[House Report 111-166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-166
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 2647
together with
ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
June 18, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
111th Congress
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
111-166
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 2647
together with
ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
June 18, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas California
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ADAM SMITH, Washington J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania ROB BISHOP, Utah
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
GLENN NYE, Virginia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary Table of Authorizations................................ 4
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 17
Hearings......................................................... 19
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 20
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 20
OVERVIEW....................................................... 20
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 23
Overview................................................... 23
Items of Special Interest.................................. 27
Hostile fire detection system............................ 27
Kiowa Warrior............................................ 27
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 27
Overview................................................... 27
Items of Special Interest.................................. 30
Javelin missile system................................... 30
TOW 2 missile system..................................... 30
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 30
Overview................................................... 30
Items of Special Interest.................................. 34
Army self-propelled artillery modernization.............. 34
Stryker vehicles......................................... 34
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 34
Overview................................................... 34
Items of Special Interest.................................. 38
M722 60mm white phosphorus smoke mortar rounds........... 38
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 38
Overview................................................... 38
Items of Special Interest.................................. 52
Enhanced night vision goggles production................. 52
Hybrid electric powertrains for tactical wheeled vehicles 52
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 52
Joint tactical radio system hand-held radios............. 53
Non-system training device program....................... 53
Single channel ground and airborne radio system.......... 54
Tactical combat vehicle egress safety enhancements....... 55
Tactical wheeled vehicle fire suppression systems........ 55
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 56
Overview................................................... 56
Items of Special Interest.................................. 61
Department of the Navy strike-fighter inventory.......... 61
Electronic warfare system core depot development......... 62
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 62
Overview................................................... 62
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 66
Overview................................................... 66
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 69
Overview................................................... 69
Items of Special Interest.................................. 72
Capabilities of the United States Navy................... 72
U.S. Navy shipbuilding................................... 72
Aircraft carriers...................................... 73
Aircraft carrier construction.......................... 73
Electromagnetic aircraft launch system................. 74
Littoral combat ship................................... 74
Next generation cruiser................................ 75
Sea-based strategic deterrent.......................... 75
Surface combatants..................................... 76
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 76
Overview................................................... 76
Items of Special Interest.................................. 86
Multi-climate protection system.......................... 86
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 86
Overview................................................... 86
Items of Special Interest.................................. 92
Nitrile rubber collapsible storage units................. 92
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 92
Overview................................................... 92
Items of Special Interest.................................. 100
C-130 avionics modernization program..................... 100
F-22A modifications...................................... 100
KC-130J Harvest Hawk..................................... 100
KC-X..................................................... 100
Report on Air Force plan to address fighter force
structure shortfalls................................... 101
Strategic airlift force structure........................ 101
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 102
Overview................................................... 102
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 104
Overview................................................... 104
Items of Special Interest.................................. 108
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle........................ 108
Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor industrial base
sustainment............................................ 108
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 108
Overview................................................... 108
Items of Special Interest.................................. 114
Advanced reconfigurable containers....................... 114
Eagle vision............................................. 114
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 114
Overview................................................... 114
Rapid Acquisition Fund....................................... 120
Overview................................................... 120
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 123
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 123
Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 123
Section 105--National Guard and Reserve Equipment.......... 123
Section 106--Rapid Acquisition Fund........................ 123
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 123
Section 111--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for Army
Tactical Radios.......................................... 123
Section 112--Procurement of Future Combat Systems Spin Out
Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team Equipment............. 123
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 123
Section 121--Littoral Combat Ship Program.................. 123
Section 122--Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier Report and
Limitation on the Use of Funds........................... 124
Section 123--Advance Procurement Funding................... 124
Section 124--Multiyear Procurement Authority for F/A-18E,
F/A-18F, and EA-18G Aircraft............................. 124
Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for DDG-51
Burke-class Destroyers................................... 124
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 124
Section 131--Repeal of Certification Requirement for F-22A
Fighter Aircraft......................................... 124
Section 132--Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling for
F-22 Fighter Aircraft.................................... 125
Section 133--Report on 4.5 Generation Fighter Procurement.. 125
Section 134--Reports on Strategic Airlift Aircraft......... 125
Section 135--Strategic Airlift Force Structure............. 126
Section 136--Repeal of Requirement to Maintain Certain
Retired C-130E Aircraft.................................. 126
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 126
Section 141--Body Armor Procurement........................ 126
Section 142--Unmanned Cargo-Carrying-Capable Aerial
Vehicles................................................. 126
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 127
OVERVIEW....................................................... 127
Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............. 129
Overview................................................... 129
Items of Special Interest.................................. 146
Advanced lightweight opaque ceramic armor................ 146
Advanced nanoscale tungsten kinetic energy composites.... 146
Army vehicle modernization plans......................... 146
Autonomous sustainment cargo container................... 148
Body armor requirements and test and evaluation.......... 148
Cellulose nanocomposite panels for ballistic protection.. 149
Dual mode mortar semi-active laser integration........... 150
Electric vehicle charging network........................ 150
Future Combat Systems.................................... 150
Future Combat Systems autonomous navigation system....... 153
Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles............. 153
Future Combat Systems unattended ground sensors.......... 153
Heavy duty hybrid electric vehicle demonstration......... 154
Independent assessment of the Human Terrain System....... 154
Joint fires and effects trainer system enhancements...... 155
Joint land attack cruise missile defense elevated netted
sensor system.......................................... 155
Landmine warfare/barrier program......................... 156
Manned ground vehicle program............................ 156
Mid-range munition program............................... 156
Non-line of sight cannon................................. 157
Optimizing Natural Language Processing of Open Source
Intelligence........................................... 157
PacCom renewable energy security system.................. 157
RAND Arroyo Center....................................... 157
Review of condition-based maintenance architecture....... 158
Tactical metal fabrication............................... 158
Warfighter information network--tactical................. 159
Zero waste to landfill demonstration..................... 159
Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............. 159
Overview................................................... 159
Items of Special Interest.................................. 175
Advanced energy storage technologies for unmanned
undersea vehicles...................................... 175
Advanced linear accelerator facility..................... 175
Advanced steam turbine................................... 175
Automated fiber optic manufacturing initiative for Navy
ships.................................................. 175
Common command and control system module................. 176
Continuous active sonar for torpedo systems.............. 176
Deployable autonomous distributed system................. 176
Electronic warfare technology, doctrine and tactics
development............................................ 177
Extended range joint stand-off weapon.................... 177
Future generation thinline towed array................... 178
High density power conversion and distribution equipment. 178
High-Integrity Global Positioning System................. 178
Hybrid electric drive.................................... 179
Laser module assembly for Navy's acoustic sensors........ 179
Marine Corps assault vehicles............................ 179
Marine mammal awareness, alert, and response systems..... 180
Mold-in-place coating development for the U.S. submarine
fleet.................................................. 181
Nanoelectronics, nanometrology and nanobiology initiative 181
Remote fuel assessment system............................ 181
Standoff explosive detection system...................... 181
Surface ship advanced capability build................... 182
Trigger and alert sonobuoy system project................ 182
VH-71 Presidential helicopter program.................... 182
Wave energy power buoy generating system................. 183
Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation........ 183
Overview................................................... 183
Items of Special Interest.................................. 199
Advanced Modular Avionics for Operationally Responsive
Space Use.............................................. 199
Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center....................... 199
Air Force test and evaluation support.................... 199
Battle Control Center Acquisition Strategy............... 200
