs who require child
care or special education and related services provided
by DOD;
(6) services available to military dependent children
with special needs who attend DOD child care or
educational facilities, by location;
(7) outreach programs to inform military families
with dependent children with special needs of their
rights in the event that child care or special
education and related services are denied by a
particular DOD or non-DOD facility;
(8) description of litigation or outstanding cases
involving denial of child care or special education and
related services involving a military dependent child
with special needs;
(9) current DOD policy regarding administration of
medications in DOD child development centers and
schools;
(10) a description of the challenges faced by the
Department in meeting child care and educational needs
of military dependent children with special needs,
especially those with autism, epilepsy, complex medical
needs, or a low incidence disability; and
(11) a plan to enhance inspection of DOD child care
and special education and related services in
accordance with applicable federal law.
The committee directs DOD to consult with the Department of
Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and
military family representatives in preparing the report and
plan.
The committee further directs the United States Government
Accountability Office to review DOD's report and plan, and to
submit a report to the committee not later than May 1, 2012, on
that review and the availability of services for military
dependent children with special needs, including the DOD
inspection process as it pertains to children with special
needs and challenges faced by these children's families.

Access to the operational reserve

Effective access to the reserve component as an operational
force is essential to reducing the burden on all forces and
making progress on the roadmap to the best use of the reserve
components to achieve national security objectives provided by
the findings and recommendations of the Commission on the
National Guard and Reserves.
The committee believes that the existing authorities for
involuntary mobilization of the reserve components under
section 12302 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, may
not offer the necessary flexibility to service planners to
facilitate the effective use of the operational reserve. In
order to provide trained and ready reserve units and personnel
to respond rapidly to contingencies, participate in essential
rotational missions, and comply with applicable dwell time
goals, additional legal authority to order members of the
reserve component into federal military service may be
required.
In recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Personnel of
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Reserve Affairs stated that ``the process by
which roles and missions are assigned to the Reserve and Guard
should be characterized by a belief that these forces can, and
frequently should be, the first choice for recurring and
predictable missions within their capabilities, because they
are fully accessible. In this context, predictability
encourages anticipatory planning--thinking ahead, not just in
terms of the type of mission, but the timing and duration of
the mission as well. Predictable missions create lead time for
proper planning and training. That kind of anticipatory
thinking can't be done when the Reserve components are used as
the `last option'.''
Additionally, the Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves found that ``individual volunteerism, while admirable,
is not a sustainable means to provide access to the reserve
component units that the services require.'' The committee
concurs and recommends that the Secretary of Defense review
current mobilization authorities and submit legislative
proposals for any additional authority needed to facilitate the
involuntary activation of specified numbers of Selected Reserve
personnel or units for limited periods of time to support
operational requirements.

Comptroller General review of educational fellowships and training-
with-industry programs

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review legislative and educational fellowships and
training-with-industry programs of the Department of Defense
and the military services to assess the costs to the
Government, including costs charged to the Government by
participating institutions, and the effectiveness of the
programs in the education and career progression of
participating service members. The Comptroller General shall
include in the review the following: (1) an assessment of
whether the Department's and services' implementation of the
programs comply with applicable law and policy; (2) a
description of the number of fellows assigned by project and
the work-study performed by participating service members
during their fellowships; (3) an analysis of the issues
involved with assigning service members to organizations with
ideological or political agendas or to corporations with a
financial interest in Department of Defense or military service
contracts, including potential conflicts of interest, and the
guidance given to service members in these assignments; (4)
whether the follow-on assignments given to participants,
including legislative fellows assigned to congressional staff,
make use of skills and knowledge obtained during the
fellowships in accordance with departmental regulations; and
(5) whether the fellowships provide any benefit to the
Government.
The Comptroller General shall report to the congressional
defense committees by May 1, 2011, on the results of this
review.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Extension of authority for increase in basic allowance for housing for
areas subject to major disaster or installations experiencing
sudden increase in personnel (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to extend the
authority to pay additional basic allowance for housing in
areas impacted by a major disaster or at installations
experiencing a sudden increase in personnel.
Repeal of mandatory high-deployment allowance (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
authority and requirement to pay the high-deployment allowance
(HDA) under section 436 of title 37, United States Code.
The HDA was enacted prior to the attacks of September 11,
2001, at a time when the services were responding inadequately
to the demands being placed on a small number of key
warfighters, i.e., the so-called ``high demand, low density''
personnel. While the services' reliance on too few highly
skilled military occupational specialties to deploy too
frequently in time of war continues, the committee believes
that the greatly enhanced framework of pays and allowances
since 2001 and the Department of Defense's efforts to measure
and improve dwell time for deployed service members provides
sufficient basis to repeal the HDA authority.
The committee believes, however, that the management of
deployments of members required under section 991 of title 10,
United States Code, is still essential, and that the need still
exists for the Department to track deployment days, measure
dwell time on an individual basis, and manage the operations
tempo of its personnel in a manner that provides clarity to the
Department, the services, and Congress concerning the
operational demands placed on individual service members. In
this regard the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to use
the authority under section 991 (b)(4) to define ``deployment''
to conform with current dwell time goals
Ineligibility of certain Federal Government employees for income
replacement payments (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 910 of title 37, United States Code, to clarify that
civilian employees of the Federal Government may not receive
income differential payments concurrently under that section
and section 5538 of title 5, United States Code.

Report on costs incurred by members undergoing permanent change of duty
station in excess of allowances (sec. 604)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act on the expenses incurred by members of the armed forces
undergoing a permanent change of station move. The report would
include a description of the number of service members who
transport a second personally owned vehicle to overseas foreign
and non-foreign locations, the expenses they typically incur in
doing so, and an assessment of the availability of affordable
vehicles at overseas foreign and non-foreign areas, including
sales between service members.

Report on basic allowance for housing for personnel assigned to sea
duty (sec. 605)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees no later than July 1, 2011, a report assessing the
standards used to determine eligibility for and level of
compensation of basic allowance for housing for married and
single personnel assigned to sea duty, with and without
dependents.

Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year 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; the Selected
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with
prior service; and income replacement payments for certain
reserve component members.

One-year 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;
accession and retention bonuses for psychologists; the
accession bonus for registered nurses; incentive special pay
for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Selected Reserve health
professionals in critically short wartime specialties; the
accession bonus for dental officers; the accession bonus for
pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in
critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime
specialties.

One-year 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.

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated
special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members; the
general bonus authority for officers; the special bonus and
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers; the special
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities; and the special
health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities. The
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay
hazardous duty pay; assignment pay or special duty pay; the
skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus; and the retention
bonus for members with critical military skills or assigned to
high priority units.

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37
bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention
bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for
active members; the enlistment bonus; the accession bonus for
new officers in critical skills; the incentive bonus for
conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel
shortage; the incentive bonus for transfer between armed
forces; and the accession bonus for officer candidates.

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of referral
bonuses (sec. 616)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the health professions referral
bonus and the Army referral bonus under sections 1030 and 3252
of title 10, United States Code, respectively.

Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

Travel and transportation allowances for attendance of members and
certain other persons at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
events (sec. 621)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
travel and transportation allowances for members of the
uniformed services and up to three designees to attend Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program events.
The committee believes that the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program is evolving as a resource capable of significantly
improving the well-being of members of the Guard and Reserve
and their families as they continue to experience extensive and
repeated deployments. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to fully implement the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program and to ensure access to support services needed in all
phases of the deployment cycle, before and during deployment,
demobilization, and post-deployment reconstitution. The
Department of Defense should seek greater consistency and
coordination of reintegration programs within and among the
States. Finally, the committee believes that outreach services
must include assistance and support for military families with
special needs.

Authority for payment of full replacement value for loss or damage to
household goods in certain cases not covered by carrier
liability (sec. 622)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to pay
full replacement value for property lost or damaged in the
course of a household goods shipment under certain
circumstances where reimbursement is not available from the
contracted carrier.

Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits

Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance for members of the armed forces married to other
members (sec. 631)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1967 of title 38, United States Code, to remove service
members from automatic enrollment as a dependent under the
Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program when they
are insured on their own behalf under the Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance program.

Conformity of special compensation for members with injuries or
illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living with monthly
personal caregiver stipend under Department of Veterans Affairs
program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers (sec.
632)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 439 of title 37, United States Code, to establish the
rate of the monthly stipend under the Department of Defense
family caregiver compensation program as the amount of the
caregiver stipend under the Department of Veterans Affairs
program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers
authorized in section 1720g of title 38, United States Code.
The committee continues to believe that the Departments of
Defense and Veterans Affairs must work together to ensure
seamless transition of care of all service members retiring for
disability, and directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to ensure
that caregivers of active-duty service members have access to
appropriate caregiver instruction, preparation, and training
for which they are eligible under the comprehensive Veterans
Affairs family caregiver program.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report no
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act on
implementation of appropriate caregiver training programs for
caregivers of active-duty service members eligible for
compensation under section 439 of title 37, United States Code.

Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense use and management
of incentive pays and bonuses

The committee remains dedicated to ensuring the military
pay and compensation system is sufficient to field a high
quality all-volunteer force, to include filling hard-to-fill or
critical specialties. The Department of Defense and the
military services have at their disposal a number of special
and incentive pays and bonuses to incentivize recruitment and
retention behavior to meet their needs. It is crucial that the
Department and the services accurately assess shortages that
require incentives to fill, and pay appropriate amounts to fill
those shortages.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the Department's and services' use of cash
incentives to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals
for service in the armed forces to fill hard-to-fill or
critical wartime specialties. The Comptroller General shall
include in the assessment an analysis of the hard-to-fill and
critical shortages of the Department and the services, their
effort to close those shortages through the use of cash
incentives, and the effectiveness of those efforts. The
Comptroller General shall include in its review both incentives
to new recruits to fill hard-to-fill or critical positions as
well as incentives for current service members to stay in
service or to change their military occupational specialty to
fill a more critical need. Finally, the Comptroller General
shall verify the extent to which the Department and the
services have effective mechanisms in place to appropriately
designate which military occupational specialties are critical
and do in fact require incentives to fill.
The Comptroller General shall report to the congressional
defense committees no later than July 1, 2011, on the results
of this assessment and any recommendations for legislative
change it believes appropriate to overcome personnel shortages
in hard-to-fill or critical specialties.

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense report on housing
standards and housing surveys used to determine basic allowance
for housing

The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the
Department of Defense report on housing standards and housing
surveys required by section 605 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) due
to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2010, to
determine if the Department is using the most effective,
accurate, and efficient system for setting basic allowance for
housing (BAH) rates. As part of this review, the Comptroller
General shall independently assess the effects of Department
base realignment decisions on post populations, and whether the
Department has adequately accounted for these basing decisions
in determining proper BAH rates, especially in rural areas
where the surrounding housing stock may not support a sudden
influx of personnel resulting in housing costs that may not be
reflected in the established BAH rates. The Comptroller General
shall provide the results of this review, including any
recommendations for statutory change, to the congressional
defense committees no later than April 1, 2011.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

One-year extension of ceiling on charges for inpatient care under the
TRICARE program (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the current limitation on charges for inpatient care in
a civilian hospital under TRICARE Standard.

Extension of dependent coverage under the TRICARE program (sec. 702)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to provide coverage
under the TRICARE program for certain dependents of eligible
beneficiaries up to the age of 26 for a premium equal to the
total cost of coverage as determined by the Secretary of
Defense based on actual program costs.
Under current law, a dependent of a service member or
eligible retiree may only qualify for coverage under the
TRICARE program until they reach age 21, or age 23 if enrolled
in school full-time. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (Public Law 111-148) requires group health plans and health
insurers to make coverage available to qualifying dependents
until the child reaches 26 years of age. This provision would
ensure that eligible dependents of TRICARE beneficiaries are
afforded an opportunity to obtain similar coverage.

Recognition of licensed mental health counselors as authorized
providers under the TRICARE program (sec. 703)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1079(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code, to include
licensed mental health counselors in the list of providers who
are authorized to diagnose and treat patients under the TRICARE
program. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to issue regulations within 180 days of the enactment
of this Act setting forth the specific requirements that such
counselors must meet in order to practice independently under
TRICARE.
The committee notes that the study and report submitted by
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of
Sciences on the Provision of Mental Health Counseling Services
Under TRICARE pursuant to section 717 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) was
published in February of this year. The report's two
recommendations are: to allow the independent practice of
mental health counselors in TRICARE under certain guidelines,
to include appropriate levels of education, licensure, and
clinical experience; and to establish a comprehensive quality
management system for all mental health professionals.
The committee directs the Secretary to report on
implementation of the IOM recommendations no later than May 1,
2011, including implementation of the quality management
system.

Plan for enhancement of quality, efficiencies, and savings in the
military health care system (sec. 704)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and submit a plan setting forth
actions to be taken to enhance quality, efficiencies, and
savings within the military health care system. The committee
expects the plan to be a product of collaboration with all
military department components of the health care system and
its partners, including Designated Providers of the U.S. Family
Health Plan, and managed care support contractors.
The committee acknowledges that senior leaders within the
Department of Defense are calling for an increase in fees for
TRICARE, which have remained unchanged since l995. However, the
committee believes that the Department must first do everything
within reason to make the health care system more efficient, to
improve quality, and to lower cost, through improvements in
business practices and preventive care, while maintaining high
and improving levels of beneficiary satisfaction.
The committee notes with concern a recent analysis of
emergency room visits in one TRICARE Region which concluded
that overall emergency room visits by TRICARE beneficiaries
were 133 percent greater than a well managed commercial plan.
The committee urges the Department to accelerate its efforts to
find alternatives that ensure access and quality care in
appropriate medical settings.

Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Postdeployment health reassessments for purposes of the medical
tracking system for members of the armed forces deployed
overseas (sec. 711)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that postdeployment health reassessments (PDHRA) be included in
the medical tracking system and quality assurance program for
members deployed overseas. The provision would also require
that the results of medical examinations conducted under the
system include information on the prescription and
administration of psychotropic medications.
The PDHRA is required by Department of Defense (DOD) policy
issued in March 2005, based on findings that health concerns,
particularly those involving mental health, are frequently
identified several months following a service member's return
from deployment.
The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)
found in a study published in November 2009 that DOD's central
repository of PDHRA questionnaires was missing questionnaires
from approximately 72,000 service members, or 23 percent of the
population studied. GAO concluded that as a result, DOD does
not have reasonable assurance that health concerns can be
identified and addressed.
The committee believes that the PDHRA can be effective in
proactively identifying health concerns that emerge following
deployments, but believes that better documentation is needed,
and that DOD must design and implement, as part of its quality
assurance program, a methodologically sound means of
determining whether or not service members referred for care
obtain the care that is needed.
In addition, the committee remains concerned about DOD's
inability to track the prescription and administration of
medications in theater, especially of psychotropic medications.
In response to questions for the record from a March 2010
Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on the military health care
system, the committee was informed that the Military Health
System Pharmacy Data Transaction Service has no visibility of
pharmacy data for prescriptions dispensed in forward operating
areas. Therefore, the provision clarifies that the language
requiring DOD to keep records of all health care services
received by members prior to or during the course of their
deployment must include the prescription and administration of
psychotropic medications. The committee expects the Department
to expeditiously implement a reliable method to track and
manage the prescription and use of pharmaceuticals, to include
psychotropic medications, by deployed service members.

Comprehensive policy on consistent automated neurological cognitive
assessments of members of the armed forces before and after
deployment (sec. 712)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive
policy on consistent automated neurological cognitive
assessments of all service members who are preparing to deploy
and all members who have returned from deployment and have
experienced an event which could result in traumatic brain
injury or a concussion.

Restoration of previous policy regarding restrictions on use of
Department of Defense medical facilities (sec. 713)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
prohibition on the use of a medical treatment facility or other
facility of the Department of Defense to perform an abortion
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the
fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy
is the result of an act of rape or incest. The prohibition on
using Department of Defense funds to perform abortions except
where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term would remain in effect.

Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for command-sponsored
dependents of members assigned to remote locations outside the
continental United States (sec. 714)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1040(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Defense to pay travel expenses for a command-
sponsored dependent of a service member assigned to a remote
location outside the continental United States who requires or
elects certain anesthesia services for childbirth to a location
in the United States.
Under current law, payment of travel expenses is authorized
for required medical attention that is not available in the
locality in order to travel to the nearest medical facility in
which adequate medical care is available, which may not be in
the United States. The provision would clarify that obstetrical
anesthesia services for childbirth should be included in the
scope of required medical attention.

Clarification of authority for transfer of medical records from the
Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs
(sec. 715)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1614 of the Wounded Warrior Act (found in Public Law
110-181) to align the Act with Health Insurance and Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations permitting the
release of information without the specific authorization of
the service member from the Department of Defense to the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), with respect to service
members who may be transitioning to the VA medical system.
The provision would align law with current HIPAA
regulations, and the absence of this change would lead to
costly and unnecessary information system changes and delays in
transfer of records for wounded, ill, and injured service
members entering the disability evaluation system.

Clarification of licensure requirements applicable to military health-
care professionals who are members of the National Guard
performing certain duty while in state status (sec. 716)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1094(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
certain National Guard personnel with a current health care
license to provide health care while performing training or
duty under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in
response to an actual or potential disaster.

Education and training on use of pharmaceuticals in rehabilitation
programs for wounded warriors (sec. 717)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement education and
training programs on the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in
or in transition to a wounded warrior unit, medical caregivers,
medical case managers, nonmedical case managers, military
leaders, and family members. The committee is concerned about
reports of and perceptions among seriously ill and injured
soldiers that they are over-medicated.
The committee recognizes that most medical and nurse
education programs lack formal training in clinical
pharmacology. Moreover, the rapid pace of pharmaceutical
development exceeds the ability of providers and patients to
keep up with current science, including the benefits and risks
of pharmacological agents, and the consequences of mixing
certain medications. For those reasons, the committee believes
that additional training is a necessary component of the
Department of Defense's (DOD) response to concerns about over-
medication of seriously ill and injured service members.
The committee directs the Secretary to work with the
medical departments of each service, as well as the Food and
Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health in the
development of the training plan, and to report to the
committee within 180 days of the enactment of this Act on plans
to implement this requirement. The report shall include a
description of existing training through DOD and non-DOD
entities, and how or if such readily available programs can be
utilized to fulfill this requirement.

Subtitle C--Reports

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the armed forces
who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations
required by the Department (sec. 731)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review and submit a report on the
adequacy and effectiveness of Department of Defense (DOD)
policies, procedures, and systems in place to provide support
to members of the armed forces who experience traumatic injury
as a result of a vaccination required by DOD.
The report would also require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to assess
the advisability of extending Traumatic Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance to cover such traumatic adverse reactions to
DOD-required vaccinations.

Repeal of report requirement on separations resulting from refusal to
participate in anthrax vaccine immunization program (sec. 732)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1178 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the
requirement that the Secretary of Defense report annually to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the numbers of service members separated
from the service for refusal to participate in the anthrax
vaccine immunization program. This report is no longer
necessary as only one service member has been separated for
refusal to participate in this program since 2004.

Items of Special Interest

Cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury

Section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a clinical trial to assess the efficacy of
cognitive rehabilitation therapy for members and former members
of the armed forces who have been diagnosed with a traumatic
brain injury, and to recommend whether or not such therapy
should be a covered benefit under the TRICARE program.
According to the Department of Defense (DOD), cognitive
rehabilitation therapy is a ``long-standing and a significant
component of comprehensive rehabilitation for persons with
moderate and severe traumatic brain injury,'' and, when
provided in conjunction with therapies to improve speech,
language, occupational capabilities and physical therapy,
cognitive rehabilitative therapy is provided both within
numerous military treatment facilities and under the TRICARE
program. However, scientific literature supporting the efficacy
of cognitive rehabilitation therapy in patients with persistent
symptoms and/or functional limitations as a result of mild
traumatic brain injury--one of the most common injuries
sustained on the battlefield--remains small.
The committee is pleased that the Department has issued
guidance to the military departments to track the outcome of
cognitive rehabilitation therapy for patients with mild
traumatic brain injury provided by military treatment
facilities beginning in calendar year 2010. Additionally, the
committee has been informed that the Department will conduct
the clinical trial required by section 723 of Public Law 111-84
utilizing up to 2 military treatment facilities in conjunction
with 17 clinical sites of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury
Center. These efforts demonstrate the commitment of the
Department to validating the most effective therapies, based on
needed scientific evidence, for mild traumatic brain injuries
incurred on the battlefield. Together, these efforts can lead
to better health outcomes and inform policymakers within the
Department on future benefit changes within the TRICARE
program.
The committee directs the Secretary to report no later than
February 1, 2011, on the following:
(1) DOD-wide and service specific policies,
procedures, and diagnostic tools concerning traumatic
brain injury before, during, and after deployment;
(2) best practices in clinical practice and staffing
of military treatment facilities and clinics for
providing treatment for traumatic brain injuries;
(3) evidence of clinical outcomes;
(4) collaboration with the Department of Veterans
Affairs in screening, treatment, and research; and
(5) efforts to improve early detection and treatment
of mild traumatic brain injury.
The report shall also include a review of coverage for
cognitive rehabilitation therapy by public and private health
programs, and the scientific basis for such coverage.

Embedded behavioral health providers

The committee continues to be concerned about the
challenges of identifying and preventing behavioral health
problems among service members returning from deployment, and
is pleased to learn of efforts to implement the recommendation
of the Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force on Mental Health
in June 2007 to embed mental health providers within military
units, both during deployment and in garrison.
One example is the Army's Mobile Behavioral Health Team
(MBHT) at Fort Carson, Colorado. The team consists of six
credentialed behavioral health providers (two psychologists and
four licensed clinical social workers), each of whom is
assigned exclusively to a single battalion within a brigade
combat team. Their goal is to improve early identification of
behavioral health problems through more accurate diagnosis,
remove barriers to care, and improve treatment outcomes. The
committee has learned that initial results of the MBHT program
are positive, with service members reporting high levels of
satisfaction, unit leaders reporting positive improvements in
behavioral health, and fewer reported risk behaviors, such as
suicide attempts, domestic problems, or substance abuse. The
committee encourages the Army, upon completion of its
evaluation of the Fort Carson program, to replicate the
successful elements of this model elsewhere, to facilitate
early identification and treatment of behavioral health
concerns, and to mitigate both inpatient psychiatric admissions
and the necessity of referrals off-post for mental health care.
The committee has learned of other initiatives that involve
embedding behavioral health counselors within National Guard
units that have returned from deployment. Evidence is emerging
that these efforts have the potential to help reduce stigma and
encourage service members to seek and receive care before their
conditions worsen.
The committee acknowledges the priority that the Department
has placed on improving behavioral health care for service
members and their families, including efforts to increase the
number of mental health providers. The committee reiterates its
concern that medical and dental readiness, including behavioral
health care, must be a priority for the Guard and reserve.
Unfortunately, according to the Department of Defense, fewer
than 20 percent of those eligible for health care coverage
under TRICARE Reserve Select are taking advantage of that
option. The Department must redouble its efforts to reach out
to eligible members with information on TRICARE medical and
dental benefits for the Guard and reserve. In addition, section
735 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) clarified that funds
available for operation and maintenance of a reserve component
of the armed forces may be available for medical and dental
readiness of reserve component members. The committee expects
that such funds will be utilized for that purpose, especially
in behavioral health.
The committee urges the Department to continue its
implementation of recommendations of the DOD Task Force on
Mental Health, to include the designation of full-time
directors for psychological health at military installations
and within the Guard and reserve. The committee believes that
it is critical to ensure visible leadership in support of
service members seeking behavioral health care at every level
of Department of Defense component organizations.

Live tissue training

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
currently augments combat trauma training with the use of live
animals, known as live tissue training, when no suitable
alternative exists. According to the Department, live tissue
training is fundamental in providing combat medics with the
skill sets required to perform a number of life-saving
procedures and stabilize seriously injured military personnel
on the battlefield. The committee notes that DOD sees
significant value in live tissue training, particularly because
combat medics are deployed after a condensed training program,
in most cases, without having gone through medical school.
Following such training, combat medics must possess proficiency
in a variety of complicated medical procedures which they are
often required to perform in the dark, under fire, and in
remote locations. According to the Department, simulators
currently lack sufficient realism and the ability to replicate
combat wounds and the associated emotional stressors combat
medics face on the battlefield. The committee also notes that
the Department's use of live tissue training is strictly
regulated by a number of federal laws and policies and
accredited by the Association for the Assessment and
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, an international non-
profit organization that promotes humane use of animals in
science.
On September 5, 2008, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics established the Use of
Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint Analysis
Team (ULAMET JAT) to address the use of live animals for DOD
medical readiness training. The ULAMET JAT found that several
critical/high stakes medical procedures are not presently able
to be taught using simulation, including treatment of certain
penetrating chest wounds, amputation, and hemostasis. The
ULAMET JAT noted in its final report, dated July 12, 2009, that
``live animal training is the singular opportunity to
experience management of injuries in a living system prior to
deployment to a combat zone. The next opportunity to use these
skills very likely will be treating combat wounded.'' The
ULAMET JAT final report also made nine recommendations related
to the Department's policies on the use of animals in combat
trauma training and plans to validate and adopt alternatives,
including simulation technologies.
The committee believes that the Department should continue
to aggressively pursue alternatives to the use of live animals
in combat trauma training. However, the committee also believes
that the use of animals in combat trauma training remains
appropriate for critical/high-risk medical procedures, until
such time that alternatives are developed to provide combat
medics a better training experience that more closely
replicates the combat wounds and emotional stressors
encountered on the battlefield. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives not later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act, on the status of the Department's implementation of the
nine actions recommended by the ULAMET JAT in its final report.

Report on the use of temporary military contingency payment adjustments
for TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System rates

The committee commends the Department of Defense for
extending the comment period on the final rule implementing
rate changes for the TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment
System last year, in order to align reimbursement rates with
Medicare as required by law. The final rule included not only a
phase-in period for both network and non-network hospitals
serving TRICARE beneficiaries, but also a provision for a
temporary military contingency payment adjustment (TMCPA) at
any time for hospitals deemed essential for military readiness
and support of contingency operations as well as authority for
a general TMCPA to address other special needs.
The committee, however, continues to hear from hospitals
serving a large number of TRICARE beneficiaries that the
application process to receive TMCPAs is long, that metrics by
which they are being judged for adjustment payments are
unclear, and that there is confusion among TRICARE regional
officers and local support contractors about the application
and approval process.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to
report on and provide an assessment of the application process
for provision of TMCPAs for the TRICARE Outpatient Prospective
Payment System. The report and assessment must include:
(1) the number of hospitals that have applied for a
TMCPA since May 1, 2009;
(2) a list of the hospitals that have been granted a
TMCPA;
(3) the average processing time for TMCPA
applications;
(4) the average time for receipt of reimbursement of
TMCPA amounts;
(5) a list of the TMCPA rate adjustment levels
granted to approved hospitals, by hospital;
(6) the metrics by which the Department decides
whether to grant a TMCPA and the adjustment level
provided;
(7) whether the Department works with providers to
ensure applications are complete;
(8) whether providers are given access to supporting
data, information, and conclusions of the TMCPA
adjustment decision, whether or not it receives such an
adjustment;
(9) whether there is an appeals process in place for
hospitals;
(10) the training provided to TRICARE regional
officers and local support contractors on the TMCPA
application process; and
(11) the feasibility of not requiring annual re-
application.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit
this report and assessment to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
April 1, 2011.
The committee recognizes that civilian hospitals are
essential to the success of the TRICARE program. The committee
therefore directs the Department of Defense to make the TMCPA
application process as transparent as possible, and to increase
lines of communication with these health care providers. The
committee also believes there should be a timeframe set for
notification and receipt of final settlement amounts to
hospitals, in order to ensure that hospitals are able to budget
for future years.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
estimates Defense Health Program savings of $793.0 million in
fiscal year 2011 as a result of implementing the Outpatient
Prospective Payment System. In addition, the Department
estimates a $60.0 million savings in out of pocket expenses for
TRICARE beneficiaries under the Extra and Standard options as a
result of reduced cost sharing.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS

Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Improvements to structure and functioning of Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would update
section 181 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the
provision appropriately reflects the role of the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior Department of
Defense officials in the development of joint military
requirements. The committee expects the changes made by this
provision to facilitate: (1) an enhanced role for the combatant
commanders in addressing issues within their expertise; (2) a
greater emphasis on portfolio management, rather than service-
specific approaches to military needs; (3) early trade-offs
between cost, schedule, and performance in the development of
new requirements; and (4) more effective collaboration between
the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes.
Cost estimates for program baselines and contract negotiations for
major defense acquisition and major automated information
system programs (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2334 of title 10, U.S. Code, to clarify the distinction
between cost estimates developed for baseline descriptions and
budgetary purposes, and cost estimates developed for the
purpose of contract negotiations and the obligation of funds.
Under this provision, cost estimates developed for baseline
descriptions and budgetary purposes would be developed to
provide a high degree of confidence that the program can be
completed without the need for significant adjustment to
program budgets. Cost estimates developed for contract
negotiation purposes would be based on the government's
reasonable expectation of successful contractor performance in
accordance with the contractor's proposal and previous
experience.
The committee understands that the phrase ``a high degree
of confidence that the program can be completed without the
need for significant adjustment to program budgets'' means no
less than a 50 percent confidence level. In programs with a
wide range of uncertainty, a confidence level of greater than
50 percent may be required to ensure a high degree of
confidence that significant budget adjustments will not be
required.
Section 2334 was included in the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) to address the problems
caused by the reliance of the Department of Defense (DOD) on
unrealistic and overly optimistic cost estimates to make
program and budget decisions. Senator Levin explained the need
for the provision as follows:

``[C]ontractors and program offices have every reason
to produce optimistic cost estimates and unrealistic
performance expectations, because programs that promise
revolutionary change and project lower costs are more
likely to be approved and funded by senior
Administration officials and by Congress. In other
words, we get the information we need to run our
programs from people who have a vested interest in
overpromising. . . .
``The consequences of using such optimistic estimates
were correctly identified by DOD's Acquisition
Performance Assessment (DAPA) panel two years ago. The
DAPA panel found that `Using optimistic budget
estimates . . . forces excessive annual reprogramming
and budget exercises within the Department, which in
turn causes program ``restructuring'' that drives long-
term cost, causes schedule growth, and opens the door
to requirements creep.'''

Unfortunately, some DOD program officials have taken the
view that the conservative cost estimates developed for
budgetary purposes should also be used for contract negotiation
purposes, i.e., that if DOD has decided that it should be
prepared for the possibility that a program might cost
significantly more than the contractor predicts, we should pay
the contractor on that basis. This approach would lock in a
worst case cost scenario and eliminate any incentive for the
contractor to achieve more successful program outcomes. The
committee concludes that budgetary estimates necessarily differ
from estimates used for contract negotiation purposes, because
they serve a different purpose.
Management of manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue comprehensive guidance on the
management of manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition
programs. The provision would also require the Secretary to
ensure that manufacturing readiness knowledge and skills are
given appropriate consideration as the Department of Defense
(DOD) identifies areas of need for funding through the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund established pursuant to
section 1705 of title 10, United States Code.
In April 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that billions of dollars in cost growth occur as
programs transition from development to production. According
to GAO, much of this cost growth is due to ``inattention to
manufacturing during planning and design, poor supplier
management, and a deficit in manufacturing knowledge among the
acquisition workforce. Essentially, programs did not identify
and resolve manufacturing risks early in development, but
carried risks into production where they emerged as significant
problems.''
GAO reports that commercial firms have addressed similar
problems through ``a disciplined, gated process that emphasizes
manufacturing criteria early in development.'' DOD has
attempted to develop a similar process, based on Manufacturing
Readiness Levels, but implementation has been slow. The
committee concludes that the costs imposed by the Department's
failure to manage manufacturing risk require a stronger and
more rapid response.
Extension of reporting requirements for developmental test and
evaluation and systems engineering in the military departments
and Defense Agencies (sec. 804)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 102(b) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-23) to extend by 5 years the requirement
for the military departments and defense agencies to report on
steps that they have taken to rebuild the workforce skills and
capabilities needed to perform key developmental test and
evaluation and systems engineering functions.
Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs
under various acquisition-related requirements (sec. 805)
The committee recommends a provision that would reaffirm
that where the Department of Defense designates major
subprograms in accordance with section 2430a of title 10,
United States Code, unit costs are required to be reported only
at the major subprogram level. The provision would also clarify
that significant cost or schedule increases and other changes
to designated major subprograms that alter the substantive
basis for a milestone decision should be reported to the
appropriate milestone decision authority and the congressional
defense committees in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2366a and 2366b of title 10, United States Code.
Technical and clarifying amendments to Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (sec. 806)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and clarifying amendments to the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23).

Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management

New acquisition process for rapid fielding of capabilities in response
to urgent operational needs (sec. 811)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a new acquisition
process to ensure the rapid fielding of capabilities in
response to urgent operational needs, in accordance with
certain recommendations of the July 2009 report of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on Fulfillment of Urgent Operational
Needs and the April 2010 report of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). The Secretary would also be
required to develop and implement an expedited review process
to determine whether capabilities proposed as urgent
operational needs are appropriate for fielding through the
rapid acquisition process or should be fielded through the
traditional acquisition process. As a general rule, the rapid
acquisition process would be available only for capabilities
that can be fielded within a period of 2 to 24 months, do not
require a substantial development effort, are based on
technologies that are proven and available, and can be acquired
under fixed price contracts.
The acquisition process and the review process required by
this section would apply to the full range of processes used by
the Department of Defense to identify urgent operational needs,
including both joint urgent operational need statements and
comparable documents generated by the military departments and
the combatant commands. The committee expects the guidance
issued pursuant to this section to rationalize the relationship
between joint processes and service-specific processes for
responding to such needs. In general, the committee understands
that service-specific processes are intended to address
narrower and more discrete requirements that should require
minimal development. In the view of the committee, a fielding
requirement of 180 days or less would be appropriate for such
requirements.
In some cases, it appears that the military services have
stretched the boundaries of rapid acquisition authorities to
undertake large and complex acquisition programs that would be
more suitable to the traditional acquisition process. For
example, the Marine Corps and the Air Force Special Operations
Command have used rapid acquisition authority to modify KC-
130Js and AC-130s for use in theater, while the Army sought to
use other transactions authority to field Long Endurance Multi-
Intelligence Vehicles, and the Navy and Air Force have proposed
leasing commercially-available, propeller-driven aircraft and
fundamentally modifying them for military use. In view of the
high development risk associated with some of these programs
and the fact that a number of them appear to be redundant or
duplicative of existing programs, the committee concludes that
the Department needs stronger guidance on the proper
application of rapid acquisition processes.
In April 2010, GAO reported significant shortcomings in
existing Department of Defense (DOD) processes for meeting
urgent operational needs. According to GAO:

``DOD's guidance for its urgent needs processes is
dispersed and outdated. Further, DOD guidance does not
clearly define roles and responsibilities for
implementing, monitoring, and evaluating all phases of
those processes or incorporate all of the expedited
acquisition authorities available to acquire joint
urgent need solutions. Data systems for the processes
lack comprehensive, reliable data for tracking overall
results and do not have standards for collecting and
managing data. In addition, the joint process does not
include a formal method for feedback to inform joint
leadership on the performance of solutions. . . . In
the absence of a management framework for its urgent
needs processes, DOD lacks tools to fully assess how
well its processes work, manage their performance,
ensure efficient use of resources, and make decisions
regarding the long term sustainment of fielded
capabilities.''

The committee urges the Department to address these
shortcomings in its rapid acquisition processes as quickly as
possible.
Acquisition of major automated information system programs (sec. 812)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a program to improve the
planning and oversight of the acquisition of major automated
information systems by the Department of Defense. Section 804
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) required DOD to develop and implement a new
acquisition process for information technology systems. The
provision recommended by the committee would require that the
new acquisition process specifically address the issues of
planning, requirements development and management, project
management and oversight, earned value management, and risk
management. In addition, the Department would be required to
develop metrics for measuring performance measurement and to
ensure that key program personnel have an appropriate level of
relevant experience, training, and education.
Permanent authority for Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec.
813)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
permanent authority for the Defense Acquisition Challenge
Program, as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD). The
Challenge program is designed to provide opportunities for the
introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology in DOD
acquisition programs.
Exportability features for Department of Defense systems (sec. 814)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out activities for the design
and incorporation of exportability features--such as technology
protection and capability differentiation features--into
defense systems during the research and development phase of
Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition programs. Under
subsection (b) of the provision, the use of DOD funds for
activities authorized by this subject is subject to the
availability of appropriated funds for such purpose.
Appropriated funds are considered to be available if: (1) they
are authorized and appropriated for the purpose of such
activities; or (2) they are reprogrammed for such purpose in
accordance with established procedures.
Reduction of supply chain risk in the acquisition of national security
systems (sec. 815)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to take certain steps in the
procurement process to reduce supply chain risk in the
acquisition of sensitive information technology systems that
are used for intelligence or cryptologic activities; used for
command and control of military forces; or form an integral
part of a weapons system. In particular, the Secretary would be
authorized to: (1) reduce supply risk by establishing
qualification requirements in accordance with the requirements
of section 2319 of title 10, United States Code; (2) provide
for the consideration of supply chain risk as a significant
evaluation factor in certain solicitations; and (3) exclude a
particular source from consideration where necessary to avoid
an unacceptable supply chain risk. The term ``supply chain
risk'' would be defined, as recommended by the Department of
Defense, to mean the risk that an adversary may sabotage,
maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert
the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution,
installation, operation, or maintenance of a system so as to
surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use,
or operation of the system.
On December 22, 2009, the Secretary of Defense submitted a
report on trusted defense systems, as required by section 254
of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417). In that report, the
Secretary found that the globalization of the information
technology industry has increased the vulnerability of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to attacks on its systems and
networks. The report found an increasing risk that systems and
networks critical to DOD could be exploited through the
introduction of counterfeit or malicious code and other defects
introduced by suppliers of systems or components. The committee
concludes that the Secretary should have the authority needed
to address this risk.
Department of Defense policy on acquisition and performance of
sustainable products and services (sec. 816)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense
committees on the progress of the Department of Defense in
meeting the goals and objectives established in Executive Order
13514 for the procurement of sustainable products and services.
The report would be required to address actions taken by the
Department to identify particular sustainable products and
services that could contribute to these goals and initiatives,
and assess strategies and tools available to promote the use of
such products and services across the Department.
Repeal of requirement for certain procurements from firms in the small
arms production industrial base (sec. 817)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, and eliminate the
restriction on the Department of Defense to procure small arms
parts only from certain manufacturers.
Section 2473 was the result of an Army Science Board study
in 1994 determining that, in order to preserve the domestic
small arms industry, weapons parts procurement contracts should
be limited to three of the largest manufacturers at that time.
The committee understands that the health of the U.S. small
arms industrial base has significantly improved over the last
15 years. The committee has consistently supported policies and
programs that encourage technological competition, industrial
innovation, and competitive pricing. Accordingly, the committee
recommends repeal of section 2473 of title 10, United States
Code.
Prohibition on Department of Defense procurements from entities
engaging in commercial activity in the energy sector of the
Islamic Republic of Iran (sec. 818)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from entering into any contract for
the procurement of any goods or services from any person or
entity through a contract, grant, loan, or loan guarantee in an
amount in excess of $1.0 million unless the person or entity
certifies to the Secretary of Defense that the person or entity
is not: (1) in violation of the Iran Sanction Act of 1996, as
amended; (2) has not engaged in the sale of refined petroleum
products to the Islamic Republic of Iran; (3) has not engaged
in an activity that could contribute to enhancing the ability
of the Islamic Republic of Iran to import refined petroleum;
(4) has not engaged in the selling, leasing, or otherwise
providing to the Islamic Republic of Iran any good, services,
or technology that could contribute to maintenance or expansion
of the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran to produce
refined petroleum products; or (5) does not own or control any
person or entity that engage in such activity. The Secretary of
Defense may waive the prohibition if the Secretary determines
that the procurement is essential to the national security
interests of the United States.

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

Pilot program on acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental items
(sec. 831)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess
the feasibility and advisability of streamlined procedures for
the acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental items.
Under the streamlined procedures, covered contractors would not
be required to provide certified cost or pricing data under
section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, but would be
required to provide other data for the purpose of price
reasonableness determinations.
The most recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released
in February 2010, suggests that as the Department of Defense
(DOD) tries to acquire innovative technologies and solutions to
meet military requirements faster and cheaper, it should find
more ways to involve commercial and small business firms in
defense acquisitions. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) already includes a preference for both commercial items
and other nondevelopmental items, the FAR does not include any
procedures to incentivize the private development of items that
serve solely a military purpose. In fact, the military purpose
of an item developed exclusively at private expense may prevent
DOD from using streamlined acquisition processes that are
available for the purchase of commercial items.
The pilot program under this section is designed to test
whether the streamlined procedures similar to those available
for commercial items can serve as an effective incentive for
non-traditional defense contractors to: (1) channel investment
and innovation into areas that are useful to DOD; and (2)
provide items developed exclusively at private expense to meet
validated military requirements.
The committee notes that the streamlined acquisition
procedures developed under this section may have a particular
utility in the Department's efforts to rapidly field military
capabilities in response to urgent operational needs.

Competition for production and sustainment and rights in technical data
(sec. 832)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance on rights in technical
data to ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) preserves
the option of competition for contracts for the production and
sustainment of systems or subsystems that are developed
exclusively with Federal funds or without significant
contribution by a contractor or subcontractor and that the
United States is not required to pay more than once for the
same technical data. The provision would also provide DOD with
improved tools to address situations in which a contractor has
erroneously asserted a restriction on the use or release of
technical data that was developed exclusively with Federal
funds or without significant contribution by the contractor or
subcontractor.

Elimination of sunset date for protests of task and delivery order
contracts (sec. 833)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2304c of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the
sunset date for protests of task and delivery orders under
Department of Defense contracts. The sunset date was included
in section 2304c to provide the committee an opportunity to
adjust the provision if the new protest authority resulted in a
surge of bid protests. In April 2009, the Government
Accountability Office reported that only a handful of bid
protests are attributable to the new authority. The committee
concludes that no adjustment to the authority is needed.

Inclusion of option amounts in limitations on authority of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency to carry out certain
prototype projects (sec. 834)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the dollar thresholds applicable to prototype projects
carried out pursuant to section 845 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
include all option amounts.

Enhancement of Department of Defense authority to respond to combat and
safety emergencies through rapid acquisition and deployment of
urgently needed supplies (sec. 835)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), as amended by
section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), to
enhance the authority provided to the Secretary of Defense to
respond quickly to combat emergencies, as requested by the
Department of Defense (DOD). The amendment would: (1) authorize
DOD to use that authority for the acquisition of all kinds of
supplies--including material, equipment, and stores; (2) extend
the application of the authority from cases in which combat
fatalities have occurred to cases in which combat casualties
have occurred or are imminent; and (3) double the ceiling on
the use of the authority to $200.0 million in any fiscal year
and clarify the applicability of the ceiling. The committee
continues to believe that DOD should have the flexibility it
needs to rapidly acquire supplies that are likely to prevent
imminent casualties on the battlefield.

Subtitle D--Contractor Matters

Contractor business systems (sec. 841)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a program for the improvement
of contractor business systems to ensure that such systems
provide timely, reliable information for the management of
Department of Defense programs by the contractor and by the
Department.
Section 887 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as
amended by section 302 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), directed the Department of
Defense to report to Congress on the implementation of earned
value management (EVM) systems. The Secretary's report, which
was transmitted to Congress on November 2, 2009, concluded
that:

``The effectiveness of the Department's use of EVM is
limited by the underlying quality of the data and by
the inability to gain access to contractor data, due to
antiquated systems. . . . DOD's access to data is an
issue because many contractors have not updated their
business systems in decades. These older systems rely
on manual interfaces that are prone to errors. In
addition, industry has not fulfilled its role or self-
surveillance. [The Defense Contract Management Agency
(DCMA) has] found, in many reviews, that contractors
are not compliant with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748
[the industry-wide standard] and have not adequately
identified those deficiencies themselves.''

The report indicates that of the last 13 comprehensive
reviews conducted by DCMA, only two contractors were found to
be compliant with the industry-wide standard. According to the
report, the data quality problems in contractor business
systems ``hinder the government's ability to meet program
objectives by delaying or masking insight into developing
problems.''
Reports by DCMA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and the
Commission on Wartime Contracting indicate that the problems
identified by the Secretary are not unique to EVM systems, but
extend to many other types of contractor business systems--such
as estimating systems, purchasing systems, and material
management systems--on which the Department of Defense also
places heavy reliance.

Oversight and accountability of contractors performing private security
functions in areas of combat operations (sec. 842)

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1)
require contracting activities to assign an appropriate number
of personnel to the oversight of contractors performing private
security functions in areas of combat operations; and (2)
provide new measures to ensure the accountability of such
contractors for any failure by their employees or
subcontractors to comply with the requirements of law or
regulation, or with directives from combatant commanders.
The senior United States commander on the ground in
Afghanistan has expressed serious concerns about the use of
private security contractors in that country and stressed that
private security functions should be placed under the direct
control of the Government of Afghanistan or be legitimate
coalition forces. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by no
later than December 1, 2010, on steps that the Department has
taken or plans to take, if any, to reduce its use of private
security contractors in Afghanistan.

Enhancements of authority of Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny
award fees to companies found to jeopardize the health or
safety of Government personnel (sec. 843)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to authorize the Secretary
of Defense to make determinations of fault in cases where the
Secretary has reason to believe that a contractor, in the
performance of a contract, may have caused the serious bodily
injury or death of civilian or military personnel of the
Department of Defense (DOD). If the Secretary finds that a
contractor caused the death or serious injury through gross
negligence or with reckless disregard for the safety of such
personnel, this determination may be considered in award fee
determinations under section 823, and in past performance
evaluations and assessments of contractor responsibility under
section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417). A determination
by the Secretary under this section would not be determinative
of fault for any other purpose.
The committee anticipates that investigations under this
provision would be conducted pursuant to existing Department of
Defense procedures for administrative fact-finding
investigations, such as those provided by Army Regulation 15-6
and the Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN) of the
Navy. The committee understands that a contractor would have
the same right to challenge award fee determinations, past
performance evaluations, and assessments of contractor
responsibility that are made on the basis of a determination
under this section as they currently have to challenge
determinations, evaluations, and assessments that are made on
any other basis.
Under current law, a case of death or injury to civilian or
military personnel may be excluded from consideration under
section 823 because the U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to make a
determination of fault, or because the contractor is immune
from a civil action in the case. The committee concludes that
conduct resulting in the death or serious injury of U.S.
Government personnel should be considered in the evaluation of
contractor performance, regardless whether such conduct is
justiciable in the United States courts.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Extension of acquisition workforce personnel management demonstration
program (sec. 851)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through September 30, 2017, the acquisition workforce personnel
management demonstration program authorized by section 4308 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106).

Non-availability exception from Buy American requirements for
procurement of hand or measuring tools (sec. 852)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the domestic non-availability exception in the Berry
amendment, section 2533a of title 10, United States Code,
applies to the purchase of hand or measuring tools. This
provision, which was requested by the Department of Defense, is
needed to ensure that the Department has continued access to
hand or measuring tools that are not available from domestic
sources.

Five-year extension of Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program
(sec. 853)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
5 years the mentor-protege program authorized by section 831 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991
(Public Law 101-510), as requested by the Department of
Defense.

Extension and expansion of small business programs of the Department of
Defense (sec. 854)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through September 30, 2018, the Department of Defense Small
Business Innovative Research program, Small Business Technology
Transfer program, and Small Business Commercialization Pilot
Program.
The committee notes that these programs have successfully
invested in innovative research and technologies that have
contributed significantly to the expansion of the defense
industrial base and the development of new military systems and
capabilities. The committee believes that a multiyear extension
of these programs will enhance overall program effectiveness by
providing program stability and enabling participants in both
the government and the small business community to better plan
budgets and investments.

Four-year extension of test program for negotiation of comprehensive
small business subcontracting plans (sec. 855)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
4 years the authority for Department of Defense (DOD)
contractors to negotiate comprehensive small business
subcontracting plans in accordance with section 834 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and
1991 (Public Law 101-189), as requested by the Department. The
provision would also require DOD, in consultation with the
Small Business Administration, to report to Congress by no
later than March 1, 2012, on the impact and results of the
program.

Report on supply of fire resistant fiber for production of military
uniforms (sec. 856)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Government Accountability Office to report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the supply chain for fire resistant fiber for the production
of military uniforms.

Contractor logistics support of contingency operations (sec. 857)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Defense Science Board to carry out a comprehensive review of
Department of Defense (DOD) organization, doctrine, training,
and planning for contractor logistics support of contingency
operations. The provision would also require that the
Quadrennial Defense Review and other military planning
documents address the expected roles and responsibilities of
contractors in military operations and associated risks.
DOD's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have relied on
contractor logistics support to an unprecedented degree. In
Iraq, the U.S. has maintained roughly equal numbers of
contractor personnel and military forces, although the military
force has been drawn down more rapidly than the contractor
force over the last year. In Afghanistan, contractors have
consistently outnumbered military forces, with 104,000 DOD
contractor personnel supporting 64,000 troops as of September
2009.
Because the Department's use of contractor logistics
support has reduced costs, increased efficiency, and enabled
military forces to focus on warfighting efforts, it appears
likely that the United States will continue to rely heavily
upon such support in future conflicts. In too many cases,
however, such reliance has been driven by day-to-day military
needs without adequate consideration to organizational and
doctrinal issues. As a result, the Department faces a series of
difficult questions about the reliance on contractors in future
conflicts. For example:
Are there logistics functions that should be
performed by government personnel?
Are there types of military operations in which
it would be inappropriate to rely so extensively on contractor
logistics support?
What organic capabilities does the Department
need to support such functions or operations?
Should the Department rely on a single logistics
contractor to manage support operations, or contract directly
with a number of support contractors?
How should the Department structure itself to
ensure proper management and oversight of contractor personnel
on the battlefield?
To what extent should the Department rely upon
local nationals, and third-country nationals, to provide
logistics support?
What level of detail on contractor logistics
support should be included in operational plans for contingency
operations?
What steps should the Department take to ensure
that an appropriate level of contracting expertise is available
to the officials responsible for developing such plans?
The committee believes that a systematic review is needed
to ensure that the Department's organization, doctrine,
training, and planning for contractor logistics support can
help shape the appropriate use of contractor logistics support
in future conflicts.

Items of Special Interest

Acquisition workforce strategic plan

Section 851 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by section
1108 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (Public
Law 111-84), requires the Secretary of Defense to include a
separate chapter on the defense acquisition workforce in the
Department's annual strategic human capital plan. As the
committee explained in its report on the 2008 bill, this
planning requirement is an essential step toward addressing
well-documented shortcomings in the acquisition workforce of
the Department of Defense (DOD):

``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.'''

The acquisition workforce strategic plan submitted by the
Department in April 2010, after several years of effort,
provides a viable, data-driven approach to rebuilding the DOD
acquisition workforce that is consistent with both the letter
and the spirit of section 851 and section 1108. The committee
commends the Department for the quality of the plan and urges
the Department to continue to use this document as a baseline
to drive DOD strategy for the acquisition workforce and report
on progress in implementing that strategy over the period of
the future years defense program.
The committee notes that: (1) the Department's plan for the
test and evaluation workforce appears to be inconsistent with
the high priority given to rebuilding that workforce in the
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23); (2) the plan does not appear to include any metric for
measuring the Department's progress toward meeting the
requirement of section 820 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364),
regarding key leadership positions in the acquisition
workforce; and (3) the material provided by the Department of
the Navy and the Department of the Air Force would be more
useful if it were presented in the same format as the balance
of the plan. The committee urges the Department to address
these issues in its next annual update of the plan.

Configuration Steering Boards

Section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
required the military departments to establish Configuration
Steering Boards (CSB) to control cost growth on major defense
acquisition programs (MDAP). CSBs are required to review
proposed changes to program requirements or system
configuration that could adversely impact program cost and to
recommend changes that improve program cost in a manner
consistent with program objectives. Section 814 requires that a
CSB meet to consider each major defense acquisition program at
least once each year.
However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported in March 2010 that ``Only a few programs reported
holding configuration steering boards to review requirements
changes, significant technical changes, or de-scoping options
in 2009.'' According to GAO, only seven of 42 MDAPs reviewed
reported holding a configuration steering board meeting in 2009
and only one program presented potential de-scoping options to
decrease cost and schedule risk consistent with program
objectives. Moreover, the committee has been informed that some
CSBs focus entirely on Key Performance Parameters, to the
exclusion of proposed technical configuration changes that may
also drive program costs.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take appropriate
steps to ensure that CSBs meet at least once a year to consider
the full range of proposed changes to program requirements or
system configuration for each MDAP, as required by section 814.
In addition, the committee directs GAO to review DOD's use of
CSBs in fiscal year 2010 and to report to the committee by no
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
on the number of times on which CSBs met with regard to each
MDAP and the extent to which such CSBs considered the full
range of issues required by the statute.

Contractor past performance information

Section 1091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-355) requires federal agencies to collect
and maintain information on contractor past performance for
consideration in future contract award decisions. The
Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented this requirement
through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System
(CPARS).
In 2008, the DOD Inspector General reviewed the
Department's processes for collecting and maintaining
contractor past performance information and reported that CPARS
did not include required past performance information. In
particular, the Inspector General found that the CPARS database
did not include up-to-date performance information for most DOD
contracts and that most of the reports included in the database
lacked the kind of information needed by contracting officials
to make informed decisions related to market research, contract
awards, and other acquisition matters.
Senior DOD officials concurred in the Inspector General's
findings and agreed to promulgated new guidance designed to
address the problem.
Because the evaluation of contractor past performance
information continues to play a critical role in contract award
decisions, the committee directs the Inspector General to
conduct a follow-up review to determine whether the new
guidance has resulted in better compliance and a more complete
and useful database of contractor past performance information.

Organizational conflicts of interest

Section 207 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-23) required the Secretary of Defense to
tighten existing requirements for organizational conflicts of
interest (OCI) by contractors in major defense acquisition
programs (MDAP). At a minimum, the new regulations are required
to: (1) ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) receives
advice on systems architecture and systems engineering (SETA)
matters with respect to MDAPs from sources independent of the
prime contractor; and (2) ensure that each contract for the
performance of SETA functions for an MDAP contains a provision
prohibiting the contractor from participating as a prime
contractor or a major subcontractor in the development or
construction of a weapon system under the MDAP, subject to
``such limited exceptions . . . as may be necessary to ensure
that the Department of Defense has continued access to advice
on systems architecture and systems engineering matters from
highly-qualified contractors with domain experience and
expertise, while ensuring that such advice comes from sources
that are objective and unbiased.''
On April 22, 2010, the Department of Defense published a
proposed amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address the requirements of
section 207, as well as other, broader OCI issues. The proposed
DFARS rule states that ``generally, the preferred method to
resolve an organizational conflict of interest is mitigation.''
The proposed rule requires that a contract for the performance
of SETA functions for an MDAP prohibit the contractor from
participating as a contractor or a major subcontractor in the
development or construction of a weapon system under the MDAP,
as required by section 207, unless ``the contractor is highly
qualified with domain experience and expertise and the
organizational conflict of interest will be adequately
resolved'' through mitigation.
The exception provided by the proposed DFARS rule appears
to be broader in scope than the exception authorized by the
statute. Moreover, when this language is taken in conjunction
with the rule's overall preference for mitigation over
avoidance, the rule may be read to reverse the statutory
presumption that SETA contractors may be permitted to
participate in development and production only in exceptional
cases. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
this issue and ensure that the final DFARS rule is consistent
with the requirements of the statute.
In addition, the committee notes that several DOD
components have already issued guidance that is tighter than,
but not inconsistent with, the proposed DFARS rule. The
committee believes that the final DFARS rule should make it
clear that it is not intended to override tighter standards
that have been issued by DOD components.

Planning and implementation for hiring civilian employees to replace
contractor employees

In 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to hire
up to 30,000 new civilian employees of the Department of
Defense (DOD) over a 5 year period, to replace contractor
employees and restore needed expertise and authority to the DOD
workforce. The committee endorses this initiative, which is
needed to overcome past funding decisions that precluded trade-
offs between civilian employees and contractor employees, and
impeded the Department's efforts to achieve a rational balance
between the two workforces.
The committee believes that the Department's hiring efforts
should focus on individuals with critical skill sets that are
most needed by the Department. At a time when DOD desperately
needs to rebuild its intellectual capital in critical mission
areas, the effort and expense required to hire new civilian
employees to replace contractor employees should not be wasted
on the conversion of routine commercial functions that can
readily be performed by contractors.
In the acquisition workforce, the Department has a
demonstrated need for more civilian employees to serve as
contracting officials, system engineers, development planners,
software engineers, cost estimators, and developmental testers.
Outside the acquisition workforce, the Department has a
demonstrated need for a wide range of highly skilled
professionals, including accountants, auditors, financial
management and business process experts, information technology
experts, and human resources professionals.
Section 115b of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Secretary to prepare an annual strategic workforce plan to
shape and improve the Department's civilian employee workforce.
In addition, section 2330a of title 10, United States Code,
requires the secretaries of the military departments and the
heads of the defense agencies to develop inventories of
functions and missions performed by contractors and to review
those inventories to identify functions that would more
appropriately be performed by DOD employees. The committee
urges the Department to take advantage of the rational planning
processes developed in response to these requirements to focus
the hiring effort undertaken pursuant to the Secretary's plans
on individuals with the skills and expertise most needed by the
Department.

Profit or fee for undefinitized contract actions

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Department
of Defense (DOD) to issue guidance, with detailed
implementation instructions, to ensure the enforcement of
requirements applicable to undefinitized contract actions
(UCAs), including regulatory limitations on profits or fees.
The conference report explained the purpose of the new guidance
as follows:

``[T]he Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) states that when the final price of
a UCA is negotiated after a substantial portion of the
required performance has been completed, the negotiated
profit rate should reflect any reduced cost risk to the
contractor for costs incurred during contract
performance before negotiation of the final price.
Section 215.404-71-3(d)(2) of the DFARS states: `When
costs have been incurred prior to definitization,
generally regard the contract type risk to be in the
low end of the designated range. If a substantial
portion of the costs have been incurred prior to
definitization, the contracting officer may assign a
value as low as 0 percent, regardless of contract
type.' However, [the Government Accountability Office
(GAO)] found no evidence that DOD contracting officers
have been observing these requirements in the
negotiation of contract fees. The conferees expect the
guidance issued pursuant to this section to include
procedures for ensuring compliance with these and other
requirements regarding UCAs.''

In January 2010, GAO reviewed DOD's implementation of
section 809. Although DOD has taken a number of steps to
enhance its oversight of UCAs, GAO reported that even after the
implementation of section 809, DOD officials failed to give the
required consideration to reduced cost risk in determining
contractor profits or fees. In those cases where DOD officials
documented their profit determinations, GAO found that ``the
contract-type risk factors were skewed toward the middle and
high end of the DFARS designated ranges, indicating higher risk
for the contractors,'' rather than the lower risk expected
under the DFARS provision. As a result, it appears that DOD
continues to pay excessive profits and fees on $18.0 billion in
potential obligations for UCAs.
The committee expects DOD to address this problem as
recommended by GAO, by revising applicable regulations to
provide specific guidance for how to develop, consider, and
document assessments of cost risk for profit or fee
determinations for all undefinitized contract actions. In
addition, the committee directs the Department to revise the
semi-annual reporting requirement under section 217.7405(a)(2)
of the DFARS to include information on rates of profits and
fees negotiated on all UCAs with an estimated value exceeding
$5.0 million. The semiannual reports should include a
justification for any case in which contracting officials
assign a level of contract type risk that is not in the low end
of the designated range, as provided in section 215.404-71-
3(d)(2) of the DFARS.