Cyber Boot Camp.......................................... 200
Department of Defense Cubesat Bus Development............ 201
F-35..................................................... 201
KC-X tanker replacement program.......................... 203
Metals Affordability Initiative.......................... 203
Multi-Mode Propulsion Phase IIA: High Performance Green
Propellant............................................. 203
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System....................................... 204
Operationally Responsive Space........................... 204
Protected military satellite communications.............. 205
Rivet Joint RC-135 Services Oriented Architecture........ 205
Small Responsive Spacecraft at Low-Cost.................. 206
Third Generation Infrared Surveillance................... 206
Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..... 207
Overview................................................... 207
Items of Special Interest.................................. 225
Airborne Laser........................................... 225
Arrow-3 upper-tier weapons system........................ 225
Center for technology and national security policy at the
National Defense University............................ 226
Coordination of energy storage device requirements and
investments............................................ 226
Counterproliferation analysis and planning system........ 227
Defense computing challenges............................. 227
Director, Test Resource Management Center................ 227
Ground-based Midcourse Defense program................... 228
High Accuracy Network Determination System............... 229
Hybrid air vehicle technology............................ 229
Implementation of the defense agencies initiative........ 229
K-12 education in computer sciences and mathematics...... 230
Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Multiple Kill Vehicle
technology applications................................ 231
Missile defense and military operational requirements.... 231
Missile defense inventory and force structure analysis... 232
Missile Defense Agency space support..................... 232
New approaches for national security information sharing. 233
Organic social science expertise within the Department of
Defense................................................ 233
Quantum computing research............................... 234
Report on joint wargaming simulation management.......... 234
Report on requirements for non-lethal weapons............ 235
Short-range ballistic missile defense.................... 236
Solid state technology for non-lethal systems............ 236
Theater missile defense.................................. 237
Operational Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation...... 237
Overview................................................... 237
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 239
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 239
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 239
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 239
Section 211--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Navy
Next Generation Enterprise Network....................... 239
Section 212--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds for Joint
Multi-Mission Submersible Program........................ 239
Section 213--Separate Program Elements Required for
Research and Development of Individual Body Armor and
Associated Components.................................... 239
Section 214--Separate Procurement and Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation Line Items and Program
Elements for the F-35B and the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter
Aircraft................................................. 240
Section 215--Restriction on Obligation of Funds Pending
Submission of Selected Acquisition Reports............... 240
Section 216--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for Future
Combat Systems Program Pending Receipt of Report......... 240
Section 217--Limitation of the Obligation of Funds for the
Net-Enabled Command and Control System................... 240
Section 218--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for F-35
Lightning II Program..................................... 241
Section 219--Programs Required to Provide the Army with
Ground Combat Vehicle and Self-Propelled Artillery
Capabilities............................................. 241
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 241
Section 221--Integrated Air and Missile Defense System
Project.................................................. 241
Section 222--Ground-based Midcourse Defense Sustainment and
Modernization Program.................................... 241
Section 223--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Acquisition or Deployment of Missile Defenses in Europe.. 242
Section 224--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Continued
Support for Protecting the United States Against Limited
Ballistic Missile Attacks Whether Accidental,
Unauthorized, or Deliberate.............................. 242
Section 225--Ascent Phase Missile Defense Strategy......... 242
Section 226--Availability of Funds for a Missile Defense
System for Europe and the United States.................. 243
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 243
Section 231--Comptroller General Assessment of Coordination
of Energy Storage Device Requirements and Investments.... 243
Section 232--Annual Comptroller Report on the F-35
Lightning II Aircraft Acquisition Program................ 243
Section 233--Report on Integration of Department of Defense
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Capabilities............................................. 244
Section 234--Report on Future Research and Development of
Man-Portable and Vehicle-Mounted Guided Missile Systems.. 244
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 244
Section 241--Access of the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center to Department of Defense Information... 244
Section 242--Inclusion in Annual Budget Request and Future-
Years Defense Program of Sufficient Amounts for Continued
Development and Procurement of Competitive Propulsion
System for F-35 Lightning II............................. 244
Section 243--Establishment of Program to Enhance
Participation of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions in Defense
Research Programs........................................ 245
Section 244--Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for
Advanced Technology Achievements......................... 247
Section 245--Executive Agent for Advanced Energetics....... 247
Section 246--Study on Thorium-Liquid Fueled Reactors for
Naval Forces............................................. 248
Section 247--Visiting National Institutes of Health Senior
Neuroscience Fellowship Program.......................... 248
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 248
OVERVIEW....................................................... 248
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 282
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 282
Assessments and Analytical Tools for Implementation of the
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009............ 283
Combat Air Forces Restructuring............................ 284
Fee for Service Refueling.................................. 284
Navy Depot Maintenance..................................... 284
Procurement Technical Assistance Program................... 284
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative.......... 285
Security and Stabilization Assistance Authority for
Transfers to the U.S. Department of State................ 285
Energy and Environmental Issues.............................. 285
Camp Lejeune Drinking Water................................ 285
Fuel Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations....... 286
Overseas Environmental Standards for Solid Waste Disposal.. 287
Workplace and Depot Issues................................... 287
Air Force Civil Engineer Supply Functions.................. 287
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities......... 288
Corrosion Control and Prevention........................... 289
Corrosion Evaluation of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.......... 289
Impact of Contractor Support on Operational Readiness...... 290
Insourcing New and Contracted-out Functions................ 291
Lifecycle Operations, Maintenance, and Supply Mission
Simulation............................................... 292
Repair Capability for Low-Observable Technology............ 292
Other Matters................................................ 293
Accessibility of Military Historical Information........... 293
Air Force Combat Support Forces............................ 293
Combat Skills Training for Support Units................... 293
Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies Vulnerability
Assessments.............................................. 294
Defense Travel System...................................... 294
Evaluation of Readiness of U.S. Forces..................... 295
Facilitation of Strategic Deployment....................... 296
Medical Care Provided by the Military for Contractors in
Combat Zones............................................. 296
Remediation of Cybersecurity System Vulnerabilities........ 297
Report on Navy Training.................................... 297
Secure Telework Center Pilot Project....................... 298
Security Clearance Reform.................................. 298
Ship Material Readiness.................................... 299
Strategic Port Optimization................................ 300
Tire Privatization......................................... 300
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 301
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 301
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 301
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions......................... 301
Section 311--Clarification of Requirement for Use of
Available Funds for Department of Defense Participation
in Conservation Banking Programs......................... 301
Section 312--Reauthorization of Title I of Sikes Act....... 301
Section 313--Authority of Secretary of a Military
Department to Enter into Interagency Agreements for Land
Management on Department of Defense Installations........ 301
Section 314--Reauthorization of Pilot Program for Invasive
Species Management for Military Installations in Guam.... 301
Section 315--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection
Agency for Certain Costs in Connection with the Former
Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia......... 302
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues....................... 302
Section 321--Public-Private Competition Required Before
Conversion of Any Department of Defense Function
Performed by Civilian Employees to Contractor Performance 302
Section 322--Time Limitation on Duration of Public-Private
Competitions............................................. 302
Section 323--Inclusion of Installation of Major
Modifications in Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance
and Repair............................................... 302
Section 324--Modification of Authority for Army Industrial
Facilities to Engage in Cooperative Activities with Non-
Army Entities............................................ 303
Section 325--Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternatives for
Performance of Planned Maintenance Interval Events and
Concurrent Modifications Performed on the AV-8B Harrier
Weapons System........................................... 303
Section 326--Termination of Certain Public-Private
Competitions for Conversion of Department of Defense
Functions to Performance by a Contractor................. 303
Section 327--Temporary Suspension of Public-Private
Competitions for Conversion of Department of Defense
Functions to Performance by a Contractor................. 304
Section 328--Requirement for Debriefings Related to
Conversion of Functions from Performance by Federal
Employees to Performance by Contractor................... 304
Section 329--Amendments to Bid Protest Procedures by
Federal Employees and Agency Officials in Conversion of
Functions from Performance by Federal Employees to
Performance by a Contractor.............................. 304
Subtitle D--Energy Security.................................. 304
Section 331--Authorization of Appropriations for Director
of Operational Energy.................................... 304
Section 332--Report on Implementation of Comptroller
General Recommendations on Fuel Demand Management at
Forward-Deployed Locations............................... 304
Section 333--Consideration of Renewable Fuels.............. 305
Section 334--Department of Defense Goal Regarding
Procurement of Renewable Aviation Fuels.................. 305