Strategy of addressing national security issues related to rare earth
materials in the defense supply chain

Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report on rare earth materials in
the supply chain of the Department of Defense (DOD). The April
2010 GAO report found that:
``the use of rare earth materials is
widespread in defense systems,'' including precision-
guided munitions, lasers, communication systems, radar
systems, avionics, night vision equipment, and
satellites;
``where rare earth materials are used in
defense systems, the materials are responsible for the
functionality of the component and would be hard to
replace without losing performance'';
``current capabilities to process rare earth
metals into finished materials are limited mostly to
Chinese sources'' and increased vertical integration
may ``increase China's total market power and
dominance'';
``rebuilding a U.S. rare earth supply chain
may take up to 15 years and is dependent on several
factors, including securing capital investments in
processing infrastructure, developing new technologies,
and acquiring patents, which are currently held by
international companies''; and
``DOD has not yet identified departmentwide
national security risks due to rare earth material
dependencies'' and has no comprehensive plan for
addressing such risks.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to report to the
congressional defense committees on national security issues
related to rare earth materials in the defense supply chain by
no later than March 15, 2011. The Under Secretary's report
should address at a minimum: (1) steps that DOD has taken to
identify and address national security risks due to the
Department's dependence on Chinese sources for rare earth
materials; (2) steps that DOD plans to take within the next 2
years to identify and address such risks; (3) whether direct
investment by the United States Government is needed to
minimize national security risks associated with an
interruption of supply; and (4) when the Department plans to
have in place a comprehensive plan in place for addressing such
risks.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

Repeal of personnel limitations applicable to certain defense-wide
organizations and revisions to limitation applicable to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
certain personnel limitations applicable to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and other defense-wide organizations, as
requested by the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision
would eliminate personnel ceilings that are based on the
Department's organization more than 20 years ago. The
Department's legislative request states: ``These changes are
necessary to ensure that defense-wide support organizations are
free from outdated personnel limits. It will remove the limits
that do not address the 20 years of history within the
Department of Defense and changes within the global military
and political environment.''
Reorganization of Office of the Secretary of Defense to carry out
reduction required by law in number of Deputy Under Secretaries
of Defense (sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
certain provisions of title 10, United States Code, to
implement changes in the organizational structure of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) recommended by the Department
of Defense (DOD) in response to the requirement of section 906
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) to eliminate non-statutory Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (DUSD) positions by the end of 2010.
The provision would: (1) redesignate certain
Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed (PAS) officials as
assistant secretaries of defense; (2) modify the order of
precedence of officials within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense; (3) authorize the Secretary to add a new Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management; (4)
create a separate statutory provision establishing the position
of Deputy Chief Management Officer for DOD; (5) modify the
titles of certain non-PAS officials to conform to the new
organization; (6) create a separate statutory provision for the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Manufacturing
and Industrial Base Policy; (7) authorize DOD to retain up to
five non-statutory DUSDs for a limited period of time; and (8)
make other technical and conforming changes.
As explained in the Department's legislative request,
``These changes will provide a logical construction for the
organization of the most senior officials within OSD by: (1)
removing the wide variance in the status and stature of
officials with the same title, and (2) providing the same title
to officials of generally equal status and stature.''
Revision of structure and functions of the Reserve Forces Policy Board
(sec. 903)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 10301 and 113 of title 10, United States Code, to
revise the functions and structure of the Reserve Forces Policy
Board. The Board would serve as an independent adviser to the
Secretary of Defense on strategies, policies, and practices
designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency,
and effectiveness of the reserve components. The provision
would reduce the membership of the Reserve Forces Policy Board
from 24 members to 20 members, and would authorize retired and
enlisted members and members from outside the Department of
Defense to serve as members of the board.

Subtitle B--Space Activities

Limitation on use of funds for costs of terminating contracts under the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System Program (sec. 911)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from using any funds available for the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS) from being used to pay termination costs until
there is an agreement that any termination costs will be
equally divided between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of Commerce (DOC).
While the committee does not support termination of the
contract and believes that terminating the NPOESS contract
would result in the loss of a significant amount of time and
money that has been invested in this program, any such
decision, if made, should be made, funded, and executed jointly
by the DOD and the DOC.
Limitation on use of funds for purchasing Global Positioning System
user equipment (sec. 912)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) from being
used to purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) user equipment
unless such equipment is capable of receiving the military code
or ``M'' code. The DOD has made significant investments to
deploying GPS satellites with M code capability to allow
improved accessibility to GPS satellites and increase anti-jam
and anti-spoof capabilities. The new M code will provide a more
robust signal, which will in turn improve signal acquisition,
particularly where it is difficult to acquire a signal
currently. The new M code will also provide better security in
terms of exclusivity, authentication, and confidentiality,
along with streamlined key distribution. The committee believes
that use of this new signal will greatly improve war fighting
capabilities.
The provision includes authority to waive the requirement
and would not apply to items such as cars and other commercial
vehicles that come equipped with GPS receiver capability.
Plan for integration of space-based nuclear detection sensors (sec.
913)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence and the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration to develop a plan for space-
based nuclear detection sensors. The plan would set forth an
integration plan for the sensors and lay out a path to comply
with section 1065 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The provision would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
spending more than 75 percent of the funds available for the
Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) from being obligated until
the plan is submitted.
Preservation of the solid rocket motor industrial base (sec. 914)
The committee recommends a provision that would set forth
the sense of the Senate with respect to the impact of the
cancellation of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Constellation program. The sense of the
Senate is specifically focused on the impact cancellation of
Ares I, Ares V, or their solid rocket motor alternatives or
derivatives, and all supporting elements would have on the
solid rocket industrial base, including the vendor and supplier
base would have on the programs of the Department of Defense
(DOD). The provision would also include a number of findings
with respect to the cancellation decision and the lack of
discussion about the decision with the DOD. Finally, the
provision would direct the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Administrator of NASA, to report on the
impact of the cancellation of the Constellation program on DOD
mission requirements. The report would be due to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, and Appropriations, and the House of
Representatives Committees on Energy and Commerce, and
Appropriations, 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Implementation plan to sustain solid rocket motor industrial base (sec.
915)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to develop an implementation plan to
sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base. Section 1078 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) directed the Secretary of Defense to
develop recommendations to sustain the solid rocket motor
industrial base. This provision would utilize the
recommendations from that report as the foundation to develop
an implementation plan and to identify the necessary funding to
sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base.
The committee is concerned that with the recent National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisions, the
overhead costs associated with the solid rocket motor
industrial base will shift exclusively to the Department of
Defense (DOD). Until NASA determines the nature of its next-
generation launch vehicle, DOD will be the primary purchaser of
solid rocket motors. The committee urges the DOD to take the
actions necessary to sustain both the engineering and
manufacturing capabilities needed for future solid rocket motor
requirements and to ensure that the industrial base is
appropriately sized to meet these requirements.
Review and plan on sustainment of liquid rocket propulsion systems
industrial base (sec. 916)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to
review and develop a plan to sustain the liquid rocket
propulsion system industrial base. The review would include
actions necessary to support current systems and sustain
intellectual and engineering capacity to support next-
generation systems and engines. The plan would be due by June
1, 2011.
The committee is concerned that launch costs across the
board are increasing as the need for new systems has decreased.
It is essential that the U.S. maintain a domestic launch
capability that can meet the mission assurance requirements of
the Federal Government.

Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters

Permanent authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial
activities as security for intelligence collection activities
(sec. 921)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
permanent authority for the Secretary of Defense to engage in
commercial activities as security for intelligence collection
activities. This authority has been provided to the Secretary
since 1991 but always on a temporary basis with a sunset date.
The administration requested a permanent grant of authority,
and the committee agrees that this is reasonable.
Modification of attendees at proceedings of Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance Integration Council (sec. 922)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
secretary of each military department to designate an officer
or employee to attend the meetings of the Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Integration Council. The
provision also would delete the terms Joint Military
Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence and Related
Activities Program from the statute that established the ISR
Integration Council and replace it with the term Military
Intelligence Program.
Report on Department of Defense interservice management and
coordination of remotely-piloted aircraft support of
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (sec. 923)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of Defense produce a report consolidating
data from the services and information on several Defense-wide
activities that would address a number of issues regarding
remotely-piloted aircraft systems and the intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities they provide or
are intended to provide to the Department. The Secretary would
be required to report to the congressional defense committees
within 150 days of enactment of this Act.
Report on requirements fulfillment and personnel management relating to
Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
provided by remotely-piloted aircraft (sec. 924)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of the Air Force produce a report to address
a number of issues regarding the Air Force's management of
various aspects of remotely-piloted aircraft systems and the
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities
that these systems provide. The Secretary would be required to
report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days
of enactment of this Act.

Subtitle D--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters

Continuous monitoring of Department of Defense information systems for
cybersecurity (sec. 931)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to implement a set of information security
measures and controls on Department of Defense information
networks and systems, and to automate the monitoring of those
controls. This process has been very successfully applied at
the Department of State and the Department of Justice, and has
been proposed as a far more cost-effective method of improving
compliance and reporting under the Federal Information Security
Management Act.
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
networks are far larger, more varied, and complex than those
operated by the Department of State and the Department of
Justice, and that there should not be a ``one-size-fits-all''
approach to continuous monitoring and dashboard representations
of network status and vulnerability. At the same time, the
committee is persuaded that the conceptual approach pioneered
by the Departments of State and Justice, which are based on
audit guidelines developed by the private sector and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, is sound and
will make a major contribution to cyber security in the
Department of Defense.

Strategy on computer software assurance (sec. 932)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a strategy for
securing the software and software applications for covered
systems in the Department of Defense (DOD). This strategy must
address the full life cycle of software-based applications and
weapons systems, from development, acquisition, test and
evaluation, certification and accreditation (C&A), and C&A
renewals. The strategy must also address the challenge of
remediation of legacy systems, and of monitoring and defending
software applications as they are running against cyber
attacks.
The committee is informed that a large and growing
percentage of successful cyber intrusions, attacks, and thefts
have exploited vulnerabilities in software applications,
especially custom applications. Some of these attacks are
difficult or impossible to detect using packet-based intrusion
detection and prevention systems based on known signatures.
The committee understands that usually there are limited
requirements, if any, in development contracts for ensuring
security in the software code, and regulations permit manual
sampling of code to check for vulnerabilities during
evaluations and C&A processes.
Congress addressed supply chain risk management in section
254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009 (Public Law 110-417). However, section 254 focused on
hardware, and, while DOD included software in its supply chain
risk management strategy report, submitted in response to
section 254 requirements, policy, regulations, and program
planning for software assurance remain largely undeveloped.
The committee emphasizes the importance of developing new
technologies for the automated analysis of software code for
vulnerabilities and for detecting attempted intrusions. It is
not practical to manually examine all the lines of code in all
of DOD's critical information systems. Automated tools are
commercially available today, but collectively they detected
only 60 percent of the vulnerabilities purposefully inserted
into code for tests conducted by the National Security Agency.
Moreover, these tools only work for software for which the
source code is available. It is much more difficult to analyze
vulnerabilities without the source code--a very common
situation. Commercial tools also exist for monitoring software
applications as they are running in order to detect intrusions.
Such capabilities appear to be a critical component of a
comprehensive defense system.
The committee understands that the cost and effort involved
in correcting all discoverable vulnerabilities in all DOD
software applications is prohibitive, and therefore agrees that
DOD should focus on so-called covered systems. However, major
intrusions and data thefts in the private sector have involved
penetrations first of non-critical and unprotected
``administrative'' applications, which provided the access that
enabled attacks on important and supposedly more secure
applications. If a similar vulnerability exists in DOD, it will
not be enough to secure only covered systems.

Strategy for acquisition and oversight of Department of Defense cyber
warfare capabilities (sec. 933)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop an acquisition process tailored
to the unique and demanding requirements of cyber warfare.
Military forces operating in cyberspace will require new or
modified tools and capabilities almost constantly, and
instantly, to keep pace with the speed at which change occurs
in cyberspace. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that
there is an orderly, repeatable, and transparent process for
generating and approving requirements, for developing and
acquiring those new capabilities, and for reporting the use of
such capabilities. Furthermore, due to the uncertainties in the
effects of actions in cyberspace, the potentially serious
consequences of operations in cyberspace, and the importance of
precedents in the development of norms of behavior in
cyberspace, it is also critical for the Department of Defense
to conduct thorough testing of cyberspace capabilities at
facilities that accurately replicate or emulate the operational
environment in which those capabilities will be used.
The committee is also concerned about possible adverse
effects of dual-hatting the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command as
the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), absent a
well-defined cyber acquisition process. NSA has a very large
acquisition organization. While that acquisition organization
has been making progress in reforming its processes and
improving the talent in its acquisition corps, NSA has a
history that raises concerns about the lack of rigor and
oversight of its operations. No other combatant command has a
large acquisition organization in such an intimate
relationship, other than U.S. Special Operations Command, which
was purposely created to conduct systems acquisition. The
committee believes it is necessary to ensure that self-
perceived requirements do not emerge in U.S. Cyber Command and
migrate under the radar screen of defense acquisition
management processes directly to NSA for solutions.
A large fraction of cyberspace tools, applications, and
capabilities will be software based and classified. It has been
difficult enough historically to maintain appropriate
distinctions between genuine ``software maintenance'' and the
development of new capabilities in less highly classified and
dynamic major systems. In this critically important and
sensitive new mission area of cyber warfare, it is essential to
be clear about who is responsible for developing new
capabilities--and how that development and fielding is
conducted.

Report on the cyber warfare policy of the Department of Defense (sec.
934)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by March 1, 2011, on
the cyber policy of the Department of Defense (DOD). The
committee's extensive examination of DOD's proposal to
establish U.S. Cyber Command as a sub-unified command under
U.S. Strategic Command revealed that there are substantial and
worrisome gaps in the policy and guidelines needed to govern
U.S. military operations in cyberspace. Senior DOD officials
testified to this effect, and assured the committee that the
Secretary of Defense understands this situation very well and
intends to address the outstanding issues vigorously. The
committee was informed that the Secretary intends to have
answers to some of the major policy questions by the end of
this calendar year. The committee places great importance on
the fulfillment of this commitment.
The committee appreciates the fact that the new
administration inherited these unresolved cyber policy issues
and that it may not be reasonable to expect that all of the
difficult and complex issues can be resolved by March 1, 2011.
Below is an extensive but not exhaustive list of the policy
issues that were discussed extensively with DOD officials
during the committee's cyber review. If the Secretary's policy
review process is unable to address or resolve any of these
matters, or others that the Secretary deems significant, the
committee requests that the Secretary note them, and explain
why they need to be deferred or remain unresolved, and when he
expects some resolution.
The issues referred to above are these:
1. The development of a declaratory deterrence
posture for cyberspace, including the relationship
between military operations in cyberspace and kinetic
operations. The committee believes that this deterrence
posture needs to consider the current vulnerability of
the U.S. economy and government institutions to attack,
the relatively lower vulnerability of potential
adversaries, and the advantage currently enjoyed by the
offense in cyberwarfare;
2. The necessity of preserving the President's
freedom of action in crises and confrontations
involving nations which may pose a manageable
conventional threat to the United States but which in
theory could pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy,
government, or military through cyber attacks;
3. How deterrence or effective retaliation can be
achieved in light of attribution limitations;
4. To the extent that deterrence depends upon
demonstrated capabilities or at least declarations
about capabilities and retaliatory plans, how and when
the Department intends to declassify information about
U.S. cyber capabilities and plans or to demonstrate
capabilities;
5. How to maintain control of or manage escalation in
cyberwarfare, through, for example, such measures as
refraining from attacking certain targets (such as
command and control and critical infrastructure);
6. The rules of engagement for commanders at various
command echelons for responding to threats to
operational missions and in normal peacetime operating
environments, including for situations in which the
immediate sources of an attack are computers based in
the United States;
7. How the administration will evaluate the risks and
consequences attendant to penetrations of foreign
networks for intelligence gathering in situations where
the discovery of the penetration could cause the
targeted nation to interpret the penetration as a
serious hostile act;
8. How DOD shall keep Congress fully informed of
significant cyberspace accesses acquired for any
purpose that could serve as preparation of the
environment for military action;
9. The potential benefit of engaging allies in common
approaches to cyberspace deterrence, mutual and
collective defense, and working to establish norms of
acceptable behavior in cyberspace;
10. The issue of third-party sovereignty to determine
what to do when the U.S. military is attacked, or U.S.
military operations and forces are at risk in some
other respect, by actions taking place on or through
computers or other infrastructure located in a neutral
third country.
11. The issue of the legality of transporting cyber
``weapons'' across the Internet through infrastructure
owned and/or located in neutral third countries without
obtaining the equivalent of ``overflight rights.''
12. The definition or the parameters of what would
constitute an act of war in cyberspace, and how the
laws of war should be applied to military operations in
cyberspace; and
13. What constitutes use of force in cyberspace for
the purpose of complying with the War Powers Act
(Public Law 93-148).

Reports on Department of Defense progress in defending the Department
and the defense industrial base from cyber events (sec. 935)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide annual reports that assess
whether the Department is improving its ability to defend
Department of Defense networks and information systems and
those of the defense industrial base against cyber attacks and
intrusions. The first such report would be required to provide
a baseline and metrics for measuring performance against an
evolving threat, including categorizing the types of attacks
and the vulnerabilities that were exploited. These reports
would also disclose what information was lost and other impacts
on the Department. The reports also would provide a net
assessment of the offensive and defensive capabilities of the
United States as compared to potential adversaries and other
nations with advanced cyber warfare capabilities, along with a
comparison of relative dependence on the Internet.
This reporting requirement would expire in 2015.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Report on organizational structure and policy guidance of the
Department of Defense regarding information operations (sec.
951)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the Department of
Defense's (DOD) organizational structure and policy guidance
relating to information operations (IO) activities, which is
currently defined by the Department to include electronic
warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations,
military deception, and operations security. This review shall
include, but not be limited to, a review of: (1) the
appropriate location within the Department of the lead official
responsible for IO, including the designation of a principal
staff assistant to the Secretary of Defense for IO; (2)
responsibilities for developing and overseeing DOD IO policy
and integration activities; (3) responsibilities for DOD
oversight and planning, execution, and related policy guidance;
(4) responsibilities for intra-DOD and inter-governmental
coordination and de-confliction activities for all DOD IO
activities; (5) the roles and responsibilities of the military
departments, U.S. Special Operations Command, and functional
and geographic combatant commands in the development and
implementation of IO; (6) the roles and responsibilities of the
defense intelligence agencies for support to IO activities; (7)
the appropriate role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs; (8) related capabilities to include public
affairs, civil-military operations, defense support to public
diplomacy, and intelligence support; (9) the appropriate policy
and implementation management structure for the computer
network operations component of IO activities; and (10) the use
and oversight of contractors in IO development and
implementation. Following this review, the Secretary shall
promulgate a new DOD Directive on IO.
A report on the Secretary's review shall be provided to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than 90 days after the enactment of
this Act. The committee provides additional guidance related to
this provision in the classified annex.
The committee remains concerned about the Department's
ability to oversee adequately and manage appropriately the
large sums of money flowing into a variety of information
operations programs. The committee believes this internal
oversight failure is a result of the roles and responsibilities
for IO being too fragmented across organizations within the
Department and that too much of the policy development and
oversight for IO programs has migrated into the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)). Further,
the committee believes the review also needs to address the
extent to which it is appropriate for USD(I) to be given the
responsibility for the development and implementation of IO
programs. Further, as a general rule, the committee believes
intelligence should inform policy and the Department's current
organizational arrangement is not consistent with this widely
accepted doctrine.
The committee is also concerned that the establishment of
U.S. Cyber Command and the position of Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Cyber and Space Policy calls into
question the continued incorporation of computer network
operations in the Department's definition of Information
Operations, which asserts that all elements under the
Information Operations label will be managed and overseen in a
fully integrated manner.

Report on the organizational structures of the geographic combatant
commands headquarters (sec. 952)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on effectiveness of the
interagency-oriented geographic combatant command headquarters'
organizational structure. The report shall include, but not be
limited to: (1) a description of the organizational model used
by each of the geographic combatant commands (GCC); (2) an
assessment of the benefits and limitations of each
organizational model in meeting broad-ranging military
missions; (3) a description and assessment of the role and
contribution of other Federal departments and agencies within
each organization model, including any plans to expand
interagency participation in the future; (4) a description of
any lessons learned from the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) organizational structures, to
include an assessment of the value-added, if any, of the
position of civilian deputy to the commander at SOUTHCOM and
AFRICOM; and (5) any other matters the Secretary and Chairman
may deem appropriate. The report should be provided to the
aforementioned committees no later than 90 days from the
enactment of this Act.
In September 2007, SOUTHCOM, with the approval of the
Secretary of Defense, began the transformation to a joint,
interagency, regional security command. As part of this
transformation process, SOUTHCOM altered its organizational
structure and functioning. The new enterprise directorate-based
organization model was a transition from the traditional Joint
Staffing or J-code organizational model used by most of the
combatant commands and the Joint Staff. Since the SOUTHCOM
reorganization, AFRICOM was established and organized in a
similar enterprise directorate-based manner and U.S. European
Command is reportedly reviewing the appropriateness of a
comparable reorganization.
The committee viewed favorably the effort by SOUTHCOM and
AFRICOM to explore methods to synchronize more effectively the
soft power elements of national security and to respond more
effectively and rapidly to regional issues and transnational
threats. In February 2009, however, the Government
Accountability Office reported that AFRICOM was having
difficulty in integrating interagency personnel into its
structure. Moreover, the committee is aware of a recent
decision by the SOUTHCOM commander to revert to the former and
more traditional J-code organizational structure during the
U.S. Government's response to the January 12, 2010, earthquake
in Haiti. This decision was reportedly due to, at least in
part, command and control and communications shortcomings of
the enterprise directorate-based command structure. The
committee notes that the Department had previously indicated
that these issues had been addressed, most notably in an
October 17, 2008, report to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives. The committee
remains open to the possibility of more integrated interagency-
oriented GCCs, but is interested in better understanding the
benefits and limitations of the enterprise directorate-based
model.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
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. Transfers of
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
Repeal of requirement for annual joint report from Office of Management
and Budget and Congressional Budget Office on scoring of
outlays in defense budget function (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 226 of title 10, United States Code. That section
requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
to provide Congress with a joint report, no later than April 1
of each year, containing an agreed-upon resolution of all
differences between the technical assumptions used by OMB and
CBO in preparing the estimates with respect to all accounts in
function 050 (national defense) for the budget to be submitted
to Congress in the following year. If the two Directors are
unable to agree upon any technical assumption, the report
reflects the use of averages of the relevant account rates used
by the two offices.
This report is unnecessary because it largely duplicates
information already provided in the President's Budget.
Furthermore, OMB and CBO already work together to reconcile
outlay estimates and regularly alert Congress to where outlay
estimates differ.

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy
mess operations (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
section 1014 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
which authorizes the Department of Defense to fund from Navy
operations and maintenance accounts the cost of meals on United
States naval and naval auxiliary vessels for non-military
personnel, through September 30, 2015, and would establish an
annual limit of no more than $1.0 million.
In fiscal year 2009, the Department expended approximately
$400,000 for meals sold to authorized personnel during U.S.
civil-military operations, including Continuing Promise 2008/
2009, African Partnership Station 2009, and Pacific Partnership
Station 2009. The committee expects the Department's
expenditures under this authority will increase in fiscal year
2010 due to Operation Unified Response/Joint Task Force-Haiti.
The committee recognizes the value of recent civil-military
operations and humanitarian relief missions--executed by the
USNS Comfort, USNS Mercy, and other vessels--and acknowledges
the importance of building partnerships and fostering the
positive image of America worldwide. The committee also
understands that the participation of non-governmental
organizations and host and partner nations is vital to the
successful execution of these missions.

Subtitle C--Counterdrug Matters

Notice to Congress on military construction projects for facilities of
foreign law enforcement agencies for counter-drug activities
(sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a notification of the decision to construct, repair,
or modify a facility of a foreign law enforcement agency for
the purpose of supporting said agencies' counterdrug
activities. This provision would enhance the existing
notification and wait requirement under section 1004(h) of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1991,
as amended (Public Law 101-510).
In fiscal year 2009, the Department initiated a number of
military construction projects under its support to foreign law
enforcement agencies authority (section 1004 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 1991, as amended), including more than $24.0
million for the construction of the regional law enforcement
center in Kandahar, Afghanistan, $1.3 million for the
construction of a national narcotics bureau training facility
in Indonesia, $2.7 million for an operations center, barracks,
and pier in Costa Rica, $0.8 million for construction of an
access road for a counter-narcotics unit in Cameroon, and $1.0
million for the renovation of the ministry of interior and
state intelligence service buildings in Albania. The
congressional defense committees, under current law, are only
provided an annual report of these efforts if Congress renews
section 1022(a) of the Floyd D. Spence NDAA for Fiscal Year
2001, as amended (Public Law 106-398). This provision would
provide improved visibility on the support to foreign law
enforcement agencies provided by the Department. The committee,
however, also extends section 1022(a) in another section of
this Act.
Extension and expansion of support for counter-drug activities of
certain foreign governments (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
fiscal year the duration of authority for assistance under
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as amended, extend
the limitation on the maximum amount of support, and expand the
list of countries that could qualify for assistance under
section 1033 to the Government of Nicaragua.
The committee did not look favorably upon the Department's
request to increase the maximum amount of support authorized
under this provision due to the Department's underemployment of
this authority for consecutive fiscal years. The committee is
keen to understand the reasons for the Department's continued
under utilization of this important building partnership
capacity authority, particularly given the addition of six
countries in the last 3 years.
Extension and modification of joint task forces support to law
enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
(sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 fiscal year the authority provided under section 1022 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108-136), as amended, which expires at the end of
fiscal year 2010, through fiscal year 2011. The provision would
also limit the availability of this authority for any fiscal
year after 2010 until the Secretary of Defense makes a
determination that a significant connection exists between an
entity engaged in illegal drug trafficking and the foreign
terrorist organization concerned before utilizing this
authority and would require the Secretary of Defense to provide
a report to Congress as to whether each existing joint task
force providing support under section 1022 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2004, as amended, as of September 30, 2010, is
providing such support in a manner consistent with this new
requirement.
Extension of numerical limitation on assignment of United States
personnel in Colombia (sec. 1024)
The committee recommends a provision that extends section
1021(c) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as amended, for
1 fiscal year the limitation on the number of U.S. military and
federally funded civilian contractor personnel in the Republic
of Colombia through fiscal year 2011.
Reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign counter-drug
activities (sec. 1025)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
1 year, the reporting requirement on expenditures to support
foreign counterdrug activities under section 1022(a) of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), as amended.

Subtitle D--Homeland Defense and Civil Support

Limitation on deactivation of existing Consequence Management Response
Forces (sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the deactivation or disestablishment of any Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive
(CBRNE) Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF)
established as of October 1, 2009, until 90 days after the
Secretary of Defense certifies that there exists within the
Armed Forces an alternative CBRNE consequence management
response capability that is at least as capable as 2 CCMRFs.
The provision would also require a report by the Secretary of
Defense on the plans of the Department of Defense (DOD) to
establish Homeland Response Forces for domestic emergency
response to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.
The committee is concerned that DOD is planning to
disestablish an existing CCMRF, and it plans not to establish a
previously planned third CCMRF on October 1, 2010. Instead, DOD
plans to establish 10 Homeland Response Forces (HRF) in the
National Guard, and locate 1 HRF in each of the 10 Federal
Emergency Management Agency Regions, under the control of the
Governor in the state where they are located. The committee
does not believe it is prudent to eliminate the existing DOD
consequence management capability--the second CCMRF--unless and
until there is an equal or better capability in place.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the planned
HRFs may not be able to provide the same level of capability as
the CCMRFs, since they would be only a fraction of the size of
a CCMRF. Even if multiple HRFs were to join in response to a
large-scale incident, which would be difficult given their
planned regional dispersal, they would not provide nearly the
capability of a single CCMRF.
Additionally, by placing the HRFs in the National Guard
under the control of Governors, DOD would be removing these
units from the direction and control of DOD and the Federal
Government. The mission of providing defense support to civil
authorities in response to a disaster is a Federal
responsibility, and it is not apparent that the planned HRFs
will be able to provide the same form of coordinated, planned,
and organized response that now exists with the CCMRFs.

Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic
emergency assistance (sec. 1032)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2557 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to make excess nonlethal supplies
available for domestic emergency assistance purposes. Under
section 2557, the Secretary already has the authority to make
such supplies available for humanitarian relief and homeless
veterans' assistance. This provision would expand the purposes
for which such supplies could be made available to include
domestic emergency assistance. It would also require that the
distribution of such supplies for domestic emergency assistance
purposes shall be coordinated with the Secretary of Homeland
Security.

Sale of surplus military equipment to State and local homeland security
and emergency management agencies (sec. 1033)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2576 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the
State and local agencies to which the Secretary of Defense may
sell surplus military equipment, to include homeland security
and emergency management agencies. Under section 2576, the
Secretary already has the authority to sell surplus military
equipment to State and local law enforcement and firefighting
agencies. The provision would also expand the surplus equipment
that the Secretary may sell to State or local agencies to
include personal protective equipment and other appropriate
equipment.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

National Guard support to secure the southern land border of the United
States (sec. 1041)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to deploy not fewer than 6,000 National
Guard personnel to perform operations and missions along the
southern land border of the United States for the purposes of
assisting the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in securing
such border.

Prohibition on infringing on the individual right to lawfully acquire,
possess, own, carry, and otherwise use privately owned
firearms, ammunition, and other weapons (sec. 1042)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from regulating the otherwise lawful
acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of
privately-owned firearms on property that is not a Department
of Defense installation and is not any other property that is
owned or operated by the Department of Defense, subject to
specified exceptions. The provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the
legal and policy issues regarding the regulation of privately-
owned firearms off of a military installation, and submit his
findings and recommendations to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Extension of limitation on use of funds for the transfer or release of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (sec. 1043)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2011, the provisions of section 1041 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2454). As a result, the provision
would extend through the end of 2011 the prohibition in that
section on the use of funds available to the Department of
Defense (DOD) to release any detainee at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States, its
territories, or possessions. It would also extend through the
end of 2011 the prohibition in that section on the use of DOD
funds for the transfer of any Guantanamo detainee into the
United States until 45 days after the President submits a
detailed, comprehensive plan for the disposition of any such
detainee.

Limitation on transfer of detainees from United States Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain countries (sec. 1044)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
for 1 year the use of Department of Defense funds to transfer
individuals held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to
countries where Al Qaeda has an active presence, specifically
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen.

Clarification of right to plead guilty in trial of capital offense by
military commission (sec. 1045)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
procedures for guilty pleas in the trial of capital cases by
military commissions. The amendment would provide that a
sentence of death may only be imposed by a unanimous vote of
all members of a military commission concurring in the
sentence.

Fiscal year 2011 administration and report on the Troops-to-Teachers
Program (sec. 1046)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to administer and fund the Troops-to-
Teachers Program during fiscal year 2011. The provision would
also require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Education to report to Congress on the history, administration,
and effectiveness of the Troops-to-Teachers Program and the
rationale for the proposed transfer of the program from the
Department of Education to the Department of Defense and
describe any proposed modifications to the program if
transferred.

Military impacts of renewable energy development projects and other
energy projects (sec. 1047)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive strategy for
addressing military impacts of renewable energy projects and
other energy projects, with the objective of ensuring that the
robust development of renewable energy sources and the
expansion of the commercial electrical grid may move forward in
the United States, while minimizing or mitigating any adverse
impacts on military operations and readiness.

Public availability of Department of Defense reports required by law
(sec. 1048)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that Department of Defense (DOD)
reports to Congress are made available to the public, upon
request. This requirement would not apply to reports that
contain classified information, proprietary information, or
other information that is exempt from public disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act (section 522 of title 5, United
States Code). DOD could comply with the requirements of this
section by posting the covered reports on a publicly-accessible
website.

Development of criteria and methodology for determining the safety and
security of nuclear weapons (sec. 1049)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to develop high level
criteria for determining the appropriate baseline for the
safety and security of nuclear weapons and a methodology for
determining the level of safety and security for each type of
nuclear weapon. A report setting forth the criteria and
methodology would be due no later than March 1, 2011. Ensuring
that the nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe and secure are
essential elements to maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
The committee supports improvements to the nuclear weapons
stockpile to ensure that in addition to being reliable the
stockpile remains safe and secure. As the NWC begins its review
of the safety and security of the stockpile, and the various
options and possibilities to improve safety and security, the
NWC should develop a baseline requirement for safety and
security. This baseline would be the minimum requirement for
safety and security across the nuclear weapons stockpile. This
baseline should be achieved by each weapon type in the
stockpile that will go through a life extension program.
Developing a baseline for safety and security will ensure that
there is a clear understanding of the threat environment in
which the nuclear system will exist. Threats to nuclear weapons
have changed significantly and improving the safety and
security of the stockpile should be achieved wherever feasible.
The safety and security baseline would then be applied to
each warhead and a determination made as to whether the
baseline is or is not adequate or appropriate for the
particular type of weapon, given the environment in which it is
deployed, stored, and transported, as well as the inherent
design of the weapon. This review would inform decisions with
respect to a specific life extension program as to whether
higher or possibly even lower levels of safety or security are
merited.
For instance, at one point a standard for the nuclear
stockpile was to have fire resistant pits in all nuclear
weapons. A decision as to whether or not a warhead type
actually was designed to have a fire resistant pit was made
based on the requirements for the warhead, including the
environment in which the warhead would be stored and deployed.
While exceptions to the standard were made in the past,
exceptions to the new baseline safety and security criteria
should be undertaken only with a clear understanding of the
risk entailed by such a decision.
As the scope of each new life extension program is
determined, through the regular phase 6.x process, the
committee believes that the safety and security criteria and a
methodology for applying such criteria should be utilized. The
methodology should include an opportunity for a broad, system
life cycle cost benefit analysis, in addition to the cost of
the Life Extension Program, which is currently part of the
phase 6.2A process. The Department of Energy and the Department
of Defense should each understand their respective costs and
responsibilities for safety and security with respect to the
life cycle of the system.
While the committee believes strongly that new threats and
vulnerabilities should be addressed, the committee also
believes that there should be standards established and a
review as to how best to meet the standards and address the
vulnerabilities even in a constrained budget environment.

Subtitle F--Reports

Report on potential renewable energy projects on military installations
(sec. 1061)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report setting forth an
analysis of the potential environmental mission and other costs
and benefits of a program to develop renewable energy
generation projects on land within the borders of military
installations.

Report on use of domestically-produced alternative fuels or
technologies by vehicles of the Department of Defense (sec.
1062)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on
actions that are being taken and could be taken by the
Department of Defense to increase the use of alternative fuels
in vehicles through the use of domestically-produced
alternative fuels or technologies, including natural gas-based
fuels.

Report on role and utility of non-lethal weapons and technologies in
counterinsurgency operations (sec. 1063)

The committee recommends a provision that would state the
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should support
the research, development, procurement, and fielding of non-
lethal weapons and technologies designed to reduce military and
civilian casualties, and improve military effectiveness, in
counterinsurgency operations. The provision would also require
the Department to submit to the congressional defense
committees, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, a report on the role and utility of non-lethal
weapons and technologies in counterinsurgency operations.

Report on United States efforts to defend against threats posed by the
anti-access and area-denial capabilities of certain nation-
states (sec. 1064)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, not later than February 1, 2011, to
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report on the Department's efforts
to defend against threats posed by the anti-access and area-
denial capabilities of potentially hostile nation states. The
report should include a description of any efforts by the
Department to address findings in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review Report regarding advanced anti-access capabilities of
foreign countries. The report should also include a discussion
of current and future U.S. long-range strike capabilities in
the context of countering anti-access and area-denial
strategies.
The committee is concerned by the emergence of what the
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report described as ``anti-
access strategies [that] seek to deny outside countries the
ability to project power into a region, thereby allowing
aggression or other destabilizing actions to be conducted by
the anti-access power.'' The committee believes it is essential
that the U.S. Armed Forces maintain the capability to project
power globally in light of growing anti-access challenges. The
global presence and reach of U.S. forces protects U.S.
interests, provides stability and reassures our many allies and
security partners. The committee expects that as anti-access
threats emerge, the United States will develop the necessary
capabilities and security partnerships, to meet those threats.
In this regard, the committee notes that the U.S. Navy and
U.S. Air Force have initiated a dialogue addressing means by
which our air and naval forces may more effectively work
together in the face of anti-access challenges. The committee
encourages the Chief of Naval Operations and Air Force Chief of
Staff to work together with the purpose of overcoming emergent
anti-access challenges.
Additionally, the committee notes its displeasure that the
Department of Defense has failed to submit the Annual Report on
the Military and Security Developments involving the People's
Republic of China, as required by Section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) by the statutory deadline of March 1. The timely submission
of this report is required by law, and the committee expects it
to be presented to Congress as required.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

Technical, conforming, and updating amendments (sec. 1081)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain technical and conforming amendments to title 10, United
States Code, as recommended by the Department of Defense.

Budget Items

International crime and narcotics analytical tools

The budget request included funding for international crime
and narcotics analytical tools. The committee believes the
funding increase included in the budget request is excessive.
The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million.

National Guard counterdrug programs

The committee values the contribution that the National
Guard makes to the national counterdrug effort. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million for the
National Guard Bureau's counterdrug activities, along the
northern and southern borders of the United States and in other
high priority areas.

United States European Command's counterdrug activities

The committee notes that in recent fiscal years the
Department of Defense provided counterdrug-related funding to
United States European Command (EUCOM) on the basis of the
burgeoning illegal narcotics trafficking trade in various parts
of the African continent. United States Africa Command has been
fully operationally capable for more than 2 years and the
legacy counterdrug programs have been transferred. The
committee recommends a series of five EUCOM specific reductions
within the counterdrug budget request totaling $10.5 million.
Specific project code reductions are reflected in the tables in
title XIV.
Moving forward, the committee directs the Department to
adjust the funding levels for counterdrug related funding
dedicated to EUCOM downward to reflect the change in the
Unified Command Plan, which moved responsibility for the
African continent into the area of responsibility for AFRICOM,
and to reflect the significantly greater capacity of our
European partners to combat illegal narcotics trafficking.

Items of Special Interest

Army Cooperative Arrangements

The committee notes that the Department of Defense
submitted a legislative proposal to Congress that would amend
section 4544 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the
limitation of eight public-private partnerships, remove the
sunset provision now set for September 30, 2014, and would
allow multiyear contracting for greater than 5 years.
The committee has not included this legislative proposal
because the committee has yet to receive the analysis of the
authority's use as required by section 328 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 100-
181).
The committee notes that this analysis from the Department
of Defense is essential before the committee would make an
informed decision regarding the proposed legislative provision
regarding the cooperative arrangements addressed in section
4544 of title 10, United States Code.

Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department of Defense

Section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) requires the Department of
Defense to develop a plan to achieve a full, unqualified audit
of the Department of Defense (DOD) by September 30, 2017, and
to submit semiannual reports to Congress on the Department's
progress toward this objective. The committee continues to
believe that: (1) the requirement to achieve a clean audit
opinion is a key step toward instilling much needed discipline
into DOD's financial systems; and (2) this effort should be
closely tied to process and control improvements and business
systems modernization efforts needed to improve the
Department's overall business and financial management.
On May 10, 2010, DOD submitted the first semiannual report
on its financial information and audit readiness (FIAR) plan
pursuant to section 1003. This report documents the steps the
Department has taken to establish milestones for improving the
quality and timeliness of critical financial information,
particularly in the areas of budgetary information and the
existence and completeness of mission critical assets. The
committee notes that the report includes specific interim
milestones for achieving audit readiness in areas such as
civilian pay, military pay, supply orders, contracts, and funds
balance with Treasury only for the Department of the Navy. The
committee expects the Department of the Army and the Department
of the Air Force to provide comparable interim milestones in
the next semiannual report, which is due November 15, 2010.
The report also provides interim milestones for addressing
the existence and completeness of some categories of mission
critical assets, but does not include a plan for achieving full
audit readiness in this area. The committee expects the next
semiannual report to include interim milestones for addressing
the existence and completeness of all categories of mission
critical assets. With regard to the valuation of these assets,
the committee understands that the Department must consider the
costs as well as the benefits of actions associated with
achieving full audit readiness. The committee directs the
Department to: (1) examine the costs and benefits of
alternative approaches to the valuation of assets in
consultation with other appropriate federal agencies; (2)
include a progress report on this effort in the November 15,
2010, semiannual report; and (3) develop a business case
supporting the selected approach and include a description of
that business case in the May 15, 2011, semiannual report.

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate

In accordance with the requirements of Rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, this report includes a table
listing additional funding for items requested by Senators,
along with the intended recipient and intended location of
performance identified in connection with each such request.
This information is provided as an indication of the intention
of the requesting Senator, not the intention of the committee.
The information in this table will be posted on the website of
the Senate Committee on Armed Services after the committee
votes to report the bill.
In addition, the committee has requested that each member
requesting additional funding for items in this bill provide a
certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator's
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, as
required by Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The
committee has received the requested certification from each
Senator requesting funding for items that is provided in this
bill. These certifications will also be posted on the website
of the Senate Committee on Armed Services after the committee
votes to report the bill.
By including a table of requested funding items in the
report and posting Member certifications relative to such
funding items on the committee website, the committee takes no
position as to which of these items, if any, meet the
definition of a congressionally directed spending item, limited
tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit in Rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee directs the
Department of Defense to use all applicable competitive, merit-
based procedures in the award of any new contract, grant, or
other agreement entered into with funds authorized to be
appropriated by this bill. No provision in the bill or report
shall be construed to direct funds to any particular location
or entity unless the provision expressly so provides.

Export Control Reform

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has
invested a great deal of time and energy into reforming the
U.S. Government's regulations and procedures for exporting
weapons and dual-use equipment and technology. In a recent
speech the Secretary said ``[the current export control] rules,
organizations, and processes are not set up to deal effectively
with those situations that could do us the most harm in the
21st Century--a terrorist group obtaining a critical component
for a weapon of mass destruction, or a rogue state seeking
advanced ballistic-missile parts. Most importantly, the current
arrangement fails at the critical task of preventing harmful
exports while facilitating useful ones.'' The committee shares
the Secretary's conclusion about the current regime and is
prepared to work with the Secretary, as necessary, to move
forward on export control reform.
Further, the committee supports the Secretary's initiative
to consolidate and improve the current export control regime.
In addition to the Secretary's conclusions, the committee
believes it is critical that any reform effort (1) ensure that
the U.S. export control system prohibits the transfer of
critical military and dual-use technologies to countries,
entities, and individuals that pose a real or potential threat
to the United States; (2) protects the technological edge of
the U.S. military; (3) cultivates a strong and innovative
defense industrial base; (4) facilitates greater
interoperability and cooperation with U.S. allies and foreign
partners; and (5) ensures U.S. compliance with applicable
international agreements.

Special operations counter proliferation capabilities

Counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and the ability to render safe intercepted WMD materials are
critical responsibilities assigned to U.S. special operations
forces (SOF). On March 16, 2010, the committee received
testimony from the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) in review of the defense authorization request for
fiscal year 2011 and the future-years defense program. In
response to a question submitted for the record, the Commander
of SOCOM indicated overseas contingency operations have
negatively impacted the readiness of SOF to conduct countering
WMD missions. According to his response, ``SOCOM has the
capability to conduct counter proliferation activities but the
capacity is limited. Ongoing global counterinsurgency
operations have SOCOM counter proliferation forces conducting
counter terrorism missions. The result is a reduction in the
number of forces available for counter proliferation and
reduced counter proliferation expertise due to decreased level
of training.''
Accordingly, the committee directs the Commander of SOCOM
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives, not later than 90 days
after enactment of this Act, on SOCOM's plan to reconstitute
and sustain its WMD counter proliferation and render safe
capabilities over the next 5 year period. The required report
should include: (1) an analysis of the number of forces
necessary to fulfill this mission requirement; (2) an analysis
of current technology and capability gaps; (3) an investment
plan to address any identified manpower and equipment
shortages; and (4) any other matters the Commander of SOCOM
deems appropriate.

Special operations integration with U.S. Embassy Country Teams

The committee recognizes the contributions of special
operations personnel working with a number of U.S. Embassy
Country Teams around the world. These personnel deploy at the
request of the respective Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC)
and Chief of Mission and play an important role in enhancing
military, interagency, and host nation coordination and
planning.
The committee is aware of an ongoing country by country
review by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the
GCCs to ensure the requirement for special operations personnel
in each country remains valid and appropriate. The committee
supports this effort and encourages USSOCOM and the GCCs to
conduct such a review on an annual basis in future years. Given
the limited availability of special operations personnel and
the dynamic nature of the threats to U.S. interests, the
committee believes it is important that the allocation of
special operations capabilities be continuously evaluated and
allocated as appropriate. The committee is concerned that
limited special operations capabilities may not be allocated to
the highest priority countries in all cases. It is also
important that the efforts of these special operations
personnel remain closely coordinated and integrated with the
country team with which they are working and properly aligned
with the Chief of Mission's Strategic Plan.
The committee also supports efforts by USSOCOM and the GCCs
to provide for longer and more repeat deployments of special
operations personnel to priority countries. The committee
believes that such an approach would help build the language,
regional, and cultural expertise of individual special
operators while also enabling more effective coordination with
the respective country team and host nation. As highlighted in
the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review, development of the skills
mentioned above takes years of education and experience to
achieve, but are critical to effective engagement with host
nation military and civilian leaders.

West Africa maritime security initiative

The budget request includes $1,131.0 million for the
Department of Defense's drug interdiction and counterdrug
activities, of which more than $200.0 million will fund
training activities for U.S. counternarcotics partners around
the globe. The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats and U.S.
Africa Command to develop a West Africa maritime security
initiative to include: (1) training in maritime domain
awareness; (2) increasing the capacity of partners to patrol
and enforce sovereignty in their own maritime space; and (3)
improving the sustainability of their respective organizations
with responsibility for maritime law enforcement.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Modification of certain authorities relating to personnel demonstration
laboratories (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
authorities relating to personnel demonstration laboratories
to: (1) clarify that the repeal of the National Security
Personnel System by section 1113 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) has
no effect on the direct hiring authority of the defense
laboratories under section 1108 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417); (2) increase the number of positions for which such
direct hiring authority may be used; and (3) correct certain
other cross-references to ensure the full implementation of
personnel flexibilities available under the laboratory
demonstration program.
Requirements for Department of Defense senior mentors (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue appropriate policies and
procedures to ensure that all senior mentors employed by the
Department of Defense are: (1) hired as highly-qualified
experts (HQE) under section 9903 of title 5, United States
Code; and (2) required to comply with all Federal laws and
regulations applicable to personnel hired under this provision.
In November and December 2009, USA Today reported that
roughly 130 retired senior military officers were being paid to
provide advice to the Department of Defense as ``senior
mentors,'' while also working for defense contractors. The
articles indicated that in the absence of any conflict of
interest requirements some senior mentors may have used their
access to advocate on behalf of their defense contractor
clients.
On April 1, 2010, the Secretary of Defense addressed this
issue by requiring that all senior mentors be hired as HQEs.
The Secretary's memorandum states:

``[I]t is imperative that the experts we hire be
subject to certain ethics laws and regulations that
apply to Federal employees to avoid any perception of
impropriety. To that end, it is the policy of the
Department to hire all senior mentors as highly
qualified experts (HQE) under 5 U.S.C. 9903 and require
that they comply with all applicable Federal personnel
and ethics laws and regulations. As a part-time
employee, among other obligations, an HQE is required
to file a financial disclosure report and may not
divulge nonpublic information or participate in
official matters that raise a financial conflict of
interest. Holding senior mentors to such ethical
standards promotes public trust and confidence in the
integrity of the Department's programs and
operations.''

The committee endorses the approach taken by the Secretary.
The provision recommended by the committee would provide
express statutory authority for this approach.

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1103)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the
aggregate of basic and premium pay payable during calendar
years 2009 through 2011 to an employee who performs work in an
overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, United States Central Command, or an overseas
location that was formerly in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, United States Central Command but has been moved to
the area of responsibility of the Commander, United States
Africa Command in support of a contingency operation or an
operation in response to a declared emergency.
The total amount payable may not exceed the total annual
compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of
title 3, United States Code.

Extension and modification of enhanced Department of Defense
appointment and compensation authority for personnel for care
and treatment of wounded and injured members of the armed
forces (sec. 1104)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to designate any category of health
care occupation within the Department of Defense as a shortage
category occupation or critical need occupation, and would
authorize the Secretary to recruit and appoint qualified
individuals directly to those positions. The provision would
also extend hiring authorities under this section from
September 30, 2012, until December 31, 2015.

Designation of Space and Missile Defense Technical Center of the U.S.
Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic
Command as a Department of Defense science and technology
reinvention laboratory (sec. 1105)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Space and Missile Defense Technical Center of the U.S. Army
Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command
to be designated a Department of Defense (DOD) science and
technology reinvention laboratory. This designation would allow
more flexible personnel hiring and retention practices for
scientists and engineers, as already authorized for 17 other
DOD laboratory entities in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

Treatment for certain employees paid saved or retained rates (sec.
1106)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1918(a)(3) of the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity
Assurance Act of 2009 (5 U.S.C. 5304 note) in order to ensure
that certain employees would not experience a reduction in
take-home pay as a result of implementation of that Act.
The committee notes that this is a technical change.

Rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees performing
work aboard or dockside in support of the nuclear aircraft
carrier home-ported in Japan (sec. 1107)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
until September 30, 2014, a civilian employee of the Department
of the Navy who is assigned to temporary duty to perform work
aboard, or dockside in direct support of, the nuclear aircraft
carrier that is home-ported in Japan to receive overtime pay.
The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report on the use of this authority by no later than
September 30, 2013, and would require the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management to submit a report that
addresses the Navy's use of this authority and analyzes the
advantages and disadvantages of expanding this authority to
include other federal employees.

Item of Special Interest

Action plan for employees on pay retention after conversion from
National Security Personnel System to General Schedule

Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) repealed the authority for
the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and required the
Department of Defense to convert all NSPS employees to other
statutory pay systems by no later than January 1, 2012. The
provision states that ``No employee shall suffer any loss of or
decrease in pay'' because of the conversion.
In accordance with this provision, a significant number of
NSPS employees are likely to be converted to the General
Schedule (GS) System at rates of pay in excess of the rates
permissible under that system. Senior Department of Defense
(DOD) officials have informed the committee that these
individuals will be placed on ``pay retention'' under section
5363 of title 5, United States Code--meaning that they will
receive reduced pay raises until their rates of pay return to
levels authorized under the GS system. The committee is
concerned that a significant number of highly-qualified DOD
employees could be in the position of receiving lower pay
raises than their colleagues for a period of years.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to
develop an action plan to identify employees who are placed on
pay retention as a result of the conversion from NSPS to the GS
system and determine whether action is needed to ensure the
fair treatment of such employees. In the case of individuals
who received rapid pay increases under NSPS as a result of
exceptional individual performance, the action plan should
include the identification of opportunities for training and
advancement to positions which offer appropriate levels of pay.
In the case of individuals serving in positions which were
routinely compensated at higher levels under NSPS than in the
GS system, the action plan should include a reassessment of GS
classifications to ensure that the classifications
appropriately reflect the responsibilities and talents of those
serving in such positions.
The committee further directs the Department to report to
the committee not later than March 15 of 2011, 2012, and 2013
on the number of employees on pay retention as a result of the
conversion from NSPS to the GS system and the actions that have
been taken to ensure the fair treatment of such employees.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

Subtitle A--Training and Assistance

Addition of allied government agencies to enhanced logistics
interoperability authority (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
authority under section 127d of title 10, United States Code,
for the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide logistic
support, supplies, and services to allied forces to enhance
their ability to operate with the logistical support systems of
other military forces participating in combined operations with
the United States. The provision would expand this authority to
allow DOD to also provide logistic support, supplies, and
services for these purposes to nonmilitary logistics, security,
or similar agency of an allied government if doing so would
directly benefit U.S. armed forces. Logistic support, supplies,
and services may only be provided under this section with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State. Such logistic support,
supplies and services provided for the purposes of enhancing
logistics interoperability may not exceed $5.0 million in
value.
Expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements to lend certain military equipment to certain
foreign forces for personnel protection and survivability (sec.
1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements to loan certain personnel protection equipment to
the military forces of partner nations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or
a peacekeeping operation in which the United States is
participating under the United Nations Charter or another
international agreement, provided under section 1202 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 stat. 2412), as amended by
section 1252 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 stat. 402) and
section 1204 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122
stat. 4622).
The provision would expand this authority to allow this
equipment to be loaned to partner military forces not only in
theater but also prior to deployment in connection with the
training of those forces participating in combined operations
in Iraq, Afghanistan, or a peacekeeping operation subject to
this provision. The provision would also require the Secretary
of Defense to notify the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee
on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives 15 days in advance of the provision of
equipment in connection with the pre-deployment training of
military forces under this authority.
The committee recognizes the benefit of having the military
forces of partner nations in combined operations train prior to
their deployment on equipment similar to the equipment those
forces will use upon arrival in theater. At the same time, the
committee urges the Department to ensure that equipment loaned
under this authority for training purposes is used only by
forces to be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or an appropriate
peacekeeping operation, and only in connection with training
for that deployment.
Authority to build the capacity of Yemen Ministry of Interior
Counterterrorism forces (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to use up to $75.0 million of funds available for
operation and maintenance during fiscal year 2011 to enhance
the ability of the Yemen Ministry of Interior counterterrorism
forces to conduct counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates. The authorized
assistance may include equipment, supplies, and training. The
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the
congressional defense committees and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate not less than 15 days prior to
providing assistance under this section.
The committee recognizes the importance of the ongoing
efforts by the Department of Defense (DOD) to use ``section
1206'' train and equip assistance to build the capacity of
various elements of the Yemeni military. However, the committee
is concerned that too little assistance is being provided to
the more capable and responsive Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) of
the Government of Yemen's Ministry of Interior. The Department
has indicated that the ongoing ``section 1206'' train and equip
efforts are critical, but the committee is concerned that the
results of this effort will not be demonstrated in the near
term. With this in mind, the committee believes it is critical
to provide DOD with the authority to expand its train and equip
efforts to include CTU. This assistance will help to ensure
that DOD has a reliable partner to rely on for counterterrorism
operations in this very sensitive area of the world and provide
the Department with additional flexibility and agility in
dealing with the threats emanating from Yemen.
The committee notes explicitly in the provision that these
funds shall be used to enhance the ability of CTU to conduct
operations against ``al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and its
affiliates.'' The committee notes that there have been public
reports suggesting that the Government of Yemen may have used
equipment provided by the United States to conduct operations
against government opposition elements in both the North and
South. The committee believes this would be a misuse of this
assistance and any other security assistance provided to the
Government of Yemen.
Authority to pay personnel expenses in connection with African
cooperation (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department
to pay the travel, subsistence, and special compensation of
officers and students and other expenses that such secretary
considers necessary for African cooperation.

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

One-year extension and modification of Commanders' Emergency Response
Program and related authorities (sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority for the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP), which enables commanders in Iraq and
Afghanistan to fund humanitarian relief and reconstruction
projects that provide immediate benefit to the local people.
The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use
up to $900.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army,
Overseas Contingency Operations, funding in fiscal year 2011
for CERP. Of this amount, $100.0 million would be available for
CERP in Iraq and $800.0 million would be available for CERP in
Afghanistan. The provision would also extend for 1 year the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $50.0
million of CERP funds to the Department of State to support the
Afghanistan National Solidarity Program if the Secretary
determines that transferring these funds would enhance
counterinsurgency or stability operations in Afghanistan. The
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority of the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, to use funds provided for CERP to support the
reintegration of Afghans who have renounced violence against
the Government of Afghanistan.
The committee understands that the budget request included
$1.3 billion for CERP, comprised of $200.0 million for CERP in
Iraq and $1.1 billion for CERP in Afghanistan.
The committee has concerns with regard to the requested
level of $200.0 million for CERP in Iraq, which is equal to the
level of CERP in Iraq for fiscal year 2010. The committee
believes that the requirement for CERP in Iraq should decline
in fiscal year 2011 as the U.S. forces transition from a combat
mission to an advise and assist role by September 2010, and as
United States Forces-Iraq (USF-I) prepares to meet the December
31, 2011, deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. military
forces from Iraq in accordance with the United States-Iraq
Security Agreement. The committee understands that the CERP
level requested by the Commander, USF-I, to United States
Central Command (CENTCOM), was $100.0 million for fiscal year
2011, which is consistent with the committee's recommended
funding level for CERP in Iraq. The committee also commends the
Commander, USF-I, for issuing updated guidance to commanders in
Iraq to ensure that only simpler, shorter, and less expensive
CERP reconstruction projects are undertaken in order to ensure
those projects can be completed before the end of 2011.
The committee also has concerns about the budget request of
$1.1 billion for CERP in Afghanistan, an increase of $100.0
million above the level of Afghanistan CERP appropriated in
fiscal year 2010. In the Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S.
Rept. 111-35) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010, the committee expressed significant concerns
about the rapid growth of CERP funding in Afghanistan and the
capacity of Afghanistan, given its lack of infrastructure and
high illiteracy rates, to absorb such a significant influx of
CERP funds. The committee also expressed concerns about the
capacity of the Department of Defense to oversee and manage
such a large increase in reconstruction funds. The Secretary of
Defense has acknowledged congressional concerns with respect to
CERP and has initiated an internal assessment of the program,
including the need for better coordination within the
Department, additional CERP managers in theater, and improved
pre-deployment and in-country training. The committee welcomes
this CERP review and looks forward to being briefed on the
Department's findings. In addition, the committee notes that
CENTCOM has issued new guidelines limiting the number of
projects each CERP team should oversee. The committee continues
to have concerns about the capacity of Afghanistan to absorb
such a large influx of CERP funds as well as other
reconstruction assistance, and notes that as of the end of
March 2010, less than $85.0 million in CERP funds had been
committed in Afghanistan and less than $50.0 million had been
obligated of fiscal year 2010 funds. The committee recommends a
decrease in the budget request for CERP in Afghanistan of
$300.0 million, to a level of $800.0 million.
The committee therefore recommends a total decrease in the
budget request for CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan of $400.0
million, to a funding level of $900.0 million.

Increase in temporary limitation on amount for building capacity of
foreign military forces to participate in or support military
and stability operations (sec. 1212)

The committee recommends a provision that would raise the
limitation on the amount of funds available under the Global
Train and Equip Program authorized by section 1206 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public
Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for programs to build
the capacity of foreign military forces to participate in or
support military and stability operations in which U.S. Armed
Forces are participating. The provision would raise the
limitation from $75.0 million during fiscal year 2010 to $100.0
million during fiscal year 2011.
The committee believes that the use of section 1206 funds
to build the capacity of coalition partners' military forces to
conduct stability operations is providing a valuable
contribution to International Security Assistance Force
operations in Afghanistan.

Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations
for support provided to United States military operations (sec.
1213)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2011 the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse key cooperating nations for logistical and military
support provided to or in connection with U.S. military
operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF), pursuant to section 1233 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393), as amended by section 1223 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2519). The provision would also extend
the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide support to
these key cooperating nations in the form of specialized
training and supplies or the loan of specialized equipment. The
total amount of reimbursements and other support provided under
this provision would be limited to $1.6 billion for fiscal year
2011. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to submit to Congress the Department's guidance on the use of
the authority to provide specialized equipment and supplies and
loan specialized equipment under this provision, and any
modification to that guidance in the future.
The provision would also extend until September 30, 2012,
the requirements of section 1232 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122
Stat. 393) applicable to notifications of reimbursements of
support provided by Pakistan.