Subtitle E--Reports.......................................... 305
Section 341--Annual Report on Procurement of Military
Working Dogs............................................. 305
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 305
Section 351--Authority for Airlift Transportation at
Department of Defense Rates for Non-Department of Defense
Federal Cargoes.......................................... 305
Section 352--Requirements for Standard Ground Combat
Uniform.................................................. 305
Section 353--Restriction on Use of Funds for Counterthreat
Finance Efforts.......................................... 306
Section 354--Limitation on Obligation of Funds Pending
Submission of Classified Justification Material.......... 306
Section 355--Condition-Based Maintenance Demonstration
Programs................................................. 307
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 307
OVERVIEW....................................................... 307
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 308
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 308
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 308
Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength
Minimum Levels........................................... 308
Section 403--Additional Authority for Increases of Army
Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012. 308
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 308
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 308
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 309
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 309
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2010 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 310
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
to be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 310
Section 416--Submission of Options for Creation of
Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students Account for
Army National Guard...................................... 311
Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations................. 311
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 311
Section 422--Repeal of Delayed One-Time Shift of Military
Retirement Payments...................................... 313
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 313
OVERVIEW....................................................... 313
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 314
Addressing the Shortage of Company Grade Officers within
the Army National Guard and Army Reserve................. 314
Joint Duty Assignment Credit for Military JPME Faculty
Members.................................................. 315
Recognizing Service Women Who Have Participated as
``Lionesses'' during Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.. 315
Report on Medal of Honor Award Process..................... 316
Restricted Reporting Requirements for Sexual Assault
Victims.................................................. 317
Social Networking in Recruiting............................ 317
Stars and Stripes Newspaper................................ 317
The Awarding of the Purple Heart for Traumatic Brain
Injuries................................................. 318
Virtual Army Experience.................................... 318
Wounded Warriors and Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps.................................................... 318
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Improvements........... 319
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 319
Subtitle A--Military Personnel Policy Generally.............. 319
Section 501--Extension of Temporary Increase in Maximum
Number of Days' Leave Members May Accumulate and
Carryover................................................ 319
Section 502--Rank Requirement for Officer Serving as Chief
of the Navy Dental Corps to Correspond to Army and Air
Force Requirements....................................... 320
Section 503--Computation of Retirement Eligibility for
Enlisted Members of the Navy Who Complete the Seaman to
Admiral (STA-21) Officer Candidate Program............... 320
Subtitle B--Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements........ 320
Section 511--Revisions to Annual Reporting Requirement on
Joint Officer Management................................. 320
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 320
Section 521--Medical Examination Required before Separation
of Members Diagnosed with or Asserting Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury................ 320
Section 522--Evaluation of Test of Utility of Test
Preparation Guides and Education Programs in Improving
Qualifications of Recruits for the Armed Forces.......... 321
Section 523--Inclusion of Email Address on Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214)...... 321
Subtitle D--Education and Training........................... 321
Section 531--Appointment of Persons Enrolled in Advanced
Course of the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps at
Military Junior Colleges as Cadets in Army Reserve or
Army National Guard of the United States................. 321
Section 532--Increase in Number of Private Sector Civilians
Authorized for Admission to the National Defense
University............................................... 321
Section 533--Appointments to Military Service Academies
from Nominations Made by Delegate from the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands.......................... 322
Section 534--Pilot Program to Establish and Evaluate
Language Training Centers for Members of the Armed Forces
and Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense...... 322
Section 535--Use of the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program to Increase
Number of Health Professionals with Skills to Assist in
Providing Mental Health Care............................. 322
Section 536--Establishment of Junior Reserve Officer's
Training Corps Units for Students in Grades above Sixth
Grade.................................................... 322
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education.................... 323
Section 551--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local
Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees................................................ 323
Section 552--Determination of Number of Weighted Student
Units for Local Educational Agencies for Receipt of Basic
Support Payments under Impact Aid........................ 323
Section 553--Permanent Authority for Enrollment in Defense
Dependents' Education System of Dependents of Foreign
Military Members Assigned to Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers, Europe........................................... 323
Subtitle F--Missing or Deceased Persons...................... 323
Section 561--Additional Requirements for Accounting for
Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Listed as Missing in Conflicts
Occurring before Enactment of New System for Accounting
for Missing Persons...................................... 323
Section 562--Clarification of Guidelines Regarding Return
of Remains and Media Access at Ceremonies for the
Dignified Transfer of Remains at Dover Air Force Base.... 324
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 324
Section 571--Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans Who
Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation................ 324
Section 572--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal
of Honor to Anthony T. Koho'ohanohano for Acts of Valor
during the Korean War.................................... 324
Section 573--Authorization and Request for Award of
Distinguished-Service Cross to Jack T. Stewart for Acts
of Valor during the Vietnam War.......................... 324
Section 574--Authorization and Request for Award of
Distinguished-Service Cross to William T. Miles, Jr., for
Acts of Valor during the Korean War...................... 324
Subtitle H--Military Families................................ 325
Section 581--Pilot Program to Secure Internships for
Military Spouses with Federal Agencies................... 325
Section 582--Report on Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military
Families................................................. 325
Section 583--Modification of Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act Regarding Termination or Suspension of Service
Contracts and Effect of Violation of Interest Rate
Limitation............................................... 325
Section 584--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for
Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces Deployed in
Support of a Contingency Operation....................... 325
Section 585--Definitions in Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 Related to Active Duty Servicemembers, and Related
Matters.................................................. 325
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 326
Section 591--Navy Grants to Naval Sea Cadet Corps.......... 326
Section 592--Improved Response and Investigation of
Allegations of Sexual Assault Involving Members of the
Armed Forces............................................. 326
Section 593--Modification of Matching Fund Requirements
under National Guard Youth Challenge Program............. 327
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 327
OVERVIEW....................................................... 327
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 328
Exchange Dividend Payments to the Puerto Rico National
Guard.................................................... 328
Review of Policy and Cost Considerations by Which National
Guard Military Technicians are Treated for Overtime Work. 328
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 329
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 329
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2010 Increase in Military Basic
Pay...................................................... 329
Section 602--Special Monthly Compensation Allowance for
Members with Combat-Related Catastrophic Injuries or
Illnesses Pending Their Retirement or Separation for
Physical Disability...................................... 329
Section 603--Stabilization of Pay and Allowances for Senior
Enlisted Members and Warrant Officers Appointed as
Officers and Officers Reappointed in a Lower Grade....... 329
Section 604--Report on Housing Standards Used to Determine
Basic Allowance for Housing.............................. 329
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 330
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 330
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 330
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 330
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 330
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pay........ 330
Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Referral Bonuses.............................. 331
Section 617--Technical Corrections and Conforming
Amendments to Reconcile Conflicting Amendments Regarding
Continued Payment of Bonuses and Similar Benefits for
Certain Members.......................................... 331
Section 618--Proration of Certain Special and Incentive
Pays to Reflect Time During Which a Member Satisfies
Eligibility Requirements for the Special or Incentive Pay 331
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 331
Section 631--Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of
Members on Change of Permanent Station to or from
Nonforeign Areas Outside the Continental United States... 331
Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for
Designated Individuals of Wounded, Ill, or Injured
Members for Duration of Inpatient Treatment.............. 331
Section 633--Authorized Travel and Transportation
Allowances for Non-Medical Attendants for Very Seriously
and Seriously Wounded, Ill, or Injured Members........... 332
Section 634--Increased Weight Allowance for Transportation
of Baggage and Household Effects for Certain Enlisted
Members.................................................. 332
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits................ 332
Section 641--Recomputation of Retired Pay and Adjustment of
Retired Grade of Reserve Retirees to Reflect Service
after Retirement......................................... 332
Section 642--Election to Receive Retired Pay for Non-
Regular Service upon Retirement for Service in an Active
Reserve Status Performed after Attaining Eligibility for
Regular Retirement....................................... 332
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 333
Section 651--Additional Exception to Limitation on Use of
Appropriated Funds for Department of Defense Golf Courses 333
Section 652--Limitation on Department of Defense Entities
Offering Personal Information Services to Members and