Extension and modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec.
1214)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority of section 1224 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123
Stat. 2521) regarding the use of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund (PCF) to build the capabilities of the Pakistan security
forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations. The provision
would also require that assistance under the PCF be provided in
a manner that promotes observance of and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for legitimate
civilian authority in Pakistan.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a
spend plan to the congressional defense committees no later
than 30 days after the Department of State transfers funds into
the PCF but not less than 15 days prior to any obligation of
those funds. The committee further directs the Department,
following the submission of the spend plan, to submit to the
congressional defense committees monthly commitment,
obligation, and expenditure data, by subactivity group for the
PCF, no later than 30 days after the end of each month.

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Iraq and
Afghanistan (sec. 1215)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2011, the authority under section 1234 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-81; 123 Stat. 2533) to transfer defense
articles, and provide defense services in connection with the
transfer of those articles, to the Iraq security forces or the
Afghanistan security forces to support their efforts to provide
for peace and security internally. Defense articles subject to
this provision must either be in Iraq or have been withdrawn
from Iraq to Kuwait. The requirement to provide quarterly
reports under this section would be extended through March 31,
2012.

Sense of Congress and reports on training of Afghan National Police
(sec. 1216)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the U.S. Government should take
measurable steps to improve its capacity to advise and mentor
the Afghan National Police (ANP) and to clarify roles,
missions, and responsibilities within the U.S. Government for
police training and rule of law operations.
The provision would also require a number of reports to
Congress on police training in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere, including: a report by the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DODIG), in consultation with the Department
of State Inspector General (DOSIG), on the ANP training
program; a Government Accountability Office report on the use
of U.S. Government personnel in place of contractors for the
training of the ANP; and a report by the Secretary of Defense
on a strategy for police training and rule of law programs in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere abroad.
The committee is very concerned that after the disbursement
of more than $6.3 billion in Afghan Security Forces Funds
between fiscal year 2005 and March 2010 for police training,
the ANP continues to suffer from low quality, high illiteracy
rates, deceptive recruiting tactics, desertions, and
corruption, according to an April 30, 2010, report from the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. In
addition, a joint report by the DODIG and the DOSIG found
numerous lapses in the oversight and management of the current
police training contract. The committee intends to monitor
closely the transition of contractual responsibility for the
primary ANP training program from the Department of State to
the Department of Defense.

Subtitle C--Reports

One-year extension of report on progress toward security and stability
in Afghanistan (sec. 1231)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the requirement under section 1230 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181; 122 Stat. 385), as amended by section 1236 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
81; 123 Stat. 2535), for the President, acting through the
Secretary of Defense, to submit a semi-annual report on
progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan (the
``section 1230 report'').
The committee notes that the section 1230 report submitted
in April 2010 marked the first time that this report was
provided to Congress on time and marked a significant
improvement over earlier submissions of the report both in
timeliness and substance. The committee believes that the
section 1230 report is an important tool for providing Congress
and the American people a baseline measurement of the
conditions on the ground in Afghanistan and for evaluating the
progress of U.S., coalition and Afghan forces in implementing
the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy announced by the
President.
A critical component of the COIN strategy is building the
capacity of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) to
be able to provide for their country's security. The committee
supports the efforts to partner Afghan National Army units and
Afghan National Police units with International Security
Assistance Force units to build ANSF capacity while these units
are deployed throughout the country. The committee requests
that the Department develop metrics for effectively measuring
the progress of the partnering effort in Afghanistan and
include data on those metrics in the section 1230 reports in
the future.

Two-year extension of United States plan for sustaining the Afghanistan
National Security Forces (sec. 1232)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
2 years, through the end of fiscal year 2012, the requirement
under section 1231 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 390) for
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, to report on the long-term plan for sustaining the
Afghanistan National Security Forces.

Report on Department of Defense support for coalition operations (sec.
1233)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the implementation of Department of Defense (DOD)
authorities for providing support to coalition partners in
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF). The report would include a description of the purpose
and use of each authority, a summary of the amount of
assistance provided under each authority, and an assessment of
the effectiveness of this assistance. The report would also
include for each country that received DOD coalition support a
description of that country's contribution to coalition
operations in OEF or OIF, and an assessment of how the
coalition support provided by the United States enhanced that
country's contribution. In addition, the report would include a
description of the Department's efforts to eliminate
duplication and overlap in coalition support authorities and an
assessment of ongoing and future needs for DOD coalition
support authorities. The provision would define coalition
support authorities to include: Coalition Support Funds,
particularly the Coalition Readiness Support Program; the lift
and sustain authorities; the authority to provide logistic
support, supplies, and services to allied forces in combined
operations; the temporary authority to lend significant
military equipment under acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements; the authority under section 1206 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) to provide assistance to build foreign nations' capacity
to support military or stability operations; and any other
authority designated by the Secretary of Defense as a coalition
support authority.
The committee notes the multiple authorities DOD has
requested over the past several years for enhancing the ability
of partner nations to participate in coalition operations. The
committee recognizes the important contribution of our partner
nations in OEF and OIF and has sought to be supportive of
combatant commanders' needs for additional tools to promote the
interoperability of U.S. and partner nation forces and to
strengthen force protection during coalition operations.
However, because the Department has sought the various
coalition support authorities on an ad hoc basis, the committee
believes there is a need for DOD to conduct a comprehensive
review of the scope and effectiveness of these authorities and
assess the requirement going forward for these coalition
support authorities.

Report on United States engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran
(sec. 1234)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President, no later than January 31, 2011, to deliver a report
to Congress on U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic of
Iran. The report's elements include assessments and discussions
on: (1) ongoing diplomatic engagement activities with the
Government of Iran, (2) the Government of Iran's support for
terrorism, (3) the Government of Iran's nuclear activities, (4)
the Government of Iran's missile development activities, (5)
the Government of Iran's support for the illegal narcotics
network in Afghanistan, (6) the Government of Iran's strategic
decision-making capacity, (7) sanctions against Iran, including
an inventory and analysis of the effectiveness of such
sanctions, and (8) U.S. student visa policy with respect to
Iran. To the extent possible, the report shall be submitted in
an unclassified format.

Defense Policy Board report on Department of Defense strategy to
counter violent extremism outside the United States (sec. 1235)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Defense Policy Board to provide a report to Congress on the
Department's countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy
outside of the United States. This report should include: (1)
an assessment of the effectiveness of the Department's ongoing
CVE activities; (2) an analysis of alternatives and available
options the Department should consider in its CVE activities;
(3) an analysis of the Department's information campaign
against violent extremists; and (4) such recommendations for
further action to address the matters covered by the report as
the Defense Policy Board considers appropriate.
In March 2010, the Senate Committee on Armed Services'
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a
hearing on U.S. Government efforts to counter violent extremism
with witnesses representing the Department of Defense and
Department of State, as well as a panel of non-government
witnesses. This hearing confirmed what Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates has said many times: we cannot capture or kill our
way to victory in the war against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
While the committee believes it is critical that the United
States continue to take immediate, necessary actions to protect
the United States and its interests from terrorist attacks, the
committee also maintains, as does the Secretary of Defense,
that an effective counterterrorism strategy must also include
an appropriate focus on indirect actions that will be decisive
in CVE. In the committee's view, this means looking to the
political, economic, philosophical, ideological, theological,
and social factors that terrorist organizations exploit in
pushing vulnerable individuals on the path toward violence. The
committee believes a Defense Policy Board review of the
Department's existing CVE strategy will identify ways to
improve that strategy. Such a study could also make
recommendations to initiate new efforts, particularly with
regard to field research, intelligence support to indirect
activities, bilateral and multilateral engagement
opportunities, and cooperation with other federal departments
and agencies.

Report on Cuba (sec. 1236)

Report on Venezuela (sec. 1237)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence and Secretary of State, to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees, no later than
180-days after enactment of this Act, on any activities by the
Government of Venezuela to: supply a terrorist organization
with planning, training, logistics, and lethal material
support; provide direct or indirect financial assistance to any
terrorist organization; provide other types of assistance that
could provide material support for any terrorist organization's
activities; support governments currently on the United States
list of state sponsors of terrorism; and undermine the national
interests of the United States.
In testimony before the committee, Admiral Eric T. Olson,
Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, stated:
``Since 1999, Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, has increasingly
demonstrated domestic and international behavior patterns which
mirror similar past behavior patterns of four current state
sponsors of terrorism . . . President Chavez's main
international mission is to challenge U.S. interests in the
Americas and around the globe.'' Admiral Olson went on to say:
``Venezuela does not represent a direct military or terrorist
threat to the United States, but Venezuela's `passive' support
to regional terrorist groups and paramilitary forces, maturing
relationships with state sponsors of terrorism and permissive
operating environment for terrorist and drug traffickers
suggest increased scrutiny by the United States is warranted.''
The committee shares Admiral Olson's concerns and continues to
monitor closely the activities of the Government of Venezuela.

Report on the disarmament of the Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1238)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
Senate's commitment to support efforts to work toward a
comprehensive resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda and
other areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army, including
northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo, southern Sudan, and
the Central African Republic, as well as the immediate need to
support multilateral efforts to mitigate and eliminate the
threat to civilians and regional stability posed by the Lord's
Resistance Army. The provision would also require the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to
develop and submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives a strategy to provide
military, logistics, and intelligence support to help
strengthen viable regional and multilateral efforts to protect
civilians from attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army and
apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the
battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution.

Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General Report on the Islamic Republic of Iran

The findings of the Comptroller General's recent report on
commercial activity in Iran's oil, gas, and petrochemical
sectors are very troubling. The committee is eager to ensure
that the Comptroller General's efforts to identify entities
that have supported Iran's oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors
continue. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General to update its March 23, 2010, report on a semi-annual
basis through 2015. Further, the committee directs the
Comptroller General to expand the scope of its work to include
any entities that have aided the Iranian government's efforts
to filter the use of the internet, disrupt cell phone
communications, monitor online activities, and jam the signals
of U.S. and other international broadcasts into Iran.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to include
the following, compiled from open sources: (1) entities that
have a financial interest in the development of Iran's online
filtering and monitoring, cell phone disruption and monitoring
activities, and radio and television signal jamming; and (2)
which of the entities identified above, if any, have contracts,
awards, or purchasing agreements with the U.S. Government.
Instead of acting in a way to become a respected member of
the community of nations, Iran's leaders have disregarded
international norms, abused the rights of their own people,
supported terrorist groups, and threatened regional and global
stability. There is a strong, bipartisan commitment in this
committee and in Congress to prevent the Iranian government
from continuing to abuse the rights of their own people.
In the wake of the elections in June 2009, which were
widely considered fraudulent, Iranians by the hundreds of
thousands poured into the streets in nonviolent protest. The
regime responded with brutality, and internal security forces
and government-affiliated groups set upon protesters with guns
and clubs. Of deep concern to the committee is the Iranian
regime's crackdown on freedom of expression and interference
with the use of cellular, internet, and other means of
communication to block the free flow of information. The
committee is eager to learn more about the entities that have
supported Iran's campaign to stifle internal dissent and the
free flow of information.

Comptroller General Review of U.S. Assistance to the Government of the
Republic of Yemen

The committee notes that Yemen faces a wide variety of
threats that pose significant risks to U.S. national security
interests, of which the growth of al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) is the most concerning. In recent years, AQAP
has exploited Yemen's ungoverned spaces to plan, organize, and
support terrorist operations against U.S. and Yemeni interests.
The Commander of U.S. Central Command stated in testimony to
the committee in March 2010, that ``[t]his network [AQAP] poses
a direct threat to the U.S. homeland, as evidenced by recent
plots, including the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on
Christmas Day 2009. At the same time, the Yemeni state faces
challenges from separatist movements in the South and a six-
year conflict with Houthi rebels, which despite the cease-fire
in February could reignite and again spill over into Saudi
Arabia. Moreover, the influx of refugees from Africa, pervasive
arms smuggling, a deteriorating economic situation, and piracy
continue to challenge the capabilities of the Yemeni
government.''
To help the Government of Yemen defend themselves from
these threats, the United States has provided Yemen a range of
assistance over the past several years, including ``section
1206'' train and equip assistance, ``section 1207''
stabilization assistance, assistance under a number of State
Department and U.S. Agency for International Development
programs, and other assistance from departments and agencies of
the U.S. Government. The committee applauds the administration
for taking an aggressive posture towards the threat emanating
from Yemen.
Given this significant investment in building the capacity
of the Government of Yemen to defend themselves, the committee
directs the Comptroller General to provide to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs a report on the
following issues: (1) the amount and types of assistance the
United States has provided to the Government of Yemen to
include support from the U.S. Department of State, Department
of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, and
other U.S. Government departments and agencies; (2) an
assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. assistance to the
Government of Yemen; (3) an assessment of the extent to which
the Government of Yemen has been able to utilize U.S.
assistance to counter the AQAP threat; (4) a discussion of the
capability and reliability of security forces units within the
Government of Yemen; (5) an assessment of how effectively the
United States coordinated its assistance among the various
federal agencies and other major donors and regional allies;
and (6) other issues deemed appropriate by the Comptroller
General. The Comptroller General shall provide this report to
the appropriate congressional committees no later than January
31, 2011.

Operation Unified Response and Joint Task Force--Haiti

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck
Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The devastation throughout the capital
city and nearby areas was vast. United Nations estimates
indicate more than 220,000 people were killed, 300,000 injured,
and 1.2 million displaced by the earthquake and its 59
aftershocks. Nearly 50 percent of the buildings in Port-au-
Prince sustained significant damage and several nearby towns
suffered far worse. The airport was inoperable and more than
half of the seaport was left in ruins. The people of Haiti were
cut-off from the outside world and were in desperate need of
immediate help.
On January 13, 2010, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and
its service components began deploying personnel, aircraft, and
ships to Haiti in support of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, which was the lead agency for the U.S. response.
Joint Task Force-Haiti (JTF-H) was soon established and the
military named its effort Operation Unified Response to
indicate the collaborative nature of the mission. JTF-H
performed its mission by working closely with the Government of
Haiti, United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, U.S.
Government agencies, and non-government organizations.
The committee commends SOUTHCOM for its robust response,
both in terms of personnel and military assets, to the tragic
earthquake in Haiti and remains prepared to resource the
Department of Defense to ensure continued support, to the
extent practical, of the activities of other federal
departments and agencies, whose objectives are the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and long-term stability of
Haiti. The committee is also eager to see the Department move
quickly to ensure that lessons-learned from this response are
consolidated and shared throughout the Department to ensure
improved planning for future humanitarian responses,
particularly with interagency, international, and non-
governmental organization involvement.

Report on personnel contributions by the United States Armed Forces to
international peacekeeping missions

The committee notes that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, in response to advanced policy
questions to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
indicated that ``[United Nations] peacekeepers help promote
stability and help reduce the risks that major U.S. military
interventions may be required to restore stability in a country
or region. Therefore, the success of these operations is very
much in our national interest.'' Further, as stated in the most
recent Quadrennial Defense Review, ``America's power and
influence are enhanced by . . . maintaining interactions with
important international institutions such as the United
Nations.''
In testimony before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives on July 29, 2009, the U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations (UN), stated that the United States ``is
willing to consider directly contributing more military
observers, military staff officers, civilian police, and other
civilian personnel--including more women I should note--to UN
peacekeeping operations.''
The committee believes U.S. contributions to international
peacekeeping missions enhance the influence of the United
States in the implementation of these international mandates,
provide an opportunity to expand engagement with partner
nations, and enhance important military-to-military
relationships with allies and partner nations. The committee is
cognizant of the fact that U.S. military personnel may not
necessarily be what the UN needs the most from the United
States and that there are political and regional sensitivities
that need to be taken into consideration when deploying U.S.
personnel in support of peacekeeping missions. The committee is
interested in any plans the Department may have under
consideration to expand U.S. contributions to UN peacekeeping
operations.
The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on: (1) current
personnel contributions in the form of military observers and
staff officers by the United States Armed Forces to UN and
other multilateral peacekeeping missions; (2) a list of
requests received by the Department of Defense (DOD) for
military personnel contributions to UN or other multilateral
peacekeeping missions (either directly from the UN or from the
Department of State); (3) a description of the military chain
of command for U.S. personnel deployed to UN or other
multilateral peacekeeping missions to include the respective
geographic combatant command, U.S. Military Observer Group-
Washington, and the Senior Defense Official in the respective
country; (4) an assessment of the strategic, operational, and
tactical benefits, if any, of U.S. contributions to these
peacekeeping missions; (5) a description of the role and
mission of the U.S. Military Observer Group-Washington; and (6)
a description and assessment of the role of the United States
in the UN Security Council's Military Staff Committee to
include a discussion of planning, advising, and overseeing the
implementation of the various UN peacekeeping missions. This
report shall be provided to the Committees on Armed Services no
later than 30 days after the end of the calendar year. The
committee urges the Chairman to coordinate this report, to the
extent practical, with the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command and operational control

The alliance between the United States and the Republic of
Korea (ROK) has been a vital anchor for security and stability
in Asia for more than 50 years, during which time the two
countries have from time to time adjusted command and control
relations in response to developments on the Korean Peninsula
and our military capabilities. Throughout these adjustments,
the United States has remained committed to the defense of the
Republic of Korea.
In November 1978, the United States and the Republic of
Korea established a Combined Forces Command (CFC) to exercise
command and control over our combined forces on the Korean
Peninsula. CFC is responsible to both the U.S. and ROK National
Command Authorities, as exercised through the Military
Committee comprising the U.S. and ROK Chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
This command structure was modified in December 1994 by
removing ROK Armed Forces from the operational control of CFC
during armistice conditions. In the event of renewed conflict
on the Korean Peninsula, CFC would again employ operational
control of both the ROK Armed Forces and U.S. Forces Korea,
augmented by additional U.S. forces from the Pacific and
worldwide. Both South Korean and U.S. officers would direct our
combined land, air, sea, and other components under CFC.
At the October 2006 U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting,
the governments of the United States and the Republic of Korea
agreed to disestablish Combined Forces Command and organize
separate command structures on the Korean Peninsula, under
which the Republic of Korea and the United States would
exercise independent command during wartime. To this end, a
Strategic Transition Plan was developed to ensure the necessary
tasks and milestones are achieved to meet a deadline of April
17, 2012.
Since the conclusion of the 2006 agreement, the situation
on the Korean Peninsula has remained precarious. In this time,
North Korea has backed out of the Six Party Talks, reportedly
proliferated missile and nuclear technology, violated United
Nations' resolutions by launching ballistic missiles, and
detonated a nuclear device. On March 26, 2010, North Korea
attacked and destroyed the Republic of Korea Ship (ROKS)
Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean sailors. The committee
condemns this attack and expresses its sympathy to the families
and loved ones of those killed and solidarity with the people
of South Korea.
In addition to North Korea's regular provocations and
violations of international law, there is significant
uncertainty about regime stability in Pyongyang. These
circumstances underscore the volatility and instability on the
Korean Peninsula and the continuing threat North Korea poses to
regional and global security. It is against this backdrop that
preparations for the transition of operational control
continue.
The committee believes that in light of current tensions on
the Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific more broadly, this
is a moment when the United States should be cautious about any
actions that may be misperceived as a lessening of our security
commitments to our allies and strategic partners in this
vitally important region.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees no later than
December 1, 2010, describing command and control relations on
the Korean Peninsula. Specifically, this report should address:
1. An assessment of the progress of preparations that
have been made to date by the United States and by the
ROK to execute the 2006 agreement;
2. Describe under what circumstances, if any, the
April 2012 deadline would be adjusted; and,
3. Assess any modifications to current operational
control relationships or military capabilities that may
enhance the combined effectiveness of U.S. and ROK
Armed Forces.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consult
with the ROK Minister of Defense in the preparation of this
report.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

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
$522.5 million, the amount of 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 2011
funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in the
provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days before
the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011
funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR
program element.
The committee notes that there is additional funding in the
budget request for chemical weapons destruction, and supports
the continuation of this line until the Russian chemical
weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye, Russia is fully
operational.
The committee also notes that the defense and military
contacts request includes funds to support interactions with
foreign governments and entities in support of the CTR program.
One of the goals of the CTR program when it was originally
established was to improve relationships between the U.S.
Department of Defense and the U.S. military, and the Ministries
of Defense and the militaries of the states of the former
Soviet Union. These interactions were successful and should be
sustained. As the program has grown, however, particularly in
the biological threat reduction area, much of the interaction
is with civilian agencies and entities in the states of the
former Soviet Union and elsewhere. The committee supports these
broader interactions as long as they continue to support the
CTR program and mission.
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence
in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds from being obligated
to establish a center of excellence in any country outside of
the former Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the Secretary
of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a
report on the particular center to be established. The report
shall identify the country where the center will be
established, the purpose for which the center will be used, the
agreement under which the center will operate, and the funding
plan for the center including any cost-sharing arrangement.
The committee supports the expansion of CTR into countries
outside of the FSU but would like to understand in more detail
plans for new centers as these plans evolve.
The committee also supports the effort to secure the most
vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that
this is a significant challenge that will require close
interagency cooperation to be fully successful. The committee
notes that the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, have a long
and productive history of cooperation in threat reduction
programs, and urge them to continue this close collaboration in
the accelerated program.
Plan for nonproliferation, proliferation prevention, and threat
reduction activities with the People's Republic of China (sec.
1304)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to submit a
joint report to the congressional defense committees on the 5
year plan to carry out nonproliferation and threat reduction
activities with the People's Republic of China (PRC). The plan
would be due by March 1, 2011.
The committee supports expansion of the proliferation
prevention efforts globally and the efforts of the Department
of Energy and the Department of Defense to broaden the range of
participants in such programs. The committee expects this
effort to be a partnership and hopes that the PRC will fully
support financially, technically, and politically, these
important nonproliferation and threat reduction activities.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Military Programs

Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Matters

Consolidation and reorganization of statutory authority for destruction
of United States stockpile of lethal chemical agents and
munitions (sec. 1411)
At the request of the Department of Defense (DOD), the
committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1412
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986
(50 U.S.C. 1521), which provides the statutory authority for
the chemical demilitarization program. Rather than display only
the amendments to the law, the recommended provision would
restate a consolidated, reorganized, and updated version of the
entire amended law for transparency and ease of comprehension.
The original law has been amended many times over the last
25 years, leading to an assortment of separate provisions,
which made it difficult to see the whole of statutory authority
for the chemical demilitarization program. These amendments
were sometimes overlapping or duplicative. The recommended
provision would also repeal the various provisions of law
restated in the consolidated version of section 1412, as well
as obsolete provisions of law.
Of fundamental importance, the restated provision would be
entirely consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC),
which entered into force in 1997, more than a decade after the
original chemical demilitarization authority was written. The
older provisions of law contain elements that are inconsistent
with the CWC.
The committee recommends two substantive changes to DOD's
proposal, both of which otherwise would have been inconsistent
with the CWC. The committee recommendation would eliminate
section 1412(b)(3), written in 1985, more than a decade before
the CWC, when the United States was still permitted to acquire
and possess chemical weapons. The provision authorized the
Secretary of Defense to delay the destruction of the chemical
weapons stockpile for a number of reasons including a
determination that there was a significant delay in the
acquisition of a sufficient number of binary chemical weapons.
This is clearly inconsistent with the CWC and has been
eliminated in the recommended provision.
The second provision, section 1412(h), was also written
long before the CWC, and it authorized the Secretary of Defense
to acquire binary chemical weapons, which is strictly
prohibited by the CWC. It also permitted the acquisition of
``any chemical agent or munition'' for intelligence analysis
purposes, as well as the acquisition of chemical agents and
munitions for research, development, test, and evaluation
purposes in appropriate non-production quantities. This
provision has been rewritten to provide for authorized uses of
toxic chemicals for purposes not prohibited by the CWC, which
would make it entirely consistent with the CWC.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
(sec. 1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds from Defense Health
Program operation and maintenance to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund. Such funds would be authorized to be used
for operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center or other facilities designated as a combined
federal medical facility.
The President's budget request projects $132.2 million for
transfer in fiscal year 2011 to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund. The committee acknowledges receipt of a
letter dated April 4, 2010, from Secretary of Defense Gates and
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Shinseki stating that the
departments do not plan another location replicating this
federal health care center model, and urges the Department of
Defense to conduct an independent study of the benefit of the
integrated facility in North Chicago in meeting the health care
needs of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans
Affairs eligible populations.

Budget Items

Defense Coalition Support Fund

The budget request included $10.0 million for the Defense
Coalition Support Fund. The legislative authority for this fund
does not exist, and would require an amendment to title 22,
United States Code, which is outside the committee's
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the committee is unable to authorize
the requested funds at this time.

Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense
Health Program Operations and Maintenance account includes the
following changes from the budget request. The provisions
underlying these changes in funding levels are discussed in
greater detail in title VII of this committee report.

[Changes in millions of dollars]

TRICARE eligibility for dependents up to age 26................... 10.0
Extension of prohibition on increase of TRICARE inpatient fees.... 12.0
Total......................................................... 22.0

Department of Defense Inspector General, second year growth plan

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audits,
investigates, inspects, and evaluates the programs and
operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), and recommends
policies and process improvements that promote economy,
efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD programs and
operations. The committee continues to note the dramatic growth
in the number and cost of DOD contracts for operations,
procurement, research, and military construction within the
United States and around the world. The increase recommended by
the committee will enable the OIG to conduct oversight related
to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, review contract
management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify
potential waste, fraud, and abuse. To date, efforts by the OIG
have yielded over a $3.1 billion return on investment with
respect to achieved monetary benefits, investigative fines,
restitutions, and recoveries.
The budget request included $283.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) and Procurement for the OIG.
The committee continues to be concerned that funding levels for
independent audit and investigative functions should keep pace
with the demand for these services, particularly given that the
budget request is a decrease from $288.1 million in the fiscal
year 2010 budget request.
The committee recommends a total increase of $33.8 million
in OMDW for the OIG as follows: $29.3 million for operation and
maintenance and $4.5 million for research, development, test
and evaluation.
TITLE XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
This section would provide that the amounts authorized for
overseas contingency operations in this title are in addition
to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to $4.0 billion of overseas contingency
operations funding authorized in this title. These special
transfer authorities are 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

Availability of amounts in Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer
Fund solely for detainee operations at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1531)
The committee recommends a provision that would restrict
the use of $105,000,000 in the Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) Transfer Fund solely for detainee operations at the
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Consistent
with this provision, the OCO Transfer Fund is reduced by
$245,000,000, which had been requested for costs associated
with improvements and operations at a proposed military
detention facility at Thomson, Illinois.

Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund (sec. 1532)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund (ASFF) in fiscal year 2011 to comply with
the conditions in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513
of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 428), except the authority in
subsection 1513(d) to transfer ASFF funds to other accounts and
funds of the Department of Defense (DOD).
The provision would amend subsection 1513(b) to permit ASFF
funding to also be used to assist forces or personnel within
Afghan ministries, other than the Ministry of Defense and
Ministry of Interior, that are assigned to and supporting the
Major Crimes Task Force--Afghanistan. This provision would
allow assistance for law enforcement investigative teams within
the Afghan National Directorate of Security that support the
Task Force and are not engaged in intelligence gathering
activities, and prosecutors from the Afghan Attorney General's
office assigned to such teams.
The provision would also modify subsection 1513(g) to
provide that the reports submitted under section 9010 of the
DOD Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118; 123 Stat.
3466), or a successor provision of law, could be treated as
satisfying the requirement under that subsection for quarterly
reports on the ASFF.
The committee recognizes the critical importance of
building the capacity of the Afghanistan National Security
Forces (ANSF) to assume security responsibility for
Afghanistan. The committee supports the goal of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission--Afghanistan
(NTM-A)/Combined Security Transition Command--Afghanistan to
rapidly grow the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National
Police (ANP) to a combined force of more than 300,000 by
October 2011. The committee also emphasizes the importance of
partnering deployed Afghan and coalition forces together for
developing the capabilities of Afghan units through ``on the
job training.'' The committee requests that it be kept fully
informed of the progress of efforts to build the ANSF through
periodic updates on metrics for the recruitment, training and
retention of, and the partnering of coalition forces with,
Afghan security forces.
The committee supports the decision to transition oversight
of the contract for training the ANP from the Department of
State (DOS) to the DOD. However, the committee is concerned
over the delays in awarding the ANP training contract resulting
from DOD's initial decision to use a contracting vehicle that a
Government Accountability Office review later found to be
inappropriate. As the DOD proceeds with a full and open
competition, the committee urges the DOD and DOS to cooperate
closely to make appropriate modifications to the existing DOS-
managed ANP training contract to address oversight deficiencies
and align contract requirements with the NTM-A mission.
Following a lengthy investigation, the committee devoted a
hearing to examining evidence of serious deficiencies in the
conduct of a contractor involved in the training of Afghan
security forces. Before a decision is made to award the ANP
training contract, the committee strongly urges the DOD to take
into consideration the totality of each contractor's past
performance including: (1) whether that contractor has complied
with all applicable laws and regulations of the United States
and the host country, applicable treaties and international
agreements, and standards set forth by the geographic combatant
commander; and (2) information relating to each contractor's
performance, including but not limited to formal evaluations
and audits of each contractor and any parent, subsidiary, or
affiliated business of that contractor that has operated in the
U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The committee is
concerned to have learned that in some cases the Department may
have failed to conduct performance evaluations of training
contracts in Afghanistan and requests that the Department
review its practices in this regard and ensure that the
performance of contractors in Afghanistan are properly and
fully evaluated.