Their Dependents......................................... 333
Section 653--Report on Impact of Purchasing from Local
Distributors All Alcoholic Beverages for Resale on
Military Installations on Guam........................... 333
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 333
Section 661--Limitations on Collection of Overpayments of
Pay and Allowances Erroneously Paid to Members........... 333
Section 662--Army Authority to Provide Additional
Recruitment Incentives................................... 334
Section 663--Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization
Respite Absence Program for Certain Periods Before
Implementation of Program................................ 334
Section 664--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for
Compensation, Retirement, and Other Military Personnel
Programs................................................. 334
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 334
OVERVIEW....................................................... 334
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 335
Active Duty Dental Care.................................... 335
Arthritis.................................................. 336
Availability of Proper and Comprehensive Medical Care for
Victims of Sexual Assault................................ 336
Human Systems Integration.................................. 336
Internet-Based Interactive Mental Health Technology........ 337
Long-Term Tracking for Blast Exposures..................... 337
Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury................... 337
Military Mental Health Providers........................... 338
Pulse!!.................................................... 339
Reserve Dental Readiness................................... 339
Trauma Training Technology................................. 340
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 340
Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits.................. 340
Section 701--Prohibition on Conversion of Military Medical
and Dental Positions to Civilian Medical and Dental
Positions................................................ 340
Section 702--Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active
Duty..................................................... 340
Section 703--Expansion of Survivor Eligibility under
TRICARE Dental Program................................... 340
Section 704--TRICARE Standard Coverage for Certain Members
of the Retired Reserve Who Are Qualified for a Non-
Regular Retirement But Are Not Yet Age 60................ 340
Section 705--Cooperative Health Care Agreements between
Military Installations and Non-Military Health Care
Systems.................................................. 341
Section 706--Health Care for Members of the Reserve
Components............................................... 341
Section 707--National Casualty Care Research Center........ 341
Subtitle B--Reports.......................................... 341
Section 711--Report on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Efforts.................................................. 341
Section 712--Report on the Feasibility of TRICARE Prime in
Certain Commonwealths and Territories of the United
States................................................... 342
Section 713--Report on the Health Care Needs of Military
Family Members........................................... 342
Section 714--Report on Stipends for Members of Reserve
Components for Health Care for Certain Dependents........ 342
Section 715--Report on the Required Number of Military
Mental Health Providers.................................. 342
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 342
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 343
Contingency Contracting...................................... 343
Contingency Contracting Planning, Oversight, and Visibility 343
Serious Corrective Action Measures in Department of Defense
Contracts................................................ 344
Third-Party Certification of Private Security Contractors.. 344
War Zone Contractor Communications Safety.................. 345
Other Matters................................................ 346
Acquisition Workforce...................................... 346
Industrial Security........................................ 347
Report on Small Business Concerns with Defense Policy
Review Initiative Acquisition Strategy................... 347
Service Contracting........................................ 348
Service Contractor Inventory............................... 349
Strategic Materials........................................ 350
Use of Non-Traditional Defense Contractors for Information
Technology Programs...................................... 351
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 352
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 352
Section 801--Enhanced Authority to Acquire Products and
Services Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of
Supply to Afghanistan.................................... 352
Section 802--Assessment of Improvements in Service
Contracting.............................................. 352
Section 803--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for
Procurement of Contract Services and Related Clarifying
Technical Amendments..................................... 353
Section 804--Demonstration Authority for Alternative
Acquisition Process for Defense Information Technology
Programs................................................. 353
Section 805--Limitation on Performance of Product Support
Integrator Functions..................................... 354
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 354
Section 811--Revision of Defense Supplement Relating to
Payment of Costs Prior to Definitization................. 354
Section 812--Revisions to Definitions Relating to Contracts
in Iraq and Afghanistan.................................. 354
Section 813--Amendment to Notification Requirements for
Awards of Single Source Task or Delivery Orders.......... 355
Section 814--Clarification of Uniform Suspension and
Debarment Requirement.................................... 355
Section 815--Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified
Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Items...... 355
Section 816--Revision to Definitions of Major Defense
Acquisition Program and Major Automated Information
System................................................... 355
Section 817--Small Arms Production Industrial Base......... 356
Section 818--Publication of Justification for Bundling of
Contracts of the Department of Defense................... 356
Section 819--Contract Authority for Advanced Component
Development or Prototype Units........................... 356
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 356
Section 821--Enhanced Expedited Hiring Authority for
Defense Acquisition Workforce Positions.................. 356
Section 822--Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
Amendments............................................... 357
Section 823--Reports to Congress on Full Deployment
Decisions for Major Automated Information System Programs 357
Section 824--Requirement for Secretary of Defense to Deny
Award and Incentive Fees to Companies Found to Jeopardize
Health or Safety of Government Personnel................. 358
Section 825--Authorization for Actions to Correct the
Industrial Resource Shortfall for High-Purity Beryllium
Metal in Amounts Not in Excess of $85,000,000............ 358
Section 826--Review of Post-Employment Restrictions
Applicable to the Department of Defense.................. 358
Section 827--Requirement to Buy Military Decorations,
Ribbons, Badges, Medals, Insignia, and Other Uniform
Accouterments Produced in the United States.............. 359
Section 828--Findings and Report on the Usage of Rare Earth
Materials in the Defense Supply Chain.................... 359
Section 829--Furniture Standards........................... 360
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 360
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 360
Biometrics-Enabled Intelligence Analysis................... 360
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield
Explosive Consequence Management Forces.................. 361
Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs.......... 361
Financial Crisis........................................... 362
Implementation of Strategy for Combating Weapons of Mass
Destruction: Counterproliferation........................ 362
Interagency Coordination................................... 363
Organizing for Cyber Operations............................ 364
Special Operations Command Strategic Communications........ 364
Special Operations Forces Overhead Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Support................. 365
Temporary Reconfiguration of USAFCENT/9th Air Force
Headquarters............................................. 365
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 366
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 366
Section 901--Role of Commander of Special Operations
Command Regarding Personnel Management Policy and Plans
Affecting Special Operations Forces...................... 366
Section 902--Special Operations Activities................. 366
Section 903--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 366
Section 904--Authority to Allow Private Sector Civilians to
Receive Instruction at Defense Cyber Investigations
Training Academy of the Defense Cyber Crime Center....... 366
Section 905--Organizational Structure of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the
TRICARE Management Activity.............................. 367
Section 906--Requirement for Director of Operational Energy
Plans and Programs to Report Directly to Secretary of
Defense.................................................. 367
Section 907--Increased Flexibility for Combatant Commander
Initiative Fund.......................................... 367
Section 908--Repeal of Requirement for a Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Technology Security Policy
within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy................................................... 367
Section 909--Recommendations to Congress by Members of
Joint Chiefs of Staff.................................... 368
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 368
Section 911--Submission and Review of Space Science and
Technology Strategy...................................... 368
Section 912--Converting the Space Surveillance Network
Pilot Program to a Permanent Program..................... 368
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters..................... 368
Section 921--Plan to Address Foreign Ballistic Missile
Intelligence Analysis.................................... 368
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 369
Section 931--Joint Program Office for Cyber Operations
Capabilities............................................. 369
Section 932--Defense Integrated Military Human Resources
System Transition Council................................ 369
Section 933--Department of Defense School of Nursing
Revisions................................................ 369
Section 934--Report on Special Operations Command
Organization, Manning, and Management.................... 370
Section 935--Study on the Recruitment, Retention and Career
Progression of Uniformed and Civilian Military Cyber
Operations Personnel..................................... 371
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 371
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 371
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 371
Overview................................................... 371
Items of Special Interest.................................. 371
Budget requests.......................................... 371
Department of Defense efforts to combat drug-related
cartel activity along the United States border with
Mexico................................................. 372
International support.................................... 372
Obligating 1033/1004 CN funds for Baluchistan, Pakistan.. 374
Other Activities............................................. 374
Analysis of the Strategic Communications Workforce......... 374
Assessment of Defense Information Technology Systems for
Financial Management..................................... 375
Government Accountability Office Review of Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities............ 376
Information Programs....................................... 376
Institute for Analysis..................................... 377
Interagency Responsibility for Detection, Monitoring and
Information Sharing in the Maritime Domain............... 377
Joint Cargo Aircraft Force Structure Requirements and
Basing Plan.............................................. 378
Military Aircraft Industrial Base.......................... 380
Report of the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.............. 380
Report on Military Public Diplomacy Activities............. 381
Study of the Effective Use of Aerial Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems in the Republic
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.......... 382
Undersea and Off-Shore Critical Infrastructure............. 383
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 384
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 384
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 384
Section 1002--Incorporation of Funding Decisions into Law.. 384
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug and Counter-Terrorism Activities.... 384
Section 1011--One-Year Extension of Department of Defense
Counter-Drug Authorities and Requirements................ 384
Section 1012--Joint Task Forces Support to Law Enforcement
Agencies Conducting Counter-Terrorism Activities......... 385
Section 1013--Border Coordination Centers in Afghanistan
and Pakistan............................................. 385
Section 1014--Comptroller General Report on Effectiveness
of Accountability Measures for Assistance from Counter-
Narcotics Central Transfer Account....................... 386
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 386
Section 1021--Operational Procedures for Experimental
Military Prototypes...................................... 386
Section 1022--Temporary Reduction in Minimum Number of
Operational Aircraft Carriers............................ 386
Section 1023--Limitation on Use of Funds for the Transfer
or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............................ 387
Section 1024--Charter for the National Reconnaissance
Office................................................... 387
Subtitle D--Studies and Reports.............................. 387
Section 1031--Report of Statutory Compliance of the Report
on the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review................... 387
Section 1032--Report on the Force Structure Findings of the
2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.......................... 387
Section 1033--Sense of Congress and Amendment Relating to
the Quadrennial Defense Review........................... 389
Section 1034--Strategic Review of Basing Plans for United
States European Command.................................. 389
Section 1035--National Defense Panel....................... 389
Section 1036--Report Required on Notification of Detainees
of Rights of Miranda v. Arizona.......................... 390
Section 1037--Annual Report on the Electronic Warfare
Strategy of the Department of Defense.................... 390
Section 1038--Studies to Analyze Alternative Models for
Acquisition and Funding of Technologies Supporting
Network-centric Operations............................... 390
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 390
Section 1041--Prohibition Relating to Propaganda........... 390
Section 1042--Extension of Certain Authority for Making
Rewards for Combating Terrorism.......................... 390
Section 1043--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 391
Section 1044--Repeal of Pilot Program on Commercial Fee-
for-Service Air Refueling Support for the Air Force...... 391
Section 1045--Extension of Sunset for Congressional
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. 391
Section 1046--Authorization of Appropriations for Payments
to Portuguese Nationals Employed by the Department of
Defense.................................................. 392
Section 1047--Combat Air Forces Restructuring.............. 392
Section 1048--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable
Ellen O. Tauscher........................................ 393
Section 1049--Sense of Congress Concerning the Disposition
of Submarine NR-1........................................ 393
Section 1050--Compliance with Requirement for Plan on the
Disposition of Detainees at Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba................................................ 393
Section 1051--Sense of Congress Regarding Carrier Air Wing
Force Structure.......................................... 393
Section 1052--Sense of Congress on Department of Defense
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness; Plan.......... 393
Section 1053--Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism. 394
Section 1054--Repeal of Certain Laws Pertaining to the
Joint Committee for the Review of Counterproliferation
Programs of the United States............................ 394
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 394
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 394
Civilian Expeditionary Workforce........................... 394
National Security Personnel System......................... 395
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 396
Section 1101--Authority to Employ Individuals Completing
the National Security Education Program.................. 396
Section 1102--Authority for Employment by Department of
Defense of Individuals Who Have Successfully Completed
the Requirements of the Science, Mathematics, and
Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Scholarship
Program.................................................. 396
Section 1103--Authority for the Employment of Individuals
Who Have Successfully Completed the Department of Defense
Information Assurance Scholarship Program................ 396
Section 1104--Additional Personnel Authorities for the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. 397
Section 1105--One Year Extension of Authority to Waive
Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation
on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas... 397
Section 1106--Extension of Certain Benefits to Federal
Civilian Employees on Official Duty in Pakistan.......... 397
Section 1107--Authority to Expand Scope of Provisions
Relating to Unreduced Compensation for Certain Reemployed
Annuitants............................................... 397
Section 1108--Requirement for Department of Defense
Strategic Workforce Plans................................ 398
Section 1109--Adjustments to Limitations on Personnel and
Requirement for Annual Manpower Reporting................ 398
Section 1110--Modification to the Department of Defense
Laboratory Personnel Authority........................... 399
Section 1111--Pilot Program for the Temporary Exchange of
Information Technology Personnel......................... 399
Section 1112--Provisions Relating to the National Security
Personnel System......................................... 400
Section 1113--Provisions Relating to the Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System............................ 400
Section 1114--Sense of Congress on Pay Parity for Federal
Employees Service at Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst.... 400
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 401
OVERVIEW....................................................... 401
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 402
Building Partnership Capacity.............................. 402
Donated Helicopters for the Afghan National Army........... 402
Employment for Resettled Iraqis............................ 403
Increased Authority for Support of Special Operations to
Combat Terrorism......................................... 403
Increasing the Size of the Afghan National Security Forces
and Accelerating the Growth of These Forces.............. 404
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations
Coordination Center...................................... 405
Piracy Off the Somali Coast and Within Somalia............. 406
Planning for Logistical Challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan. 407
Report on Department of Defense Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund..................................................... 408
Security Cooperation and Security Assistance............... 408
Security Concerns Involving North Korea.................... 409
Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for
Afghanistan.............................................. 410
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
and Women................................................ 411
Train and Equip Authorities................................ 411
U.S.-China Maritime Issues................................. 412
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 413
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 413
Section 1201--Modification and Extension of Authority for
Security and Stabilization Assistance.................... 413
Section 1202--Increase of Authority for Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism........................... 413
Section 1203--Modification of Report on Foreign-Assistance
Related Programs Carried Out by the Department of Defense 413
Section 1204--Report on Authorities to Build the Capacity
of Foreign Military Forces and Related Matters........... 414
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan................................................... 414
Section 1211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Certain Purposes Relating to Iraq........................ 414
Section 1212--Reauthorization of Commanders' Emergency
Response Program......................................... 414
Section 1213--Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations
for Support Provided to United States Military Operations 415
Section 1214--Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund.............. 415
Section 1215--Program to Provide for the Registration and
End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense
Services Transferred to Afghanistan and Pakistan......... 416
Section 1216--Report on Campaign Plans for Iraq and
Afghanistan.............................................. 417
Section 1217--Required Assessments of United States Efforts
in Afghanistan........................................... 417
Section 1218--Report on Responsible Redeployment of United
States Armed Forces from Iraq............................ 417
Section 1219--Report on Afghan Public Protection Program... 418
Section 1220--Updates of Report on Command and Control
Structure for Military Forces Operating in Afghanistan... 418
Section 1221--Report on Payments Made by United States
Armed Forces to Residents of Afghanistan as Compensation
for Losses Caused by United States Military Operations... 418
Section 1222--Assessment and Report on United States-
Pakistan Military Relations and Cooperation.............. 419
Section 1223--Required Assessments of Progress toward
Security and Stability in Pakistan....................... 419
Section 1224--Repeal of GAO War-Related Reporting
Requirement.............................................. 420
Section 1225--Plan to Govern the Disposition of Specified
Defense Items in Iraq.................................... 420
Section 1226--Civilian Ministry of Defense Advisor Program. 420
Section 1227--Report on the Status of Interagency
Coordination in the Afghanistan and Operation Enduring
Freedom Theater of Operations............................ 421
Section 1228--Sense of Congress Supporting United States
Policy for Afghanistan................................... 421
Section 1229--Analysis of Required Force Levels and Types
of Forces Needed to Secure Southern and Eastern Regions
of Afghanistan........................................... 422
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 422
Section 1231--NATO Special Operations Coordination Center.. 422
Section 1232--Annual Report on Military Power of the
Islamic Republic of Iran................................. 422
Section 1233--Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China.... 423
Section 1234--Report on Impacts of Drawdown Authorities on
the Department of Defense................................ 423
Section 1235--Risk Assessment of United States Space Export
Control Policy........................................... 424
Section 1236--Patriot Air and Missile Defense Battery in
Poland................................................... 424
Section 1237--Report on Potential Foreign Military Sales of
the F-22A Fighter Aircraft to Japan...................... 424
Section 1238--Expansion of United States-Russian Federation
Joint Center to Include Exchange of Data on Missile
Defense.................................................. 425
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION.......................................... 425
OVERVIEW....................................................... 425
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 426
Biological Threat Reduction................................ 426
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Contracting Procedures
and Agreements........................................... 427
New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program.................................................. 427
Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project............ 427