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533)

The committee recommends a provision that authorizes $1.0
billion in fiscal year 2011 for the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to build the minimum
essential capabilities of the Iraqi security forces of the
Ministry of Defense (MOD) and the Ministry of Interior (MOI).
Types of assistance that would be authorized would include
equipment, supplies, services, training, and repair and
renovation of facilities and infrastructure. The Secretary of
Defense must provide Congress a detailed notification at least
15 days prior to the obligation of funds under the Iraq
Security Forces Fund (ISFF).
The provision would also limit the availability of the
funds authorized by this provision for the ISFF to $500.0
million until the Secretary of Defense provides a certification
to Congress. The Secretary of Defense would have to certify
that he has determined that the Government of Iraq has
demonstrated a commitment to (1) adequately build the logistics
and maintenance capacity of the Iraqi security forces; (2)
develop the institutional capacity to manage such forces
independently; and (3) develop a culture of sustainment for
equipment provided or acquired with United States assistance.
The United States has appropriated over $18.0 billion in
ISFF to date. The budget request included $2.0 billion for the
ISFF, of which the committee would authorize $1.0 billion. As
in previous years, the committee believes that the Government
of Iraq should assume increasing responsibility for the costs
associated with building their security forces, particularly as
U.S. forces draw down. The committee urges the Government of
Iraq to dedicate any unexpended funds from previous years'
budgets towards building Iraq's minimum essential capabilities.
The committee is also concerned that a significant portion
of the funds requested for the ISFF in the fiscal year 2010
supplemental and the fiscal year 2011 budget request is planned
for the maintenance and sustainment of the Iraqi security
forces, including maintenance for recently transferred U.S.
equipment. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the
Commander, United States Forces--Iraq, to ensure that the
Government of Iraq is committed to the maintenance and
sustainment of its security forces and allocates the resources
within the budgets of the MOD and MOI to adequately provide for
the upkeep of its security forces beyond the December 2011
date.

Projects of Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in
Afghanistan and report on economic strategy for Afghanistan
(sec. 1534)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $150.0 million in Army
Operation and Maintenance, Overseas Contingency Operations, to
fund projects of the Department of Defense's Task Force on
Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan that support
the counterinsurgency strategy through economic development and
job creation. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to report
to Congress on an economic strategy for Afghanistan that
supports the counterinsurgency campaign, promotes economic
stabilization, and enhances the establishment of sustainable
institutions in Afghanistan.

Report on management controls and oversight mechanisms for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (sec. 1535)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense
committees, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act,
a report on the current management controls and oversight
mechanisms for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO). The report would include: (1) a
description of the current management structure and reporting
relationships of JIEDDO; (2) recommendations for any changes to
such management structure and reporting relationships that may
be needed to ensure appropriate management control and
oversight of the operations and activities of JIEDDO; (3) an
assessment of the degree to which acquisition professionals
from the military departments are included in JIEDDO and
whether further steps are needed to strengthen the role and
participation of acquisition professionals from the military
departments in funding and development decisions; (4) an
assessment of the departmental controls on JIEDDO, including
systems for identifying and addressing material weaknesses in
such departmental controls; (5) an assessment of the data
collection and metrics used to determine the effectiveness of
JIEDDO's initiatives and investments and make any needed
adjustments to such initiatives and investments; and (6) an
assessment of whether JIEDDO or the military services are
performing activities that are duplicative and determination of
where these activities should be located.
The committee applauds the Secretary of Defense's ongoing
effort to review the activities of JIEDDO and the other OCO-
related task forces. The committee agrees that the sharp focus
and attention of a task force is something that is lost over
time, and the committee looks forward to being briefed on the
outcome of the Secretary's review.
However, the committee believes more must be done to
increase oversight of JIEDDO's activities. As a result, the
committee urges the Secretary to consider as part of his review
an examination of whether a principal staff assistant, such as
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD AT&L), could devote additional time and
attention to JIEDDO's operations and activities. Further, USD
AT&L could play a critical role in ensuring the military
departments establish and maintain robust counter-improvised
explosive device (IED) research, development, and acquisition
capabilities and ensure that JIEDDO's initiatives are rapidly
transitioned to the military departments and measured for
effectiveness during and after their deployment.
The committee agrees with military commanders' conclusion
that IEDs will remain a threat to U.S. forces beyond operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan and, therefore, the committee believes
it is critical that military departments establish and maintain
robust counter-IED research, development, and acquisition
capabilities.

Sense of Congress on support for integrated civilian-military training
for civilian personnel deploying to Afghanistan (sec. 1536)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator
of the United States Agency for International Development,
should continue to provide personnel, trainers, and resources
in support of integrated civilian-military training for
civilians deploying to serve Afghanistan. The committee notes
that such training has been taking place at Camp Atterbury in
Indiana, hosted by the Indiana National Guard, since July 2009
and has been mandatory for all civilians serving in the field
in Afghanistan since October 2009.

Budget Items

Base Expeditionary Targeting and Surveillance System--Combined

The request includes $486.1 million in Other Procurement,
Army (OPA) for the Base Expeditionary Targeting System of
Systems-Combined (BETSS-C). Included within this request is
$41.0 million for 2 commercial helicopters and 19 associated
support personnel for the exclusive use in theater of BETSS-C
contract logistics support. The committee is aware that BETSS-C
is an important force protection system that contributes to the
security of fixed installations in theater. However, including
$41.0 million in this request for commercial helicopters is not
justified given the availability of a variety of aviation
support throughout the theater. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $41.0 million in OPA for BETSS-C.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

The budget request includes $3,250.0 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. This includes $1,434.4
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization's (JIEDDO) attack the network line of operation;
$286.2 million for JIEDDO's train the force line of operation;
and $1,529.4 million for JIEDDO's defeat the device line of
operation. The committee recommends full funding for JIEDDO,
but also recommends the following decreases, all of which will
be transferred to JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure line of
operation in the Overseas Contingency Operations request:
$218.6 million in JIEDDO's attack the network line of
operation; $35.2 million JIEDDO's train the force line of
operation; and $95.9 million JIEDDO's defeat the device line of
operation.
As noted elsewhere in this report concerning title I of
this Act, the committee transferred JIEDDO's staff and
infrastructure base budget request of $215.9 million to the
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Upon completion
of these transfers, JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure line of
operation will be approximately $565.5 million.
Upon further review of JIEDDO's budget request, the
committee determined that a significant amount of JIEDDO's
staff and infrastructure expenses were accounted for in its
other lines of operation. In order to provide a more accurate
accounting of JIEDDO's funding levels, the committee performed
the aforementioned transfers.

Joint Strike Fighter

The budget request included $1,887.0 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), to purchase 7 Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) aircraft for the Navy (F-35C), $2,576.1 million in APN
for 13 JSF aircraft for the Marine Corps (F-35B), and $3,986.2
million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 22 JSF
for the Air Force (F-35A). In addition, the budget request for
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) include $204.9 million in
APAF for 1 F-35A to replace one legacy aircraft lost in combat
operations.
Since last year, the Department found significant problems
in the performance of the F-35 contractor team in conducting
the elements of the system development and demonstration (SDD)
phase of the program, which have led to delays in developmental
testing of the aircraft. The Department restructured the
program in conjunction with submitting the fiscal year 2011
budget by taking a number of actions, including: (1) extending
the development test schedule to March 2015; (2) adding
additional research, development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E) funds to pay for mitigating known risks; (3) buying
another carrier variant developmental test aircraft and add
another software integration line to the program; (4) using up
to three aircraft procured under low-rate initial production
(LRIP) contracts for developmental testing; (5) reducing
procurement quantities over the future-years defense program
(FYDP) to slow the planned production ramp up in later years
and offset added funding for developmental testing; and (6)
installing a new fee structure that would provide incentives
for the contractor team to achieve key performance events and
cost goals.
Last year, Congress approved funding for 30 aircraft. This
year, the budget request is for a total of 43 F-35 aircraft of
all types. The number of 43 aircraft matches what had been the
planned production rate for the F-35 aircraft 2 years ago
before any of these problems and delays became evident. The
FYDP for fiscal year 2009 included a plan to buy 43 JSF
aircraft in 2011, although the mix of F-35A and F-35C aircraft
changed by one aircraft each.
The committee understands that the Department would prefer
to get JSF aircraft sooner. However, the fact that the
production changes recommended by the Department in this
restructuring only affect production plans later in the FYDP
means that the concurrency in the program for fiscal year 2011
has actually increased.
The committee believes that a more modest ramp up in
production to a total of 42 aircraft in the near-term would
lessen that concurrency, while increasing the production rate
from 30 aircraft to allow the program to demonstrate that the
production processes and management systems will support
growing to higher levels later in the FYDP.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $204.9
million in the APAF account within OCO.

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

The budget request includes $3,415.0 million for the Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Fund. The committee
recommends full funding of the Department of Defense's request
for the MRAP Vehicle Fund, which includes the lighter, more
mobile MRAP all-terrain vehicle variant suited for conditions
in Afghanistan. The increased protection provided by MRAP
vehicles as compared to the alternative of armored High
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles has been proven by the
reduction of U.S. and allied casualties due to improvised
explosive devices since the introduction of MRAPs in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Production and fielding of these vehicles is
expected to be completed over the coming budget cycle, but
sustainment and potential upgrades of the vehicles will
continue. The committee will monitor closely how the MRAP
family of vehicles is incorporated into plans to develop the
next-generation of ground combat vehicles for the armed forces.
Further, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit to
the congressional defense committees, not later than February
28, 2011, a report that describes the Department's plan to
consolidate lessons-learned from the MRAP program, including
industrial base management in response to urgent requests from
theater relating to MRAPs and/or M-ATVs.

Wide-area airborne surveillance exploitation

The budget request included classified amounts in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 35102BQ for
the Defense Geospatial Intelligence Program (DGIP) in the
Overseas Contingency Operations account. In 2008, the
Department of Defense (DOD) submitted a prior-approval
reprogramming request on an urgent basis to field enhanced
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
capabilities for U.S. forces operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among the high-priority requests were funds for new technology
for retrieving, storing, and transmitting wide-area airborne
surveillance (WAAS) motion video collected by systems such as
Constant Hawk and Angel Fire.
These WAAS processing, exploitation, and dissemination
(PED) technologies were grouped together with an initiative to
improve the PED for narrow-field-of-view full-motion video
(FMV) that was beginning to proliferate in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. This ensemble of projects was given the name Valiant
Angel, even though that name had originally been assigned only
to the WAAS PED initiative. While the WAAS PED elements were
unique and mature, and ready for rapid fielding, the FMV PED
was considered by Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) to require a
competition for development and integration.
A contract for the entire Valiant Angel program was awarded
in late calendar year 2009, long after Congress received the
urgent reprogramming request. A recent letter from the J-2 for
U.S. forces Afghanistan indicates that the FMV PED portion of
Valiant Angel is no longer even needed, having been superseded
by other developments.
The committee is concerned that the apparent collapse of
the Valiant Angel program will result in the continued delay or
even the loss of the original WAAS PED Valiant Angel
technology. There are now several more WAAS collection
platforms nearing deployment, each of which will collect far
more data than the original Constant Hawk and Angel Fire
systems. These include the Gorgon Stare and Blue Devil Quick-
Reaction Capabilities (QRCs), and the second generation of
Constant Hawk. Operators and consumers of the data from these
systems will continue to need the WAAS PED capabilities
originally planned under the Valiant Angel program.
Securing licenses for those capabilities will not cost much
money or take any time at all. The committee requests that the
ISR Task Force immediately work with the Air Force, Army, and
the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to acquire
licenses for the Valiant Angel WAAS PED capabilities and
synchronize their employment with the ongoing WAAS collection
system deployments. The committee requests a status report on
this effort prior to conference on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
The committee recommends an authorization of $3.0 million
above the requested amount for the DGIP for support for the
Valiant Angel WAAS PED projects.
On April 22, 2010, the Air Force announced that the Gorgon
Stare Increment 2 will be based on the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency Autonomous Realtime Ground Ubiquitous
Surveillance (ARGUS) camera. Increment 2 plans call for the
purchase of 6 ARGUS pods. The Air Force announcement was
accompanied by an admission that the Air Force needs help from
NGA to satisfy the ARGUS PED requirements, both in volume and
complexity. NGA has informed the committee that the NGA budget
is short $22.5 million to address this requirement. Therefore,
the committee also recommends authorization of an additional
$22.5 million for ARGUS PED capabilities.

Commanders' Emergency Response Program

The budget request included $1.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq
and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2011. The request consisted of
$200.0 million for CERP in Iraq and $1.1 billion for CERP in
Afghanistan. The committee's concerns with respect to the
levels of CERP for both Iraq and Afghanistan are discussed in
title XII. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
$400.0 million in OMA, OCO, for CERP, to a level of $900.0
million, consisting of $100.0 million for CERP in Iraq and
$800.0 million for CERP in Afghanistan.

Iraq Security Forces Fund

The budget request included $2.0 billion for the Iraq
Security Forces Fund (ISFF) to build the minimum essential
capabilities of the Iraqi security forces of the Ministry of
Defense and the Ministry of Interior. The committee has
consistently taken the view that the Government of Iraq should
take on increasing responsibility for the costs of building the
capacity of its security forces. The committee's concerns
regarding the ISFF are discussed further elsewhere in title XV.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0
billion for ISFF to a level of $1.0 billion.

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

The budget request included $1.55 billion for the Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) Transfer Fund. Of this amount,
$350,000,000 was requested for detainee operations, including
$245,000,000 for costs associated with the improvements to a
detention facility at Thomson, Illinois, that is planned to be
acquired by the Federal Government from the State of Illinois,
and for detention operations conducted at that facility once
acquired and the improvements are made. The committee
recommends a decrease in the OCO Transfer Fund of $245,000,000.
Elsewhere in this title the committee recommends a provision
that would restrict the use of the remaining $105,000,000 of
the $350,000,000 requested within the OCO Transfer Fund solely
for detainee operations at the United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
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 (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security
Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base
closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions in base closure rounds.
The following tables provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in Division B of this Act, other than the overseas contingency
operations projects authorized in title XXIX, and summarize
that funding by account. Funding for base closure projects is
summarized in the table that follows, and is explained in
additional detail in the table included in title XXVII of this
report.
The fiscal year 2011 budget requested $20.0 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$14.2 billion was requested for military construction, $1.8
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $2.7 billion for base closure activities, including $2.35
billion to implement the results of the 2005 Base Realignment
and Closure round.
Excluding the overseas contingency operations projects in
title XXIX, the committee recommends authorization of
appropriations for military construction and housing programs
totaling $18.7 billion. The total amount authorized for
appropriations reflects the committee's continuing commitment
to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and
infrastructure.
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 2011.
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization infrastructure program as October 1, 2013, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $4.08 billion for military construction and $610.0 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.8 billion for military construction and $610.0 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends moving $101.5 million of military
construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas
Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $71.0 million in
canceled or accelerated Army projects from the Overseas
Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these
funding changes will allow for more efficient execution of
CENTCOM military construction projects.
The committee recommends incrementally funding the Aviation
Task Force Hanger at Fort Wainwright, Alaska and the Sensitive
Compartmentalized Information Facility at Weisbaden Air Base in
Germany. This action is taken without prejudice and merely to
facilitate the most efficient use of taxpayer funds.
The committee recommends deferring funding for three museum
support operations buildings until the Department of the Army
can develop a plan to collocate these facilities with
privately-funded museums planned for construction at the same
locations. The committee believes there are higher funding
priorities this fiscal year.
The committee also eliminated funding for barracks at Soto
Cano Air Base in Honduras. The lack of a host nation agreement
governing the construction of permanent military facilities
makes this project unnecessary. The committee understands that
the facilities in Soto Cano require improvement and will seek
to work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to find alternate
acceptable solutions.
The committee eliminated funding for a commissary at U.S.
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) headquarters in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The committee believes that DOD Instruction 1330.17
clearly states that significant growth (more than 25 percent in
2 years) is required to use appropriated dollars to fund
construction of a new commissary at an existing installation.
There has not been significant growth at SOUTHCOM headquarters,
therefore, appropriated dollars should not be used. The
committee finds that the clarification memorandum signed by
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness) Michael Dominguez on December 1, 2008, serves only
to confuse the matter by misquoting the Instruction. The phrase
``initial establishment of a commissary on an existing
installation'' is not contained in the original text and is
therefore not persuasive. The committee believes that the
Surcharge Fund created by 10 U.S.C. 2484(d) is the appropriate
source of funds as allowed by 10 U.S.C. 2484(h).
The committee eliminated funding for Phase 1, Increment 2
of an Aviation Task Force Complex at Fort Wainwright, Alaska as
the Department has informed the committee that funding for this
increment of the project is no longer required.
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 2011. 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, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize
funds for facilities that support family housing, including
housing management offices, 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 2011 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 2011 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Army. The State list contained in
this report is the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 projects (sec.
2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for eight Army fiscal year 2008 military
construction projects until October 1, 2012, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later. This extension was
requested by the Department of Defense.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 project
(sec. 2106)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
table in section 2101(b) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B of Public
Law 110-417) by striking ``Katterbach'' and inserting
``Grafenwoehr''.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project
(sec. 2107)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
table in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public
Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2628) for Fort Riley, Kansas, for
construction of a Brigade Complex at the installation, to allow
the Secretary of the Army to construct up to a 40,100 square-
feet brigade headquarters consistent with the Army's
construction guidelines for brigade headquarters.
TITLE XXII--NAVY

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.88 billion for military construction and $552.0 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2011.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.7 billion for military construction and $552.0 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
The committee notes that the fiscal year budget request
continues to contain funding for the relocation of Marines from
Okinawa to Guam. The committee recommends the elimination of
funding for three projects on Guam totaling $320.0 million.
These three projects are ahead of need. The committee notes
that two of these projects, both at Andersen Air Force Base,
have significant amounts of fiscal year 2010 dollars that
cannot be obligated or expended in advance of a Record of
Decision planned for September 2010. The committee believes
that these funds are sufficient to keep these projects on
schedule so no additional funds are required in fiscal year
2011. The committee believes that site preparations at
Finegayan are ahead of need as long as significant progress is
not made to fulfill Marine Corps live fire training
requirements on or near Guam. An item of special interest later
in this title more fully reflects the committee's views on this
critical program.
The committee notes that the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement identifies two parcels of land on Guam currently
under the control of the Government of Guam or private owners.
No alternatives meet 100 percent of the Marine Corps' need. The
committee recommends that the Department explore the use of
Tinian Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands as alternatives should it become impossible to acquire
adequate land on Guam.
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 2011. 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, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize
funds for facilities that support family housing, including
housing management offices, 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 2011 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 2011 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.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008 project (sec.
2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2008 authorization for various world-wide host
nation infrastructures until October 1, 2011, or the date of an
act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2012, whichever is later.
Technical amendment to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project (sec.
2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
section 2204(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84).

Item of Special Interest

Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam
The committee notes that on February 17, 2009, The United
States Government formally reaffirmed support for an agreement
with the Government of Japan to realign U.S. forces on the
Island of Okinawa and to relocate 8,000 Marines and their
families from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. This realignment is a
key element of the transformation of the alliance with Japan
and secures the enduring presence of remaining U.S. forces in
Japan. The committee also notes that on September 16, 2009, a
new government and Prime Minister assumed power in Japan and
embarked on a review of the formal agreement, specifically an
examination of options for the construction of a replacement
facility for Marine Corps Air Station Futenma at Camp Schwab,
Okinawa.
The committee is aware that the success of this agreement
continues to depend on many factors including tangible progress
towards completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF),
successful completion of the environmental impact statement for
Guam, and the coordinated funding of over $10.0 billion by both
countries to complete construction of all operational
requirements, housing, training ranges, as well as the upgrade
to the civilian infrastructure and utilities on Guam.
Regarding the FRF, the ``Agreement Between the Government
of the United States of America and The Government of Japan
Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine
Expeditionary Force Personnel and their Dependents from Okinawa
to Guam'' signed on February 17, 2009, specifically cites in
Article 3 that ``The Relocation shall be dependent on tangible
progress made by the Government of Japan toward completion of
the Futenma Replacement Facility as stipulated in the
roadmap.'' The committee notes that `tangible progress' was
previously considered by the Department of Defense (DOD) to be
a signature by the Governor of Okinawa on a landfill permit
required to commence construction of the off-shore runway. This
action has been indefinitely delayed pending the outcome of a
review of the agreement.
As for the planned construction on Guam, the Department of
the Navy published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) in November 2009, in advance of a Record of Decision
(ROD) planned for September 2010. The committee notes that six
military construction projects totaling $378.0 million
authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) cannot be awarded until the
public release of the ROD, assuming that no legal action is
undertaken against the ROD that would include an injunction
against new construction. Therefore, the amounts authorized for
appropriation for these military construction projects will not
be expended until at least fiscal year 2011.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a review of the DEIS on February 17, 2010. The EPA rated
the DEIS as environmentally unsatisfactory due to adverse
impacts to the Guam water supply, wastewater treatment, and
sensitive coral reef ecosystems in Apra harbor. Furthermore,
the EPA determined that the DEIS did not adequately assesses
potentially significant environmental impacts of the
introduction of up to 56,000 additional residents that could
greatly exacerbate an already environmentally unsatisfactory
situation. Ultimately, the EPA ``is concerned about the
magnitude of the project impacts, including public health
impacts, upon the existing substandard conditions on Guam,
further impeding Guam's efforts to comply with federal
environmental laws and policies.'' The Department of Defense is
concerned that many of the EPA findings require remedies and
investments that are outside their traditional funding
responsibilities.
Investments by the United States Government in Guam's
infrastructure for port upgrades, roads, and utilities are the
essential first steps to ensure that significant construction
efforts can be supported without detrimental impact to the
local community. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued numerous reports in 2008 and 2009 raising concerns about
the lack of planning within the U.S. Government to address
civilian requirements. In the latest report, ``Defense
Infrastructure: Guam Needs Timely Information from DOD to Meet
Challenges in Planning and Financing Off-Base Projects and
Programs to Support a Larger Military Presence'' (GAO-10-90R,
November 13, 2009), GAO cited the testimony before the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in May 2008, where
the Governor of Guam outlined requirements totaling $6.1
billion to expand the commercial port, roadways, power, water,
and other infrastructure as well as certain public services in
support of the buildup. These infrastructure needs and services
were proposed to be part of a multiyear funding program to
ensure that Guam would be able to support the buildup and
secure post-buildup sustainability. The committee notes that no
funding was included in the President's budget for fiscal year
2010 or 2011 to address Guam's port and utility infrastructure
requirements, despite the fact that $378.0 million was
requested to start military construction activities at Andersen
Air Force Base and Apra Harbor, and $427.0 million is requested
in fiscal year 2011 to continue these projects and to start
site preparations at Finegayan for the Marine cantonment area.
Since release of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the
committee received a subsequent request on April 5, 2010, for
support of an amendment to be included in the act for Fiscal
Year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations to authorize the
Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million to the
Department of Transportation Maritime Administration's Port of
Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund for capital improvements to
the Port of Guam. The committee notes that the administration
submitted this amendment after the Guam Government was denied a
$50.0 million grant for port improvements requested through the
process established for appropriations provided by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (Public Law 111-5).
The committee is concerned that the request for authority
to transfer DOD funds for infrastructure upgrades to civilian
facilities is to be carried out within existing DOD accounts,
which will result in the deferment or cancellation of other DOD
priorities. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that this
request for transfer authority may demonstrate intent for DOD
to fund up to the $6.1 billion in requirements identified by
the Government of Guam to support the relocation.
The committee also notes that the leaders in the United
States Marine Corps have publicly stated that the establishment
of live fire training areas on Guam are absolutely essential to
the successful relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa. The
DEIS has identified two parcels of land on Guam currently under
the control of the Government of Guam or private owners. No
DEIS alternatives meet 100 percent of the training and range
requirements identified by the Marine Corps. Even with the
successful purchases of the non-DOD lands identified in the
DEIS, the Marine Corps will not have a dedicated dud producing
ordnance impact area, which limits heavy machine gun training.
The current plan does not provide for an integrated combined-
arms maneuver range, nor does it provide an area for amphibious
landing beaches. In addition, the current plan will provide
limited Special Use Airspace, preventing close air support
training. One proposed solution would be the use of Tinian
Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
but to date, DOD has not identified or planned for projects in
these areas to support training for a full spectrum of Marine
Corps operations.
In consideration of these facts, the committee recommends
that authorizations for the construction of certain projects
requested to support the movement of Marines to Guam be
deferred until the DOD provides Congress with: (1)
certification that tangible progress has been made to implement
a final decision concerning the FRF considered acceptable to
DOD and meeting the operational requirements for the United
States Marines on Okinawa; (2) a Record of Decision with a
mitigation plan to minimize the negative impact to the local
community and local ecosystems; (3) a determination of
requirements and estimate of the amounts for the upgrade of
civilian infrastructure, facilities, and utilities that will be
the funding responsibility of the Department of Defense; (4) a
plan to address all civilian requirements for the support of
the 8,000 Marines, their families, and the temporary
construction workers on Guam; and (5) tangible progress towards
the acquisition of lands on Guam required to support Marines
Corps training ranges.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.31 billion for military construction and $591.0 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.38 billion for military construction and $591.0 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends moving $41.0 million of military
construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas
Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $185.0 million in
canceled or accelerated Air Force projects from the Overseas
Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these
funding changes will allow for more efficient execution of
CENTCOM military construction projects.
The committee recommends fully authorizing the budget
request of $158.009 million for the Air Force Technical
Application Center at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida, but
incrementally funding the project with an authorization of
appropriations of $100.009 million. This action is taken
without prejudice and merely to facilitate the most efficient
use of taxpayer funds.
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 2011.
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 2011. It would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, 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 2011 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 2011 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Air Force. The State list
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2007 project (sec.
2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2007 authorization for the replacement of 457
housing units at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho until
October 1, 2011, or the date of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.12 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $124.9 million for chemical demilitarization
construction, and $50.0 million for family housing for the
defense agencies, the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the
Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.2 billion for military construction, $124.9 million for
chemical demilitarization construction, and $50.0 million for
family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2011.
The committee eliminated funding for the Hydrant Fuel
System at Misawa Air Base in Japan as this does not support a
current mission requirement.
The committee recommends incrementally funding the North
Campus Utility Plant at Ft. Meade, Maryland. This $219.0
million facility is fully authorized as a military construction
project, but the level of funding requested cannot be
reasonably executed in this fiscal year.
The committee recommends incrementally funding the
Ambulatory Care Center at Lackland Air Base, Texas. This $162.0
million facility remains fully authorized as a military
construction project, but the level of funding requested cannot
be reasonably executed in this fiscal year.
The committee eliminated funding for the Health/Dental
Replacement Clinic at Camp Carroll, Korea, since the Department
was unable to provide sufficient information on their
requirements and the location of the proposed clinic.
The committee recommends a significant increase in the
Energy Conservation Improvement Program. The committee is
encouraged that there is a considerable number of meritorious
programs competing for funding within this program. Projects
must have a Savings-to-Investment ratio of 1.25 or higher to
qualify for the program and a simple payback period of 10 years
or less.

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 2011. 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 2011 in this Act. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The State list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project
(sec. 2404)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public
Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2641) to authorize $68.5 million for the
Aegis Ashore Test Facility at the Pacific Missile Range
Facility, Hawaii. This facility is necessary to permit the
testing and demonstration of the Aegis Ashore system in time
for its planned deployment in Phase 2 of the Phased Adaptive
Approach to missile defense in Europe, in the 2015 timeframe.

Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization
construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the chemical
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2011. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project
(sec. 2412)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
table in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public
Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 835), as amended, increasing the
authorization amount for an item relating to Blue Grass Army
Depot, Kentucky, from $492.0 million to $746.0 million.

Item of Special Interest

Design standards for schools of the Department of Defense Education
Activity

The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year
2011 and the future years defense program (FYDP) includes a
significant increase in the amounts proposed for investment in
the replacement of schools maintained and operated by the
Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). The amount
requested in fiscal year 2011 of $439.0 million, is 110 percent
greater than the amount proposed for fiscal year 2011 in the
FYDP that accompanied the budget request for fiscal year 2010.
The amount of over $4.0 billion proposed for investment in the
FYDP in the fiscal year 2011 budget request represents an
increase of almost $3.6 billion from the fiscal year 2010 FYDP
for DODEA. The urgent requirement for additional funding for
school facilities was revealed in a study requested by this
committee in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), which assessed the condition of
DODEA schools worldwide and the impact of underinvestment of
funding for replacements and renovations.
The committee strongly supports the Department's commitment
to the wide range of family programs that support the spouses
and dependents of our military personnel. The committee has
received testimony that many of these programs ranging from
housing, child care, medical care, and education are major
factors in achieving a positive quality of life and the
decision of service members to remain in the military, despite
the hardships of family separations and a high operations
tempo. The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for
establishing a priority to ensure the children of our military
personnel are provided the best education opportunities in
state-of-the-art facilities with the most current technology
available. The committee also notes that the environment
provided to students by the decisions and priorities
established during the facility design process for each new
school will have a significant impact on the quality of
education and the scholastic experience for children for many
years.
Noting the substantial amount of design and construction to
be accomplished in the next 5 years, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to establish a formal process whereby the
best practices and design innovations in public and private
school construction can be incorporated into the design of
DODEA schools. The Secretary shall ensure that the process
encourages the use of sustainable designs, green building
systems, acoustics management, student safety/security, and
interactive technology to create a positive learning
environment for children and an efficient teaching environment
for faculty. The process should also determine what is required
to provide children with disabilities the full range of
education opportunities and to ensure these requirements are
incorporated into each design. Finally, the process should
ensure that the facility design will be able to easily adapt
and respond to emerging requirements related to dynamic
curricula and new teaching techniques and incorporate the
feedback of teachers, parents, military community
representatives, and local school administrators.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
this committee with a report not later than September 30, 2010,
on the establishment of the process and the procedures adopted
to meet the goals to provide outstanding schools for the
children of our military personnel.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriation of $258.88 million for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of
$258.88 million for this program.
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 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 $258.88 million for the United States'
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program for fiscal year 2011.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $1.4 billion for military construction in
fiscal year 2011 for National Guard and Reserve facilities. The
committee recommends a total of $1.7 billion for military
construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding
recommendations are contained in the State list table included
in this report.
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2011. 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 2011. 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 2011. 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 2011. 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 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National 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 2011 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
State list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 projects (sec.
2607)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2008
military construction projects until October 1, 2011, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. These
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.