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 428
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 428
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 428
Section 1303--Utilization of Contributions to the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program..................... 428
Section 1304--National Academy of Sciences Study of Metrics
for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program............. 429
Section 1305--Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
Authority for Urgent Threat Reduction Activities......... 429
Section 1306--Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and
Military Contacts Program................................ 429
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 430
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 430
Defense Working Capital Fund Cash Balance.................. 430
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 430
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 430
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 430
Section 1403--Defense Health Program....................... 430
Section 1404--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 431
Section 1405--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 431
Section 1406--Defense Inspector General.................... 431
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 431
Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile
Funds.................................................... 431
Section 1412--Extension of Previously Authorized Disposal
of Cobalt from National Defense Stockpile................ 432
Section 1413--Report on Implementation of Reconfiguration
of the National Defense Stockpile........................ 432
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 432
Section 1421--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 432
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 437
OVERVIEW....................................................... 437
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS................................ 437
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 483
Defense Advanced GPS Receivers............................. 483
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.............. 483
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund............... 484
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 484
Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 484
Section 1502--Army Procurement............................. 484
Section 1503--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 484
Section 1504--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization Pending
Report to Congress....................................... 484
Section 1505--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement............ 485
Section 1506--Air Force Procurement........................ 485
Section 1507--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement.......... 485
Section 1508--Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund. 485
Section 1509--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 486
Section 1510--Operation and Maintenance.................... 486
Section 1511--Working Capital Funds........................ 486
Section 1512--Military Personnel........................... 486
Section 1513--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund............. 486
Section 1514--Iraq Freedom Fund............................ 486
Section 1515--Other Department of Defense Programs......... 486
Section 1516--Limitations on Iraq Security Forces Fund..... 486
Section 1517--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United
States Funds for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq..... 486
Section 1518--Special Transfer Authority................... 487
Section 1519--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 487
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 487
PURPOSE........................................................ 487
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 487
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 512
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 512
Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 512
TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 512
SUMMARY........................................................ 512
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 512
Castner Range Complex at Fort Bliss........................ 512
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 512
Planning and Design........................................ 513
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 513
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 513
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 514
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 514
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 514
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2009 Project......................... 514
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2006 Projects....................................... 514
TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 514
SUMMARY........................................................ 514
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 514
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division, Indian
Head, Maryland........................................... 514
Navy-State Partnership for Improving Infrastructure at
Naval Installations...................................... 515
Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range................... 515
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 515
Planning and Design........................................ 516
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 517
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 517
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 517
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 517
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 517
Section 2205--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2006 Project............... 517
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 517
SUMMARY........................................................ 517
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 517
Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station.......................... 517
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 518
Planning and Design........................................ 518
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 518
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 518
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 518
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 519
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 519
Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2007 Projects....................................... 519
Section 2306--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2006 Projects....................................... 519
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 519
SUMMARY........................................................ 519
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 519
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 519
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 520
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 520
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 520
Section 2402--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 520
Section 2403--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2008 Project......................... 520
Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2009 Project......................... 520
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2007 Project........................................ 521
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 521
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide.............. 521
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 521
SUMMARY........................................................ 521
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 521
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 521
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 521
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 521
SUMMARY........................................................ 521
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 522
Virginia National Guard Headquarters....................... 522
Planning and Design, Army National Guard................... 522
Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard........ 522
Planning and Design, Air National Guard.................... 523
Unspecified Minor Construction, Air National Guard......... 523
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 523
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 523
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 523
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 524
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 524
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 524
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 524
Section 2607--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2007 Projects....................................... 524
Section 2608--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2006 Project........................................ 524
TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES............. 524
SUMMARY........................................................ 524
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 532
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 532
Ft Bragg/Pope Air Field BRAC Force Structure............... 532
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 533
Subtitle A--Authorizations................................... 533
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Closure and Realignment Activities Funded through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.......... 533
Section 2702--Authorized Base Closure and Realignment
Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 2005..................................... 533
Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Closure and Realignment Activities Funded through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005.......... 533
Subtitle B--Amendments to Base Closure and Related Laws...... 533
Section 2711--Use of Economic Development Conveyances to
Implement Base Closure and Realignment Property
Recommendations.......................................... 533
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 534
Section 2721--Sense of Congress on Ensuring Joint Basing
Recommendations Do Not Adversely Affect Operational
Readiness................................................ 534
Section 2722--Modification of Closure Instructions
Regarding Paul Doble Army Reserve Center, Portsmouth, New
Hampshire................................................ 534
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 534
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 534
Acquisition of Land in the Clear Zone and Accident
Potential Zones.......................................... 534
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funding for
Department of Defense Energy Initiatives................. 534
Annual Installation Energy Report.......................... 535
Army Ammunition Plant Infrastructure....................... 535
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives.................... 536
Comptroller General Assessment of Military Basing Decision
Process.................................................. 537
Economic Impact of Brigade Combat Team Stationing Plan..... 538
Installation Energy Strategy and Management Assessment..... 538
Installation Master Plans.................................. 540
Military Construction Future Years Defense Program......... 541
Report on Implementation of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design Standards........................... 541
Armed Forces Retirement Home--Gulfport 2003 Property
Disposal................................................. 542
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 542
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 542
Section 2801--Modification of Unspecified Minor
Construction Authorities................................. 542
Section 2802--Congressional Notification of Facility Repair
Projects Carried out Using Operation and Maintenance
Funds.................................................... 542
Section 2803--Authorized Scope of Work Variations for
Military Construction Projects and Military Family
Housing Projects......................................... 543
Section 2804--Imposition of Requirement that Acquisition of
Reserve Component Facilities be Authorized by Law........ 543
Section 2805--Report on Department of Defense Contributions
to States for Acquisition, Construction, Expansion,
Rehabilitation, or Conversion of Reserve Component