Item of Special Interest

Report on National Guard readiness centers
The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year
2011 contains 48 military construction projects for the Army
National Guard (ARNG) in 32 states and territories totaling
$874.0 million, a 105 percent increase from the amount
requested in the budget request for fiscal year 2010. While the
committee commends the Department of the Army for the necessary
increase to address the severe backlog of work needed to
upgrade Army National Guard facilities, the committee also
notes that the amount for the ARNG included in the future years
defense program (FYDP) accompanying the budget request for 2011
drops off significantly to a proposed amount of $354.0 million
in fiscal year 2015, with less than $180.0 million per year
dedicated to the replacement or modernization of ARNG
facilities.
The committee notes that the 2009 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) released in February 2010 outlined the requirement
that the ARNG should be a force that can serve in an
operational capacity, available, trained, and equipped for
routine deployment as well as being a Homeland Response Force
responsible for providing regional immediate response
capability within the United States. The QDR stated,
``[t]oday's National Guard and Reserve men and women volunteer
knowing that they will periodically serve on active duty. They
also serve expecting to be . . . provided the right training
and equipment to complete the mission. The Department will work
to meet these expectations.''
The ARNG relies on an inventory of 3,000 Readiness/Reserve
Centers (formerly known as armories) spread over all 54 states/
territories in local communities as the primary facilities to
support unit training and local State operations. The committee
is aware that 40 percent of ARNG facilities are over 50 years
old and about 40 percent of readiness centers do not adequately
meet requirements for the support of training for the full
range of mission essential tasks. In addition, based on the
current force structure of the ARNG, there exists a deficit in
readiness centers of 19.5 million square feet, 30 percent of
the total current inventory. Finally, many readiness centers
are located in areas that are not ideally positioned for
current populations and demographic trends, which affects
recruiting and retention. All of these factors have a
detrimental impact on the readiness of the ARNG at a time when
the high operations tempo of deployments to Iraq and
Afghanistan are already taking a significant toll on the ARNG.
The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year
2011 contains 20 military construction projects totaling $294.0
million to add to or replace ARNG readiness centers. At this
rate of investment, it would take over 30 years just to address
the critical requirements in inadequate readiness centers. In
addition, the committee is concerned that military construction
funds may not be addressing the most urgent requirements in the
ARNG due to local considerations and the need for state
matching funds. Finally, the committee recognizes that the
value and contribution of readiness centers to local
communities may not be fully recognized by DOD.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to report to this committee no later than February 1, 2011 on
the results and recommendations of an independent study which
shall review the following:
1) standards for facility size, configuration, and
equipment for the range of missions and training
supported by readiness centers;
2) an assessment of each readiness center to
objectively measure and determine the current facility
condition and capability to support authorized
manpower, unit training, and operations;
3) an assessment of supporting facilities and
functions to include equipment storage, classrooms,
force protection, utilities, maintenance,
administration, and proximity of support and training
facilities;
4) recommendations for the placement of new readiness
centers, the relocation of existing readiness center,
or a change in the mission of units assigned to
readiness centers to ideally position the ARNG in
current or projected population centers;
5) recommendations for enhanced use of readiness
centers to facilitate ARNG family support programs
during deployments;
6) an analysis of the feasibility, potential costs
and benefits of shared use of ARNG readiness centers
with other local, state, or federal agencies to improve
response to local emergencies as well as the community
support provided by readiness centers; and
7) an investment strategy and proposed funding
amounts in a prioritized project list to correct the
most critical facility shortfalls across the inventory
of ARNG readiness centers.
TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables

The budget request included $360.47 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 $2.35 billion for implementation of the 2005
BRAC round. Section 2702 of this Act would authorize the full
$2.35 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year
2011.
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 2011 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure 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 2011 that are
required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure 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 2011 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.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL MATTERS

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

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects outside the United
States (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense with continued authority to use funds
appropriated for operation and maintenance for military
construction to meet temporary operational requirements during
a time of declared war, national emergency, or contingency
operation through September 2011. It would also extend the
authority to that portion of the United States Africa Command
area of responsibility formerly within the area of
responsibility of the United States Central Command.
This authority would enable the Department of Defense to
provide basic facilities and infrastructure critical to
military operations ahead of the regular annual authorization
and appropriation process for construction projects. The
proposal retains the current requirement to provide notice to
Congress prior to the use of funds appropriated for operation
and maintenance under the conditions set forth in subsection
(a) of section 2808 of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108-136). In
addition, the Department of Defense still would not be able to
proceed with execution of these projects until after a waiting
period of 10 days, unless notification is by electronic means,
in which case it is 7 days, following the delivery of pre-
notification to the Congress.

Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Limitation on enhanced use leases of non-excess property (sec. 2811)

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that
enhanced use leases (EULs) for non-excess property may not be
used to commit future-years Department of Defense (DOD) funds
for long-term projects that have not received approval through
the normal budgeting process.
Section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, provides EUL
authority to the military departments. Section 2823 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84) extended this authority to the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (AFRH). In October 2009, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) reviewed section 2823 and estimated that
the provision would result in $115.0 million of direct spending
over a 10-year period. This estimate was based on CBO's view
that AFRH would use EULs to leverage construction of new
facilities that would be leased back over time through annual
payments by AFRH.
The committee does not believe that either section 2667 or
section 2823 authorizes the use of EULs to commit DOD to the
expenditure of future-years funds. In an October 13, 2009,
letter, the Secretary of Defense agreed. The Secretary's letter
states:
``It is my understanding that there is speculation that
AFRH might use this authority to acquire expensive facilities
through long-term leases that would commit Department of
Defense funds over periods of up to 50 years. While we do not
know how DOD might use this authority in the future, I can say
that it is not my intention to use the provision in that
manner. If this authority is enacted, I can assure you that I
would take steps to ensure that this new authority is used
responsibly. In particular, this authority would not be used to
commit future-years Department of Defense funds for long-term
projects that have not received approval through the normal
budgeting process. I am confident that DOD will sustain this
position in the future.''
The provision recommended by the committee would ensure
that the military departments and AFRH are bound by the
Secretary's interpretation.

Subtitle C--Energy Security

Enhancement of energy security activities of the Department of Defense
(sec. 2821)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Chapter 173 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) direct the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive master plan for
the Department of Defense (DOD), including baselines,
measurement methods, metrics, milestones, and investments
needed to meet DOD energy performance goals; (2) require the
consideration of renewable forms of energy not only in new
construction, but in repairs and renovations as well; and (3)
require that specific consideration be given to roof-top solar
thermal, photovoltaic, and energy reducing coating
technologies; energy management control, supervisory control,
and data acquisition systems; energy efficient heating
ventilation and air conditioning systems; thermal windows and
insulation systems; electric meters, and lighting, equipment,
and appliances that are designed to use less electricity.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include
in the first master plan developed pursuant to this provision a
report on the specific steps that the Department has taken and
plans to take to ensure that specific consideration is given in
all new building construction and building renovation projects
to roof-top energy savings and other technologies identified in
the provision. The report shall address the feasibility and
advisability of using solar-power collecting structures to
shade vehicles at domestic military installations, including
the Pentagon parking lot.

Permanent authority to accept and use landing fees charged to use of
domestic airfields by civil aircraft (sec. 2822)

The committee recommends a provision which would amend
Section 377 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) to
make permanent the pilot authority provided to the secretary of
each military department to accept payments for the use of
domestic military and shared use airfields by civil aircraft
and to use those payments for the operation and maintenance of
the airfield.

Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky (sec. 2831)

The committee recommends a provision which would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to convey without consideration to
the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky a parcel of land consisting of approximately 194 acres
at Fort Knox, Kentucky for the establishment and operation of a
state veterans home and future expansion of an adjacent state
veterans cemetery.

Land Conveyances, Naval Support Activity (West Bank), New Orleans,
Louisiana (sec. 2832)

The committee recommends a provision which would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to convey with consideration to
Algiers Development District a parcel of land and improvements
thereon comprising the Naval Support Activity in New Orleans,
Louisiana, with certain exceptions. Consideration for this
conveyance would be provided by the State of Louisiana, through
the Algiers Development District, by delivering to the
Secretary of the Navy new facilities, including the
construction of a new Marine Forces Reserve Headquarters
facility as required by Article 3 of the lease signed on
September 30, 2008.

Authority for use of unobligated funds for construction of a
replacement fire station at Fort Belvoir, Virginia (sec. 2833)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Army to use previously appropriated Military
Construction, Army, funds in conjunction with funds provided by
the Commonwealth of Virginia to construct an Army standard-
design, two-company fire station to meet Fort Belvoir's current
requirement. This extension was requested by the Department of
Defense.

Subtitle E--Reports

Limitation on availability of funds pending reports regarding
construction of a new outlying landing field (OLF) in North
Carolina and Virginia (sec. 2841)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expense of funds for the study or development
of a new outlying landing field in North Carolina or Virginia
after fiscal year 2011 until the Secretary of the Navy provides
the congressional defense committee with a report.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Further enhancements to Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance
Program (sec. 2851)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374), as amended by section
1001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-5), which requires the government to purchase
all applicant homes when the home value is below the mortgage
payoff amount.
This provision would allow the government to pay the
difference between the price for which an applicant sells their
home and the mortgage payoff amount, rather than the current
requirement for the government to purchase the home for the
entire mortgage.

Lease of Airborne and Special Operations Museum facility (sec. 2852)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
lease of portions of the Airborne and Special Operations Museum
to the Airborne and Special Operations Museum Foundation for
uses consistent with the purpose of the museum.

Sense of the Senate on the proposed extension of the Alaska Railroad
corridor across Federal land in Alaska (sec. 2853)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Department of the Army and
Department of the Air Force should explore means of
accommodating this expansion using existing authorities that
will not adversely impact military missions, operations, and
training.

Sense of Congress on military housing for the Air Force (sec. 2854)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Air Force should
use existing authority to carry out certain solicitations for
military housing projects consistent with the goal of improving
homes for Air Force personnel and their families by the end of
2010.

Items of Special Interest

Application of force protection and anti-terrorism standards to gates
and entry points on military installations

The committee recognizes the importance of anti-terrorism
and force protection (AT/FP) measures for Department of Defense
installations and facilities. Main gates and entry control
points (ECP) are the first line of defense on a military
installation to guard against intrusion and potential vehicle-
borne terrorist attacks. The committee notes that a report
received on June 18, 2009, in response to section 2815 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) on the application of force
protection and anti-terrorism standards to gates and entry
points on military installations determined that of the 1,786
ECPs on major military installations, 746 have requirements to
install permanent AT/FP measures, 1,078 have other facility
requirements, and 938 require the installation of permanent
equipment to meet AT/FP standards. The total estimated amount
required to correct these critical deficiencies is $3.2
billion.
The committee notes that the requirements identified in the
report apply to 231 major military installations and do not
include over 5,000 other military sites and installations, many
of which support critical national security activities and
reserve component installations.
The committee has responded to the concern of inadequate
funding for the construction of permanent facilities and
equipment to ensure compliance with AT/FP standards by adding
eight military construction projects totaling $56.0 million to
address critical force protection requirements. Timely
execution of these requirements is necessary to protect the
safety and welfare of service members and their families as
well as vital military resources and weapon systems.
The committee expects the Department of Defense (DOD) to
include, in response to this report, adequate funding levels in
the fiscal year 2012 budget and future-years defense program to
address the significant shortfalls in the compliance of main
gates and ECPs with AT/FP standards at all military
installations supporting critical missions and resources. The
committee also expects the Department of Defense to verify both
designed and installed AT/FP measure meet all DOD minimum AT/FP
standards for installations and buildings.

Report on U.S. Special Operations Command military construction
requirements

The committee is concerned about the adequacy of U.S.
Special Operations Command's (USSOCOM) military construction
program and its ability to keep pace with the mandated growth
in U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee notes that the
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified 16
unfunded military construction projects for fiscal year 2011
totaling $164.1 million. Additionally, the committee is
concerned about the status of deteriorating facilities utilized
by special operations personnel, many of which have been
occupied for decades with minimal investment in their
sustainment and modernization.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on the adequacy
of USSOCOM's military construction program. The report shall
include: (1) a detailed description of USSOCOM's military
construction, sustainment, and modernization programs as
anticipated over the future years defense program, (2) an
assessment of the adequacy of USSOCOM's military construction,
sustainment, and modernization programs to support the mandated
growth of special operations forces and replace or modernize
its oldest facilities, (3) a description of how USSOCOM
prioritizes military construction requirements, (4) a
description of how the Department differentiates between Major
Force Program-2 military construction requirements for General-
Purpose Forces and Major Force Program-11 military construction
requirements for special operations forces, and (5) any other
matters the Secretary deems appropriate.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary
The President's Overseas Contingency Operations budget
request for fiscal year 2011 included $1.26 billion for
military construction projects in Afghanistan. The table in
section 4504 describes the specific projects and recommended
adjustments for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends moving $101.5 million of military
construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas
Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $71.0 million in
canceled or accelerated projects from the Overseas Contingency
Operations accounts. The committee believes these funding
changes will allow for more efficient execution of CENTCOM
military construction projects.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$1.0 billion in overseas contingency military construction
projects for the Army for fiscal year 2011.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2902)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$150.8 million in Overseas Contingency Operations military
construction projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2011.
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
2011, 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 three categories: (1) National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental
cleanup; and (3) other defense activities.
The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at
the Department totaled $17.7 billion, a 7.4 percent increase
above the fiscal year 2011 regular appropriated level. Of the
total amount requested:
(1) $11.2 billion is for NNSA, of which:
(a) $7.0 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.7 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $448.3 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.6 billion is for defense environmental
cleanup; and
(3) $878.2 million is for other defense activities.
The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy
supply.
The committee recommends $17.7 billion for atomic energy
defense activities, the amount of the budget request.
Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
(1) $11.2 billion for NNSA, of which;
(a) $7.0 billion is for weapons activities,
an increase of $6.2 million above the budget
request;
(b) $2.7 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, the amount of the
budget request;
(c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors, the
amount of the budget request; and
(d) $448.3 million is for the Office of the
Administrator, the amount of the budget
request;
(2) $5.6 billion for defense environmental cleanup
activities, the amount of the budget request; and
(3) $878.2 million for other defense activities, the
amount of the budget request.
The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a
reduction of $6.2 million.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $11.2 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal
year 2011 for the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security, an
increase of $6.2 million above the budget request.
Weapons activities
The committee recommends $7.0 billion for weapons
activities, an increase of $6.2 million above the budget
request. The committee authorizes the following activities:
$1.9 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion for
campaigns; $1.9 billion for readiness in the technical base and
facilities; $248.0 million for the secure transportation asset;
$233.1 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response;
$119.0 million for facilities and infrastructure
recapitalization; $105.5 million for site stewardship; $844.3
million for safeguards and security; and $20.0 million for
science, technology, and engineering capability.
Directed stockpile work
The committee recommends $1.9 billion for directed
stockpile work, a decrease of $25.0 million below the amount of
the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports
work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including
day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development,
engineering, and certification activities to support planned
life extension programs. This account also includes fabrication
and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies,
weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support
equipment.
The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million for
the W-76 life extension program. The committee fully supports
the life extension program for the W-76, the most numerous of
all the nuclear systems in the stockpile. The committee is
aware, however, that because of technical issues, the program
is behind schedule and will not need all of the requested funds
in 2011.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in
management, technology, and production for increased
surveillance activities. The committee is concerned that in
spite of the substantial increases in the NNSA weapons
activities account, the budget does not fully support the
enhanced surveillance efforts.
The committee recommends a $20.0 million decrease in
plutonium infrastructure sustainment as excess to requirements.
Campaigns
The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns, a
decrease of $2.0 million below the amount of the budget
request. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts
involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada
Test Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is
focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the
nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing.
These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the
Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile
remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons
testing. The committee is very concerned about the preliminary
decision of the NNSA to eliminate the readiness campaign with
the exception of tritium readiness. The readiness campaign
provides foundational support for key activities in the nuclear
stockpile. If the NNSA decides to eliminate the readiness
campaign the committee directs NNSA to identify clearly how and
where these foundational activities will be maintained.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in
National Ignition Facility (NIF) campaign for diagnostics,
cryogenics and experimental support. The committee wants to
insure that there are adequate diagnostics to fully utilize and
support the experimental capability of the NIF.
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in the
readiness campaign for tritium readiness. The reduction for
tritium readiness takes into account a large carryover balance
resulting from contracting delays and problems with the tritium
producing bars.
Readiness in the technical base
The committee recommends $1.9 billion for readiness in the
technical base (RTBF), an increase of $30.0 million above the
budget request for operations of facilities. This account funds
facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex
and includes construction funding for new facilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
support deferred maintenance at the Pantex plant. The committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to support deferred
maintenance at the Y-12 facility. The committee recommends an
increase for the PF-4 facility at Los Alamos National
Laboratory to address the active ventilation system issues that
have been identified by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety
Board.
The committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million for
the Kansas City Plant specifically for the Kansas City
Responsive Infrastructure Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS)
plan, the plan to acquire a replacement facility for the
existing Kansas City Plant. The Kansas City Plant replacement
is being managed by the General Services Administration (GSA).
The new facility will be built by a private development
company, but will be owned by a Kansas City redevelopment
authority, which will in turn lease it to the development
company to sublease to GSA to sub-sub lease to NNSA for the
Kansas City operations. The committee is aware of cost
estimates for the new complex ranging from $500.0 million to
$673.0 million with an estimated life cycle cost of $4.7
billion. The committee notes that the budget request for KCRIMS
includes funds for ``unique facility upgrades for utility and
interior requirements.'' The committee questions why funds are
needed for upgrades and unique requirements at a facility that
is being built to NNSA specifications.
The basis for the decision to build the new facility using
GSA/third party approach rather than the normal government
construction line item approach was that the life cycle costs
would be less using the GSA/third party approach. The committee
is concerned that NNSA may be supplementing the construction
costs. The committee also notes that ground breaking for the
new building has been delayed until August 2011. For future
budget submissions, the committee directs the NNSA to
specifically identify funds for the KCRIMS project as a
separate element of the RTBF and the purpose for which they
will be spent.
The committee continues to believe that replacing the
existing Chemical and Metallurgical Research facility is
essential but that the new Chemical and Metallurgical Research
Replacement (CMRR) facility has many unresolved issues
including the appropriate size of the facility. CMRR will be a
category I facility supporting pit operations in building PF-4.
Now that the Nuclear Posture Review is completed the NNSA and
the Department of Defense (DOD) are in a better position to
ensure that the facility is appropriately sized. Elsewhere in
this act the committee has recommended a provision to require
construction project baselines and to track cost and schedule
issues. The committee is very concerned that the NNSA follow
the DOE 413 order series and project management and guidance.
The NNSA is also directed to conduct a true independent cost
estimate for the CMRR Nuclear Facility, phase III of the CMRR
project. The committee is concerned that the phase III project
is being divided into multiple sub-projects. Notwithstanding
this management approach the committee directs the CMRR
baseline to reflect all phases and subprojects for the purposes
of the cost and schedule baseline provision and to be accounted
for as a single project.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for
the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) refurbishment,
Project 09-D-007. The LANSCE supports the only machine capable
of performing nuclear cross section measurements of weapons
materials to support the resolution of significant findings
investigations. LANSCE refurbishment would also further enhance
the ability of the NNSA to perform surveillance on the
stockpile. The committee recognizes that there is considerable
deferred maintenance at the LANSCE facility that will need to
be addressed as the final design for the LANSCE refurbishment
is determined. In the interim the committee authorizes the NNSA
to use such funds in fiscal year 2011 as needed to maintain the
facility while the design is finalized.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
the high explosive pressing facility at the Pantex Plant,
Project 08-D-802 to accelerate construction of the facility.
This new high explosive facility is needed for life extension
programs and will provide a modern, safe, working environment
for these high risk operations.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

The committee recommends $2.7 billion for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, the same as the budget
request. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
has management and oversight responsibility for the nuclear
nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $359.6 million for nonproliferation and verification
research and development, an increase of $8.0 million; $151.9
million for nonproliferation and international security, a
decrease of $4.0 million; $610.1 million for international
nuclear materials production and cooperation, an increase of
$20.0 million above the amount of the budget request; $1.0
billion for fissile materials disposition, a decrease of $20.0
million; and $554.8 million for the global threat reduction
initiative, a decrease of $4.0 million.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

The committee recommends $359.6 million for
nonproliferation and verification research and development, an
increase of $8.0 million in operations and maintenance. The
committee recommends $2.0 million for increased forensics
capabilities, international safeguards technologies, nuclear
detonation systems, seismic monitoring, and proliferation
detection technologies, and $6.0 million for the joint DOE Air
Force space situational awareness activities.
The committee is particularly concerned about the long-term
ability of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine
nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear
weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal
devices. Currently, the fragile U.S. forensic research and
development capabilities of DOE and its laboratories underpin
the capabilities of all the federal agencies dealing with
nuclear forensics and attribution.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been assigned
responsibility to work with the various Executive Branch
agencies to coordinate technical nuclear forensics and
attribution responsibilities. As part of that responsibility,
DHS, working with the other agencies, is developing
requirements and identifying the capabilities needed to detect,
locate, render safe, to attribute a nuclear event, and to
identify gaps in the necessary capabilities.

Nonproliferation and international security

The committee recommends $151.9 million for
nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of $4.0
million for Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
(GIPP). The committee notes that the GIPP has significant
prior-year funds.

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation

The committee recommends $610.1 million for international
nuclear materials protection and cooperation, an increase of
$20.0 million above the budget request for the megaports
program. The committee notes that the budget request for
megaports for fiscal year 2011 is 35 percent less than the
amount provided in fiscal year 2010. The megaports program is
an important part of the second line of defense to detect
nuclear or radiological material being shipped clandestinely
into the United States. Because there is a backlog of countries
with signed megaports agreements the additional funding can be
promptly executed.

Fissile materials disposition

The committee recommends $1.0 billion for fissile
materials, a decrease of $20.0 million. The committee notes
that the United States and Russia, after many years of
negotiations, have finally signed a new protocol to the
Plutonium Management and Disposition agreement to allow each
country to disposition 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade
plutonium. The committee continues to support the fissile
materials disposition program as an important part of the
overall nuclear nonproliferation program.
The committee recommends a $40.0 million reduction to the
pit disassembly and conversion facility (PDCF), Project 99-D-
141, and a $20.0 million increase in the U.S. plutonium
disposition program operations and maintenance account. This
$20.0 million transfer from the construction line item to the
operations and maintenance line reflects a recent NNSA decision
to partner with the Environmental Management (EM) program. The
EM program and NNSA plan to combine the PDCF project and the EM
plutonium preparation project into a single joint project
managed by the NNSA. This new project will continue to be
located at the Savannah River Site but instead of a stand-alone
project the pit disassembly process will be located in the K-
area. This funding shift will allow the NNSA to finalize plans
and to begin the new project. The $40.0 million in the PDCF
project can be used for preliminary engineering and design for
the new joint project. The committee notes the new project will
be included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request as a
construction line item. The committee directs NNSA to treat the
combined project as a new construction project with a new
scope, schedule and cost baseline using the DOE 413 project
management orders and process.
While the committee supports the decision to combine the EM
plutonium and NNSA plutonium disposition efforts, the committee
urges the NNSA and EM to proceed expeditiously with the
combined project. The years of delay in deciding how to prepare
plutonium for feedstock for the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel
fabrication facility has severely limited the amount of
feedstock that will be available when the MOX facility is ready
to begin operations. As a result the MOX facility will either
start late, start and then stop, or start and then operate at
an inefficient rate of production. The committee directs the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA to
provide quarterly updates to the congressional defense
committees on the progress of this joint program until the
fiscal year 2012 budget is submitted to Congress.
The committee recommends $113.0 million for the Russian
fissile materials disposition program, the amount of the budget
request. The committee notes that the budget request includes
funds to continue the joint gas reactor technology
demonstration program with Russia. The gas reactor is a more
efficient burner of excess plutonium than either conventional
nuclear power reactors or fast reactors, which Russia currently
plans to use to disposition plutonium. The committee notes that
Russia and the United States jointly fund this effort and that
Russian support for the program generally exceeds the U.S.
contribution.

Global threat reduction initiative

The committee recommends $554.8 million for the global
threat reduction initiative (GTRI), a decrease of $4.0 million
for gap material. The budget request for the GTRI for fiscal
year 2012 is substantially higher than the amount available for
fiscal year 2010, particularly for the nuclear and radiological
material removal program, part of the Global Lockdown
initiative. The committee supports this effort of secure within
4 years, vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a
dirty bomb or in an improvised nuclear devise. The committee
directs the NNSA to provide quarterly reports, at the end of
each quarter of fiscal year 2011, describing the projects,
including the cost and schedule for each project that has been
implemented that quarter.

Plutonium reactor shutdown program

The committee notes that the plutonium reactor shutdown
program has been successfully completed and that the last
Russian reactor producing plutonium is now shut down. The
success of this program is a remarkable example of cooperation
among Russia, the United States, and the international
community. The committee congratulates the NNSA employees and
contractors who worked so diligently on this major effort.

Secure transportation asset

The committee recommends $248.0 million for the secure
transportation asset (STA), the amount of the budget request.
The secure transportation asset is responsible for the
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure
transport. In the committee report accompanying the fiscal year
2009 National Defense Authorization Bill, Senate Report Number
110-335, the committee directed the STA to include in its
budget submittal for fiscal year 2010 a break out of the lease
expenses for each leased facility and the expenses for each
minor construction project. The STA decided not to pursue a
third-party financing option. If the STA resumes consideration
of any third-party option, the committee expects STA to fully
notify Congress of such arrangements in advance of executing
any leases.

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

The committee recommends $233.1 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget
request.

Facilities and infrastructure

The committee recommends $119.0 million for the facilities
and infrastructure program (FIRP), an increase of $25.0 million
above the amount of the budget request. FIRP was established to
address the backlog of deferred maintenance at NNSA facilities.
While the FIRP has been successful, the committee continues to
be concerned that as the FIRP comes to a close, routine
maintenance of facilities, utilities and infrastructure
upgrades, such as electrical system and road improvement, will
once again be deferred to address programmatic demands. The
committee recommends the additional funds to address the
deferred maintenance recapitalization projects.

Site stewardship

The committee recommends $105.5 million for site
stewardship, the amount of the budget request.

Safeguards and security

The committee recommends $871.6 million for safeguards and
security, the amount of the budget request.

Naval reactors

The committee recommends $1.1 billion for naval reactors,
the amount of the budget request. The committee cautions the
naval reactors program in the management of its minor
construction projects not to break down projects that would
otherwise be line item construction projects, into multiple
minor construction projects.

Office of the Administrator

The committee recommends $428.3 million for the Office of
the Administrator, the amount of the budget request.

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.6 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year
2011 for defense environmental cleanup. The committee notes
that the expenditure rate for the funds received under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Public
Law 111-5) is low. On the other hand the DOE office of
Environmental Management (EM) would be at risk of not meeting a
number of milestones in various compliance agreements without
these funds. The committee notes that the original plan was to
obligate and expend the ARRA funds over fiscal years 2009 and
2010. The committee looks forward to the report on the results
achieved with the ARRA funds when the Government Accountability
Office submits it final report at the conclusion of the
program.

Waste Treatment Plant

The committee has been closely following the design review
that EM is carrying out at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at
the Department of Energy Hanford Site in Richland, Washington.
The purpose of this review is to simplify the operations of the
pretreatment facility. One aspect of the review is a
reassessment of the material at risk (MAR), to determine if the
level of radioactivity in the waste to be treated is in fact as
high as was previously assumed. This review will also look at
the application of the integrated safety management process and
determine if certain safety systems could be downgraded if the
MAR is modified. The committee remains concerned that the
appropriate safety analysis be performed to ensure that there
is an analytical basis for any determinations as to whether a
system is safety class or safety significant. As the DOE
guidance says ``a successful safety design depends on the
quality of the safety analysis and on engineering judgment in
the transformation of this guidance to the final design.'' The
committee expects the analysis for this very important and very
expensive facility to be of high quality.
The Defense Nuclear Safety Board (DNFSB) has a statutory
responsibility to oversee operational nuclear safety aspects of
the WTP project. Part of this responsibility includes oversight
of the facility construction and design to ensure that the
design meets DOE industry standards and guidance for nuclear
safety. The committee notes that the EM program has committed
to provide to the DNFSB the documentation and safety analysis
to allow the DNFSB to carry out its responsibilities
effectively. The committee also notes that EM has established
an independent review panel to look at the technical, safety,
near- and long-term operational effects, and cost and schedule
implications of any changes or revisions. The committee
supports this decision.
The committee continues to expect this whole review and
design change process to be carried out expeditiously but also
thoroughly and to be kept informed by both DOE and the DNFSB as
the effort progresses.
The committee further notes that the DOE is considering
some changes to the management approach to the WTP project and
urges the DOE to ensure that the site retains project
management responsibility or remains as integrally involved as
possible in the management as the site must be responsible for
the long-term operation of the facility and the tank farms.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$878.2 million for other defense activities, the amount of the
budget request. The committee recommends $464.2 million for
health, safety, and security, the amount of the budget request;
$188.6 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget
request; $88.2 million for Nuclear Energy, defense related
infrastructure for the Idaho site security, the amount of the
budget request; $118.0 million for departmental administration,
the amount of the budget request; $11.9 million for acquisition
workforce improvements, the amount of the budget request; and
$6.4 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount
of the budget request.
The committee notes that the departmental administration
accounts represents 33 percent of the overall departmental
administration funds and is used as offset for those funds. It
is proportional to the amount of support in the administration
used to support the Office of Environmental Management and
other defense activities. The committee notes that the funding
for acquisition workforce is a new account. The committee fully
supports improvements to the acquisition workforce but wishes
to ensure that this new account represents a similar
proportionality as represented in the defense related
departmental administration funding. The committee directs the
Secretary to inform the committee as to how these funds will be
utilized prior to any obligation or expenditures.

Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Assessment of adequacy of budget requests with respect to maintaining
the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3111)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to include with the budget materials for the NNSA budget
request an assessment of the adequacy of the budget request.
The Administrator would be required to assess whether the
budget requested for that year and the future-years nuclear
security program for the weapons activities at the NNSA meets
the programmatic requirements set out in the NNSA program plan
documents. These documents include the annual stockpile
stewardship plan known as the green book. The Administrator
would be required to make this assessment in coordination with
the Secretary of Defense and the Commander of the United States
Strategic Command.

Biennial plan on modernization and refurbishment of the nuclear
security complex (sec. 3112)

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (division D of Public
Law 107-314 as amended) to add a new section and change the
requirement for the biennial plan on modernization and
refurbishment of the nuclear security complex to require the
plan in even-numbered years from the current requirement for
the plan in odd-numbered years. In addition, the provision
would require the plan to be submitted with the plan for
maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile.

Future-years defense environmental management plan (sec. 3113)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy to submit an annual 5 year environmental
management budget plan for defense funded environmental
management activities. This plan would be due with the annual
budget request for the Environmental Management (EM) program.
The committee believes that the EM budget should include a
budget estimate for the 4 years following the year for which
the budget request is made. Five year budget planning will
allow the committee and the communities around the EM sites to
better understand the long-term costs, plans, and schedule for
the EM program. The committee encourages the Secretary to
incorporate the plan into the annual budget justification
documents.

Notification of cost overruns for certain Department of Energy projects
(sec. 3114)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to establish a cost and schedule baseline for each
nuclear weapon stockpile life extension program. The provision
would also direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a cost
and schedule baseline for each defense funded construction
project and for each defense environmental management project
managed under the Department of Energy project management
protocols with a value in excess of $100.0 million. Each
required cost and schedule baseline would be submitted to the
congressional defense committee no later than 30 days after it
is developed. If the cost of any project exceeds 125 percent of
the cost baseline or if the time to complete the project will
exceed 125 percent of the schedule baseline, the Administrator
or the Secretary as the case may be shall notify the
congressional defense committees within 30 days after any such
determination is made.
Within 90 days of a cost or schedule breach the
Administrator or the Secretary as applicable shall notify the
congressional defense committees if the project will be
terminated or continued. If the project is continued the
Administrator or the Secretary as applicable shall certify that
a revised cost and schedule baseline is in place, that there is
no alternative available other than to continue the project and
still meet mission needs, and that a management structure is in
place adequate to manage and control the cost and schedule of
the project in the future.

Authority to purchase or lease aircraft necessary to support the
mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec.
3115)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to obligate such funds as are necessary
to purchase or lease aircraft to support NNSA missions.

Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence
in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 3116)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program funds from being
obligated to establish a center of excellence in any country
outside of the former Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) submits to the congressional defense committees a report
on the particular center to be established. The report shall
identify the country where the center will be established, the
purpose for which the center will be used, the agreement under
which the center will operate, and the funding plan for the
center including any cost-sharing arrangement.
The committee supports the continued efforts of the NNSA
nonproliferation programs in countries outside of the FSU but
would like to understand in more detail plans for new centers
as these plans evolve.
The committee also supports the effort to secure the most
vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that
this is a significant challenge that will require close
interagency cooperation to be successful. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense and the NNSA, have a long and
productive history of cooperation in threat reduction programs,
and urge them to continue this close collaboration in the
accelerated program to secure vulnerable nuclear materials.

Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy for appointment of
certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel (sec.
3117)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4601(c)(1) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (division D
of Public Law 107-314 as amended) to extend the hiring
authority for scientific, engineering, and technical personnel
for 5 years. This authority expires September 30, 2011.

Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy to enter into
transactions to carry out certain research projects (sec. 3118)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 646(g)(10) of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Public Law 95-91 as amended) by extending the authority to
carry out research projects using other transaction authority
through September 30, 2015.

Extension of deadline for cooperation with the Russian Federation with
respect to development of nuclear materials protection,
control, and accounting program (sec. 3119)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
materials protection control and accounting (MPC&A) program
work with the Russian Federation from 10 years to 14 years. The
MPC&A program was established to work with the Russian
Federation to increase accountability for and to protect
fissile materials from being lost or stolen. The plan for MPC&A
was to complete the work and transition the long-term
sustainment activities to the Russian Federation by 2013.
Section 3156 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-319) established this
10 year time frame. Since 2003, the scope of work with Russian
Federation has expanded and an additional 4 years is needed to
allow the work to be completed and fully transition sustainment
activities to the Russian Federation. The provision would allow
the National Nuclear Security Administration until 2017 to
complete the MPC&A work.

Repeal of sunset provision for modification of minor construction
threshold for plant projects (sec. 3120)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3118 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to modify permanently the
definition of minor construction projects also known as general
plant projects, to include any projects under $10.0 million.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has had 2 years to utilize
temporary authority for minor construction projects below $10.0
million threshold. Previously the minor construction threshold
was $5.0 million. The provision would preserve the requirement
to provide a notification to the congressional defense
committees before any minor construction project with a value
in excess of $5.0 is implemented. The committee cautions the
DOE not to have multiple related minor construction projects or
segment a construction project into multiple minor construction
projects to avoid the requirement for line item authorization
for construction projects.

Extension of deadline for transfer of parcels of land to be conveyed to
Los Alamos County, New Mexico, and held in trust for the pueblo
of San Ildefonso (sec. 3121)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
deadline for transfer of certain parcels of land to the county
of Los Alamos, New Mexico and held in trust for the pueblo of
San Ildefonso from November 26, 2010, to September 30, 2022.
Certain parcels of the land to be transferred will require
environmental remediation before it can be transferred. This
extension will allow the Department of Energy additional time
to complete the environmental remediation.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Department of Energy energy parks program (sec. 3131)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Energy to establish energy parks at former
defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. Former
defense nuclear facilities could provide opportunities to
demonstrate and otherwise support new energy technologies being
developed and demonstrated by the DOE non-defense program
elements and industry. The provision would direct the Secretary
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the implementation of this
authority should the Secretary decide to pursue the energy
parks concept at former defense facilities. The Secretary
should also include in the report any recommendations for
legislation that might be needed to implement energy parks.
The committee does not support energy parks at the present
time at defense nuclear facilities but would entertain
proposals to establish such facilities on a case by case basis
if an energy park would have no impact on national security
activities.

Reclassification of certain appropriations for the National Nuclear
Security Administration (sec. 3132)

The committee recommends a provision that would reclassify
fiscal years 2009 and 2010 appropriations under the heading
``Weapons Activities'' to allow funds previously authorized and
appropriated for use in a construction project to support the
refurbishment of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center
(LANSCE), Project ``09-D-007, LANSCE Reinvestment PED Los
Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, NM'', to be used for capital
equipment acquisition, installation, and associated design
funds for LANSCE.

Items of Special Interest

Department of Energy National Laboratories

The National laboratories of the Department of Energy (DOE)
are the premier national scientific research entities in the
U.S. Government and arguably in the United States. These
laboratories were specifically established to support national
security missions. As federally funded research and development
centers these laboratories are available for use, under the
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.), to all federal agencies. In addition, the DOE labs have
authority to partner with private industry, through cooperative
research and development agreements, to enhance the technical
competitiveness of U.S. industry. The committee notes that each
year the DOE laboratories earn a large percentage of the R&D
100 awards. A robust work for others program contributes to the
ability of the laboratories to attract and retain the world's
best scientists and engineers. The work for others program
contributes to the national missions of the DOE, and also
enables other federal agencies including the Department of
Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the
intelligence community to draw on the unique qualities and
capabilities at the DOE laboratories. The committee urges the
Departments of Defense and Energy to identify and resolve any
issues under section 804 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
ensure that DOD can continue to utilize the unique technical
skills and capabilities of the DOE laboratories.

Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System

The accounting, management, control, identification,
reporting and tracking of nuclear materials, including fissile
and special nuclear materials is an important responsibility of
the United States Government. The Nuclear Material Management
and Safeguards System (NMMSS), operated jointly by the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), is the U.S. State System of Accounting for
the Control of Nuclear Materials for reporting to the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Different reporting
requirements, standards, and guidelines apply to different
types of materials and whether the materials are owned by NRC
licensees or the DOE. The committee is concerned that as a
result of these various differences NMMSS is not receiving
information on all U.S. material and all material in the United
States, including material scheduled for disposal or
disposition. The committee urges the Secretary of Energy to
develop, with the Chairman of the NRC, a reporting methodology
to ensure that the NMMSS includes information on all fissile
and special nuclear materials. The committee also urges the
Secretary of Energy to reestablish the Office of Plutonium
Uranium and Special Material Inventory or assign responsibility
to an existing organization that can serve as a central point
in the DOE that can be fully cognizant of all fissile and
special nuclear material.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$33.6 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB), an increase of $5.0 million above the budget request.
The DNFSB is the independent oversight entity for
operational nuclear safety at the Department of Energy (DOE)
defense nuclear facilities. The work of the DNFSB ensures that
as a self-regulated entity, the DOE has an external oversight
body, which although not a regulatory body, can bring to the
attention of the DOE issues dealing with operational nuclear
safety.
The committee is concerned that with several major new
nuclear facilities planned, including the uranium processing
facility, the chemical and metallurgical research replacement
facility, as well as new work on plutonium pit disassembly and
plutonium oxide production, the DNFSB will need additional
technical staff to review fully the operational nuclear safety
for the new projects.
The committee notes that the efforts of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at the new highly
enriched uranium storage facility at the Y-12 facility in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, to work with the DNFSB to identify and to
resolve safety issues early on in the design process was a
successful model. The committee hopes that the NNSA will follow
this model as they design and construct the new facilities.
The committee continues to find the periodic reports
submitted to the congressional defense committees a useful
early indicator of the status of various issues at DOE
facilities and thanks the DNFSB for the reports.
Currently the DNFSB has been heavily focused on design
changes that the DOE has proposed to the Waste Treatment Plant
(WTP) at the DOE Hanford facility. While the committee supports
efforts to improve the overall operability and reliability of
the WTP, this facility must also operate safely and for many
years to process all of the waste at Hanford. As a result, the
proposed changes must be understood and analyzed from both
throughput and operational safety perspectives. The committee
urges the DOE to continue to conduct the analysis necessary to
justify the changes to the WTP.
TITLE XXXIII--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Maritime Administration (sec. 3301)
The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of the
bill, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific
entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

Procurement (sec. 4101)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title I of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for procurement programs and indicates those programs for which
the committee either increased or decreased the requested
amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for procurement for overseas contingency operations programs
and indicates those programs for which the committee either
increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title II of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for research, development, test, and evaluation programs and
indicates those programs for which the committee either
increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4202)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations programs and indicates those programs
for which the committee either increased or decreased the
requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title III of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for operation and maintenance programs and indicates those
programs for which the committee either increased or decreased
the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4302)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations programs and indicates those programs for which the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
TITLE XLIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Other authorizations (sec. 4401)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XIV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for other authorizations programs and indicates those programs
for which the committee either increased or decreased the
requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
TITLE XLV--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military construction (sec. 4501)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act, in
accordance with the requirements of section 4001. The provision
also displays the funding requested by the administration in
the fiscal year 2011 budget request for military construction
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011 project
listing (sec. 4502)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XXVII of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for 2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011
project listing programs and indicates those programs for which
the committee either increased or decreased the requested
amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4503)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XIX of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for military construction for overseas contingency operations
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision 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.
TITLE XVI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4601)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XXXI of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
for Department of Energy national security programs and
indicates those programs for which the committee either
increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Energy may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from
the administration request, as set forth in budget
justification documents of the Department of Energy) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Departmental Recommendations

By letter dated March 8, 2010, the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2011,
and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed
legislation were officially referred to the Committee on Armed
Services on March 10, 2010 as Executive Communication 5026.
Executive Communication 5026 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 2011 passed unanimously by
roll call vote, 18-10, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin,
Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of
Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan,
Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, Brown and Collins. Opposed:
Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune,
Wicker, LeMieux, Burr, and Vitter.
The 12 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the
subcommittee and full committee markups are as follows:
Airland Subcommittee:
1. MOTION: To report the recommendations of the Airland
Subcommittee, as amended, to the full Committee.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 14-0.
In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Hagan,
Begich, Burris, Kaufman, Thune, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Brown, and Burr.
Opposed: None.
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee:
2. MOTION: To defer to the full Committee for its
consideration, the two amendments requiring reports on Cuba and
Venezuela respectively.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 8-5.
In Favor: Senators Byrd, Reed, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of
Nebraska, Bayh, Udall of Colorado, Bingaman, and Kaufman.
Opposed: Senators LeMieux, Graham, Wicker, Brown, and
Collins.
Not Voting: Senator Burr.
Full Committee:
1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed
session because classified information will be discussed.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 19-9.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka,
Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Graham, Wicker, and Burr.
Opposed: Senators Webb, McCaskill, Kaufman, McCain, Thune,
LeMieux, Brown, Vitter, and Collins.
2. MOTION: To amend Motion #3 to apply the $1 billion
reduction in earmarks to the national deficit.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 7-16.
In Favor: Senators Bayh, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
Kaufman, Thune, LeMieux, and Brown.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of
Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Webb, Hagan, Begich, Burris,
Bingaman, McCain, Inhofe, Burr, Vitter, and Collins.
Not Voting: Senators Lieberman, Sessions, Chambliss,
Graham, and Wicker.
3. MOTION: To cut $1 billion in earmarks and restore $1
billion in funding to the Iraq Security Forces Fund.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 10-15.
In Favor: Senators McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Thune, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of
Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, and Collins.
Not Voting: Senators Lieberman, Graham, and Wicker.
4. MOTION: To require that space arms control agreements
and international agreements regarding the operation of
military space systems be entered into only through the treaty
making power.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 11-14.
In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Graham, Thune, LeMieux, Wicker, Brown, Burr, and Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Nelson of Florida,
Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman.
Not Voting: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, and Collins.
5. MOTION: To establish a commission to study and report on
environmental exposures at military installations, as modified.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 22-6.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka,
Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill,
Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman,
McCain, Chambliss, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, and Burr.
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Graham, Thune, Vitter,
and Collins.
6. MOTION: To repeal the requirement for certain
procurements from firms in the small arms production industrial
base.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 24-3.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Akaka, Nelson of Florida,
Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and
Collins.
Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, and Graham.
Not Voting: Senator Vitter.
7. MOTION: To send 6,000 National Guard personnel to help
secure the southern land border of the United States.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 15-13.
In Favor: Senators Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown,
Burr, Vitter, and Collins.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka,
Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman.
8. MOTION: To restore the previous policy regarding
restrictions on use of Department of Defense Medical
Facilities.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 15-12.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka,
Nelson of Florida, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman.
Opposed: Senators Nelson of Nebraska, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown,
Burr, and Vitter.
Not Voting: Senator Collins.
9. MOTION: To limit the transfer of detainees from United
States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as modified.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 17-11.
In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh,
Udall of Colorado, Begich, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, Vitter, and
Collins.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of
Florida, Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman.
10. MOTION: To repeal the Department of Defense policy
concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 16-12.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka,
Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, McCaskill, Udall
of Colorado, Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, and
Collins.
Opposed: Senators Webb, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and
Vitter.

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 2011.

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.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

----------

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN

McCain Deployment of National Guard to the Southern Border of the
United States Amendment
I am pleased that the committee approved my bipartisan
amendment directing the immediate deployment of 6,000 National
Guard personnel to our southwest border. As violence continues
to escalate along the U.S.-Mexican border, it is imperative we
utilize the significant capabilities of the National Guard to
provide robust support to civilian authorities and law
enforcement agencies.
Families living in Arizona and other border states should
not suffer from the daily threats caused by illegal
immigration, drug trafficking, and human smuggling. It is the
Federal government's obligation to protect all Americans by
securing the borders, and deploying 6,000 National Guard is a
critical step in achieving that end.
McCain on Abortion Amendment
I am deeply concerned that the committee adopted an
amendment that reverses the ban on using military medical
treatment facilities to perform abortions, except when the life
of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of
rape or incest, thus, allowing elective abortions to be
performed in Department of Defense facilities. As someone who
believes deeply in the sanctity of human life, I am opposed in
principle to using Americans' tax dollars to destroy innocent
life, as this provision inevitably would.
McCain on the Iraqi Security Forces Fund
It was unfortunate and misguided that the committee voted,
consistent with the Chairman's Mark and despite my amendment to
the contrary, to cut $1 billion from the President's $2 billion
request for the Iraq Security Forces Fund.
This cut was totally arbitrary. It reflects the mistaken
assumption that Iraq is not doing enough to provide for its own
defenses, and that the United States should do even less than
the President and his military commanders say we must do to
ensure that Iraq's forces can assume full control for their
security as our troops redeploy out of Iraq. The Secretary of
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and our commanders
on the ground in Iraq all support the President's request for
$2 billion for the Iraq Security Forces. They have testified in
support of this request to our committee. The committee's
decision to slash the President's request in half was not only
capricious; it was reckless and dangerous.
At tremendous cost and sacrifice, our troops have helped
Iraqis reclaim their country, but Iraq is still a nation at
war, fighting determined enemies, and our continued investment
in the Iraqi Security Forces remains vital to the country's
success. It is even more vital as our troops withdraw from Iraq
and as the Iraqi forces lead the fight on their own. Indeed,
the success of the Iraqi Security Forces is what is allowing us
to leave Iraq with victory. Why would we do anything to
jeopardize the gains we have made at this delicate time of
transition in Iraq?
The cut to the Iraq Security Forces Fund is especially
egregious when we consider that there is $2.8 billion of
earmarks in this bill. The committee cut $1 billion from a
program that is vital to our success in Iraq, which the
President has requested, in order to fund billions of dollars
in earmarks that the President has not requested and the
military says it does not need. This is totally irresponsible.
I proposed an amendment that would have cut $1 billion of
additional funding from the Chairman's Mark that was neither
requested by the President nor listed in the military's
unfunded requirements list, directing these savings to fully
fund the President's request of $2 billion for the Iraq
Security Forces Fund. I regret that my amendment did not pass,
and I believe that is a sad statement about the priorities of a
majority on this committee.
McCain on Transparency and Earmarks
I am deeply disappointed that the committee adopted about
$2.8 billion in earmarks that were added mostly without debate
or discussion by the committee.
I continue to have concerns with the degree of transparency
and openness by which the committee includes such earmarks and
unrequested funding additions to the bill. This is a matter of
longstanding interest to me. The emphasis on accountability and
on reducing the number and dollars involved in earmarks--and
the deep frustration and anger the public is now voicing about
the manner in which their elected representatives earmark
funding for special projects--makes it essential that we spend
taxpayers' money wisely and responsibly.
In approving this funding, the committee voted to authorize
billions of dollars in spending while rejecting the
recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, and the Service Chiefs. I am not saying that
member-requested additions are bad, all the time. Or that
Congress should surrender its constitutional power to make
funding decisions to the Executive Branch and simply be a
rubber stamp. Many of the program funding additions may be
worthwhile in terms of military capabilities and value to the
taxpayer. But how we would know that? We have not discussed
these program additions or developed a public record sufficient
to support that sort of decision. The American people expect us
to exercise our independent judgment as to what funding choices
are in the nation's best interest. How can we claim that we
have done that in the case of $2.8 billion in earmarks? What
basis can Members say they applied to judge the relative worth
of these unrequested additions? Without debate, discussion, and
a transparent public record, we are simply unable to exercise
due diligence necessary to make that judgment.
I appreciate the committee's decision this year to adopt my
recommended change to internal committee procedures to allow
Members and their staff access to the transparency tables
required by Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate prior
to consideration of the Chairman's mark by each subcommittee.
This is a good step in the right direction to ensure each
Member of each subcommittee has an opportunity to at least
review the changes to the budget in the Chairman's mark that
were included specifically at the request of a Member of
Congress.
Nevertheless, I will continue to ask the Chairman for a
more deliberate mark up procedure that would require each
subcommittee and the full committee to establish a formal
record of review and vote for each case in which we adopt a
staff recommendation or a Member request that is a departure or
change from the President's Budget request. I understand that
the Chairman has the prerogative to develop and propose a
series of decisions contained in a proposed Bill as the
departure point for further discussion. But the Chairman should
also establish a process that allows for the greatest extent of
transparency and collaboration as befits the magnitude of the
decisions. There must be a comprehensive understanding by all
Members why the Chairman's mark substitutes the judgment of
staff and Member interests for certain programs over the
requests for funding that have been validated and supported by
the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, the Service Secretaries, and the Service Chiefs.
There is no doubt that the Constitution gives this Congress
and this Committee enormous power. The National Defense
Authorization Act is the largest single source of discretionary
spending and policy making in the Federal Government. But only
we can ensure that we exercise that power with the level of
responsibility and due diligence that is commensurate with the
importance of the national security mission we are entrusted
with. This committee has a deserved reputation for operating in
a bipartisan and collaborative manner among Members and staff,
an absolute imperative to make the best decisions for the
benefit of the Armed Forces and our national security. We
should also make every effort to facilitate this cooperation
with processes and procedures that enhance the transparency and
accountability of our decisions.
John McCain.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN CHAMBLISS

Chambliss Navy Tactical Aircraft Procurement
The Navy's proposed FY11 budget requests approximately $1.8
billion for the procurement of 22 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike
fighters and approximately $1.0 billion for the procurement of
12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. The Senate Armed
Services Committee (SASC) fully funded this request and added
an additional 6 F-18E/Fs that were neither requested by DoD nor
on the Navy/Marine Corps Unfunded Priorities List.
On May 14th, the Pentagon announced that it had agreed in
principle to enter into a multi-year contract to purchase up to
124 F/A-18s. The additional F-18s are intended to fill the Navy
``strike fighter gap'' and also serve as a hedge against
further delays to the F-35. In the FY10 NDAA, Congress
conditionally authorized a multi-year contract for F-18s and
the Department's recent actions were in response to that
conditional authority.
In comparison to SASC and DoD/Navy action with respect to
F-18 purchases, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Norton
Schwartz said recently that the Air Force (which also has a
fighter gap) would not be procuring any more non-5th Generation
fighters since it would not make sense to fly those planes for
the next 25 years when you could invest in 5th Generation
fighters instead.
Without questioning the value and performance of the F-18
as a 4th generation fighter aircraft, I find the disparity
between the approach DoD and SASC has taken to fighter
modernization for the Navy and the Air Force alarming. Last
year DoD and SASC pledged full faith and commitment to the F-35
as the future of tactical aviation for the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps. This commitment led DoD to strongly oppose
purchasing additional F-22s, which is the only proven 5th
Generation fighter aircraft in the world.
Now, with the F-35 experiencing an IOC slip of up to three
years, DoD and SASC are advocating additional F-18 purchases to
hedge against this slip. Given that the F-18 has little value
in a non-permissive threat environment (which the U.S. is
likely to encounter anywhere except Iraq and Afghanistan), this
multi-billion dollar investment in F-18s seems to be a
questionable use of taxpayer dollars.
While the Air Force is having to accept risk in their
tactical aviation fleet and air dominance mission, the Navy is
investing close to $10B in aircraft that are unsuitable to
meeting the long term threats our nation will likely face and
doing so at the expense of the F-35 which only last year DoD
showcased as the future of tactical aviation for the nation.
I find this confluence of events alarming and will continue
to press DoD and this Committee to take a long term view toward
tactical aviation modernization in a way that best addresses
current and future threats, accepts risk only where
appropriate, and uses scarce taxpayer dollars in the most
responsible way.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN THUNE

I appreciate the committee's authorization of funding for
research and development of the Next Generation Bomber in FY11,
as well as the committee adopting an amendment I offered with
Senator Joseph Lieberman during the mark-up to require a report
on U.S. efforts to counter threats posed by anti-access and
area-denial capabilities of various nations. These additional
views provide further context to these and other items.
Next Generation Bomber
During an appearance before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on May 14, 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
that ``[t]he idea of a next-generation bomber, as far as I'm
concerned, is a very open question, and the recommendation will
come out of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear
Posture Review.'' Now that these reviews have been concluded,
the need, the requirement, and the technology for a follow-on
bomber have become clear.
The committee has authorized $198 million in funding for
the Next Generation Bomber program in FY11. This funding
represents a decision to move forward with the development of a
next generation bomber, as reflected in the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review Report (2010 QDR). While the 2010 QDR directs
the Department of Defense (DOD) to expand future long-range
strike capabilities and invest $1.7 billion over the FY2012-17
defense program, it also states that the Secretary of Defense
has ordered a follow-on study to determine what will best
support U.S. power projection operations over the next two to
three decades.
I believe the issue of future long-range strike
capabilities has been studied closely numerous times over the
past several years, and it is well past the time to move
forward with developing a new bomber. A good example of how
often and how closely the issue of future long-range strike
capabilities has been studied is a Congressional Budget Office
study from 2006 that stated with regard to long-range strike
that ``Numerous studies of which capabilities might be desired
and several plans for potential long-range systems had been
proposed, but none had resulted in decisions on a way to move
forward.'' (Congressional Budget Office Study, Alternatives for
Long-Range Ground-Attack Systems, March 2006, page ix.) If the
issue of future long-range strike capabilities and plans was
already the topic of numerous studies four years ago, it begs
the question of the need for additional studies today. I am
heartened, however, by testimony from Defense Secretary Robert
Gates before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2,
2010, that ``the [long-range strike] studies up to now have
been whether, and now the study is what.''
I am also pleased to see from the prepared statement of
General Kevin P. Chilton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command,
submitted before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing
held on March 24, 2010, that Strategic Command is ``working
with the Air Force to identify requirements for the next
manned, nuclear-capable, long-range strike platform[.]'' I
fully support these efforts.
Air-Sea Battle Concept
Related to the issue of developing long-range strike
capabilities is the effort by the Air Force and the Navy, as
directed by the 2010 QDR, to develop an ``air-sea battle
concept'' that would deal with the rising challenge of nations
developing sophisticated anti-access and area-denial
capabilities that could limit U.S. freedom of action in
strategically vital regions of the world. As Secretary Gates
wrote in the January/February 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs,
in an article entitled ``A Balanced Strategy; Reprogramming the
Pentagon for a New Age,''

``[i]n the case of China, Beijing's investments in
cyberwarfare, antisatellite warfare, antiaircraft and
antiship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles
could threaten the United States primary means to
project its power and help its allies in the Pacific:
bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that
support them. This will put a premium on the United
States ability to strike from over the horizon and
employ missile defenses and will require shifts from
short-range to longer-range systems, such as the next
generation bomber.''

I strongly support the effort to develop an air-sea battle
concept, and to that end, the committee adopted an amendment
similar to a provision included in the House version of the
FY11 Defense Authorization bill requiring the Defense
Department to provide a report on U.S. efforts to defend
against threats posed by the anti-access and area-denial
capabilities of certain nation-states. The report should also
include a discussion of current and future U.S. long range
strike capabilities in the context of countering anti-access
and area-denial strategies. I look forward to working with all
concerned on the development of the next generation bomber as
well as the development of the air-sea battle concept.
Abortion Amendment
As someone who believes strongly in the sanctity of human
life, I am deeply concerned that the Committee adopted an
amendment that would repeal the prohibition on performing
abortions in DOD medical facilities.
John Thune.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. McCAIN, INHOFE, SESSIONS, CHAMBLISS,
GRAHAM, THUNE, WICKER, LeMIEUX, BROWN, BURR, AND VITTER

McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux,
Brown, Burr, Vitter Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell Amendment
We deeply regret that the committee chose to adopt the
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' amendment. The inclusion of this
amendment in the bill rejects the expressed recommendations of
the Service Chiefs not to act until the results of an ongoing,
comprehensive review into the implications of such a change are
known. The decision breaks faith with a promise to all military
personnel and their families that their views would be heard
before Congress acts to repeal current law. The committee's
action has sent a message to military leaders, and the men and
women they lead, that their opinions and concerns about the
effects on readiness, discipline, unit cohesion, morale,
recruiting, retention, and respect for the Armed Forces of
allowing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals
to serve openly in the Armed Services are unimportant.
The four Service Chiefs, the uniformed leaders
responsible--and accountable--for the readiness, discipline,
and morale of their forces, had this to say about the course of
action chosen by the Committee:
``I also believe that repealing the law before the
completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of
the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views
before moving forward,'' General George W. Casey, Jr., U.S.
Army, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.
``My concern is that legislative changes at this point,
regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on
the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review
process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their
input matters,'' Admiral G. Roughead, USN, Chief of Naval
Operations.
``I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary
of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must
make logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term
policies of our Armed Forces--which so effectively defend this
great nation,'' General James T. Conway, USMC, Commandant of
the U.S. Marine Corps.
``I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with
those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary
of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any
legislation to repeal the DA/DT law. Such action allows me to
provide the best military advice to the President, and sends an
important signal to our Airmen and their families that their
opinion matters. To do otherwise, in my view, would be
presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all
relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood,''
General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air
Force.
We urge our colleagues in the Senate to reject the approach
taken by the committee, strike this provision from the bill,
and direct the Department of Defense to adhere to its original
plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Department's
military and civilian leaders.
John McCain.
James M. Inhofe.
Jeff Sessions.
Saxby Chambliss.
Lindsey Graham.
John Thune.
Roger F. Wicker.
George S. LeMieux.
Scott P. Brown.
Richard Burr.
David Vitter.