Facilities............................................... 543
Section 2806--Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance
Funds for Construction Projects inside the United States
Central Command Area of Responsibility................... 543
Section 2807--Expansion of First Sergeants Barracks
Initiative............................................... 543
Section 2808--Reports on Privatization Initiatives for
Military Unaccompanied Housing........................... 544
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 544
Section 2811--Imposition of Requirement that Leases of Real
Property to the United States with Annual Rental Costs of
More than $750,000 be Authorized by Law.................. 544
Section 2812--Consolidation of Notice-and-Wait Requirements
Applicable to Leases of Real Property Owned by the United
States................................................... 544
Section 2813--Clarification of Authority of Military
Departments to Acquire Low-Cost Interests in Land and
Interests in Land when Need is Urgent.................... 544
Section 2814--Modification of Utility Systems Conveyance
Authority................................................ 544
Section 2815--Decontamination and Use of Former Bombardment
Area on Island of Culebra................................ 544
Section 2816--Disposal of Excess Property of Armed Forces
Retirement Home.......................................... 545
Section 2817--Acceptance of Contributions to Support
Cleanup Efforts at Former Almaden Air Force Station,
California............................................... 545
Section 2818--Limitation on Establishment of Navy Outlying
Landing Fields........................................... 545
Section 2819--Prohibition on Outlying Landing Field at
Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, North Carolina, for Oceana
Naval Air Station........................................ 545
Section 2820--Selection of Military Installations to Serve
as Locations of Brigade Combat Teams..................... 545
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment........... 545
Section 2831--Role of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
in Management and Coordination of Department of Defense
Activities Relating to Guam Realignment.................. 545
Section 2832--Clarifications Regarding Use of Special
Purpose Entities to Assist with Guam Realignment......... 546
Section 2833--Workforce Issues Related to Military
Construction and Certain Other Transactions on Guam...... 546
Section 2834--Composition of Workforce for Construction
Projects Funded Through the Support for United States
Relocation to Guam Account............................... 546
Section 2835--Interagency Coordination Group of Inspector
Generals for Guam Realignment............................ 547
Section 2836--Compliance with Naval Aviation Safety
Requirements as Condition on Acceptance of Replacement
Facility for Marine Corps Air Station, Futenma, Okinawa.. 547
Section 2837--Report and Sense of Congress on Marine Corps
Training Requirements in Asia-Pacific Region............. 547
Subtitle D--Energy Security.................................. 548
Section 2841--Adoption of Unified Energy Monitoring and
Management System Specification for Military Construction
and Military Family Housing Activities................... 548
Section 2842--Department of Defense Use of Electric and
Hybrid Motor Vehicles.................................... 548
Section 2843--Department of Defense Goal Regarding Use of
Renewable Energy Sources to Meet Facility Electricity
Needs.................................................... 548
Section 2844--Comptroller General Report on Department of
Defense Renewable Energy Initiatives..................... 548
Section 2845--Study on Development of Nuclear Power Plants
on Military Installations................................ 549
Subtitle E--Land Conveyances................................. 549
Section 2851--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Port
Chicago Naval Magazine, California....................... 549
Section 2852--Land Conveyances, Naval Air Station, Barbers
Point, Hawaii............................................ 549
Section 2853--Modification of Land Conveyance, Former
Griffiss Air Force Base, New York........................ 549
Section 2854--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania............................... 549
Section 2855--Land Conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana,
Virginia................................................. 549
Section 2856--Land Conveyance, Haines Tank Farm, Haines,
Alaska................................................... 550
Section 2857--Completion of Land Exchange and
Consolidation, Fort Lewis, Washington.................... 550
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 550
Section 2871--Revised Authority to Establish National
Monument to Honor United States Armed Forces Working Dog
Teams.................................................... 550
Section 2872--Naming of Child Development Center at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri, in Honor of Mr. S. Lee Kling..... 550
Section 2873--Conditions on Establishment of Cooperative
Security Location in Palanquero, Colombia................ 550
Section 2874--Military Activities at United States Marine
Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center................... 551
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZATIONS............................................... 551
SUMMARY........................................................ 551
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 557
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 557
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 557
Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 557
Section 2902--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 557
Section 2903--Construction Authorization for Facilities for
Office of Defense Representative-Pakistan................ 557
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................... 558
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 558
OVERVIEW....................................................... 558
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 575
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 575
Overview................................................... 575
Weapons Activities......................................... 575
Stockpile Stewardship Program............................ 575
Directed Stockpile Work--Stockpile Services--Research and
Development Certification and Safety................... 576
Science Campaign--Advanced Certification................. 576
Engineering Campaign..................................... 576
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign............................................... 577
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign............... 577
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of
Facilities--Pantex Plant............................... 577
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of
Facilities--Sandia National Laboratories............... 578
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of
Facilities--Y-12 National Security Complex............. 578
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Construction. 578
National Nuclear Security Administration Budget
Categories............................................. 579
National Nuclear Security Administration Governance...... 579
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 580
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development............................................ 581
Radiation Detection Technology......................... 582
Nonproliferation and International Security.............. 582
Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention........ 582
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership...................... 582
International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation............................................ 583
Second Line of Defense................................. 583
Fissile Materials Disposition............................ 583
United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.... 583
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.......... 583
Global Threat Reduction Initiative....................... 584
Office of the United States Coordinator for the
Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
and Terrorism.......................................... 584
Office of the Administrator................................ 584
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 585
Overview................................................... 585
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 585
Defense Environmental Cleanup Program Funding.......... 585
Consideration of Lifecycle Cleanup Costs During
Definition Phase of New Nuclear Facilities........... 586
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................. 587
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 587
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 587
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 587
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 587
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 587
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 587
Section 3105--Energy Security and Assurance................ 588
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 588
Section 3111--Stockpile Stewardship Program................ 588
Section 3112--Stockpile Management Program................. 588
Section 3113--Plan for Execution of Stockpile Stewardship
and Stockpile Management Programs........................ 589
Section 3114--Dual Validation of Annual Weapons Assessment
and Certification........................................ 590
Section 3115--Annual Long-Term Plan for the Modernization
and Refurbishment of the Nuclear Security Complex........ 590
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 591
Section 3121--Comptroller General Review of Management and
Operations Contract Costs for National Security
Laboratories............................................. 591
Section 3122--Plan to Ensure Capability to Monitor,
Analyze, and Evaluate Foreign Nuclear Weapons Activities. 591
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 592
OVERVIEW....................................................... 592
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 592
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 592
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 592
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 592
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 592
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 592
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 592
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2010................................................ 592
Section 3502--Liquidation of Unused Leave Balance at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy.................... 593
Section 3503--Adjunct Professors........................... 593
Section 3504--Maritime Loan Guarantee Program.............. 593
Section 3505--Defense Measures Against Unauthorized
Seizures of Maritime Security Fleet Vessels.............. 593
Section 3506--Technical Corrections to State Maritime
Academies Student Incentive Program...................... 593
Section 3507--Limitation on Disposal of Interest in Certain
Vessels.................................................. 594
Departmental Data................................................ 594
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 594
Committee Position............................................... 597
Communications From Other Committees............................. 597
Fiscal Data...................................................... 609
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 609
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 610
Compliance with House Rule XXI................................... 610
Oversight Findings............................................... 649
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 649
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 651
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 651
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 651
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 666
Additional and Supplemental Views................................ 667
Additional views of Rick Larsen, James R. Langevin, Madeleine
Z. Bordallo, Brad Ellsworth, Larry Kissell, Chellie Pingree,
Joe Sestak, Hank Johnson, Loretta Sanchez, Martin Heinrich,
Niki Tsongas, Susan A. Davis, Jim Cooper, John Spratt,
Solomon P. Ortiz, Adam Smith, Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert
Andrews, Gene Taylor......................................... 667
Additional views of Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Roscoe G.
Bartlett, Mac Thornberry, W. Todd Akin, J. Randy Forbes, Jeff
Miller, Joe Wilson, Frank A. LoBiondo, Rob Bishop, Michael
Turner, John Kline, Michael Rogers, Trent Franks, Bill
Shuster, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, K. Michael Conaway, Doug
Lamborn, Rob Wittman, Mary Fallin, Duncan Hunter, John
Fleming, Mike Coffman, Tom Rooney, Todd Russell Platts....... 669
Additional views of Silvestre Reyes............................ 675
Additional views of Rob Bishop................................. 677
Additional views of John Kline................................. 680
Supplemental views of Gabrielle Giffords....................... 681
Supplemental views of Gabrielle Giffords....................... 682
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-166
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
_______
June 18, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Skelton, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2647]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to
the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 2647. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2010: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for increased
costs due to overseas contingency operations; (7) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the Department of
Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions
related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the Maritime
Administration.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This
bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts
will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives
to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on
the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
The bill addresses the following categories in the
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research,
development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance;
military personnel; working capital funds; and military
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime
Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military
personnel.
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL
The President requested discretionary budget authority of
$680.2 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee for fiscal year 2010. Of this amount,
$533.8 billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense
programs, $130.0 billion was requested for the overseas
contingency operations requirements covering the entire fiscal
year, and $16.4 billion was requested for Department of Energy
national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $680.4 billion, including $130.0 billion for
overseas contingency operations. The base committee
authorization of $550.5 billion is an $8.0 billion increase
above the levels provided for in the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
The following table summarizes the committee's recommended
discretionary authorizations by appropriation account and
compares these amounts to the President's request. An error
during the mark up of this bill increased the 050 figure by
$120.0 million, which the committee intends to rectify prior to
House passage.
BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
The President's total request for the national defense
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2010 is $693.1 billion, as
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050
request includes discretionary funding for national defense
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary
funding for programs that do not require additional
authorization in fiscal year 2010, and mandatory programs.
The following table details changes to all aspects of the
national defense budget function. The committee could not
support the concurrent receipt proposal as requested in the
President's budget, since the proposed offsets to this increase
were not within the jurisdiction of this committee.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010, is a key mechanism through which the Congress
of the United States fulfills one of its primary
responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States which grants Congress the
power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a
Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of
the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of
Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of
Defense (DOD) generally, and over the military application of
nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The
committee bill includes the large majority of the findings and
recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the
current year, as informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence. The committee
remains steadfast in its continued and unwavering support for
the men and women of the armed forces, the civilian employees
of the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of
Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. The armed
forces continue to be deeply engaged in a number of ongoing
military operations around the world, most significantly, the
wars in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of
Iraq. The committee is deeply committed to providing full
authorization for the funding required to restore the readiness
of our military; enhance the quality of life of military
service members and their families; sustain and improve the
armed forces; and properly safeguard the national security of
the United States.
In addition to providing authorization of appropriations,
the committee bill promotes the committee's main policy
objectives: restoring military readiness; taking care of our
troops and their families; focusing on our strategy in
Afghanistan and Pakistan and on redeployment from Iraq;
eliminating waste and recovering savings through acquisition
reform; supporting the President's initiative to secure all
loose nuclear materials around the world; and maintaining
robust oversight.
Restoring readiness
After more than seven years of war, the committee believes
it is essential to sustain our efforts to restore military
readiness in order to meet current military challenges and
prepare for the future. The committee bill provides $11 billion
for Army reset, $2 billion for Marine Corps reset, and $6.9
billion to address equipment shortfalls in the National Guard
and Reserve. The committee bill adds $450 million for Army
barracks improvements and $762 million to fully meet
sustainment requirements for base facilities and infrastructure
to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military barracks
and to keep defense facilities in good working order.
Taking care of service members and their families
The committee continues to be committed to reducing the
strain on the armed forces by increasing the size of the Army
and Marine Corps, and halting the reduction in the size of the
Air Force. The committee bill increases the size of the
military by 15,000 Army troops, 8,000 Marines, 14,650 Air Force
personnel, and 2,477 Navy sailors, supporting DOD's requested
end strengths. The committee bill recommends a 3.4 percent pay
raise for all service members, continuing our efforts to reduce
the pay raise gap between the uniformed services and the
private sector. The committee bill extends the authority for
the Department of Defense to offer bonuses and incentive pay,
expands TRICARE health coverage to reserve component members
and their families for 180 days prior to mobilization, and also
provides $1.95 billion for family housing programs to support
and expand the quality housing our military families deserve.
The committee bill provides travel and transportation for
three designated persons, including non-family members, to
visit hospitalized service members to continue to improve the
benefits available to wounded warriors. The committee bill also
enables seriously injured service members to use a non-medical
attendant for help with daily living or during travel for
medical treatment. To meet the changing needs of today's
service members and their families, the committee bill
establishes an internship pilot program for military spouses in
order to offer federal government career opportunities that are
portable when the time comes to relocate. The committee bill
also authorizes Impact Aid funding to assist schools with large
enrollments of military children, and establishes a DOD School
of Nursing to address the critical nursing shortage in our
military services.
Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan
The war in Afghanistan is a critical mission that is
finally gaining the attention it demands. The committee
believes that the President's new strategy for Afghanistan and
Pakistan, which calls for an increase in military and civilian
resources and also recognizes the vital importance of Pakistan
in the region, is a welcome development. To ensure our strategy
in both countries is effective and achieves the intended goals,
the committee bill requires the President to assess U.S.
efforts and report on progress. The committee bill provides
funds to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces
(ANSF) and authorizes the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund to
improve the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan's
security forces. The committee bill improves accountability and
oversight of U.S. assistance by requiring the President to
establish a system to register and track all U.S. defense
articles provided to the governments of Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Redeployment of forces from Iraq
The committee has focused on issues relating to the
redeployment of forces from Iraq and the build up of forces in
Afghanistan, and recognized that the Department of Defense must
manage many difficult logistical challenges in this process. To
ensure plans are sound, use realistic assumptions, and
carefully assess risk, the committee bill requires the
Department of Defense to report on its efforts to prioritize
resources and capabilities between Iraq and Afghanistan. The
committee bill also directs the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to provide Congress with separate reports
assessing the strategic plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. In
addition, the committee bill calls for a report to help
Congress monitor our redeployment from Iraq and requires the
Department of Defense to develop a detailed plan for the
disposition of U.S. military equipment in Iraq.
Acquisition reform
Defense acquisition reform is a top priority for the
committee, which this year has already established a panel to
examine the issue and passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). Building on these
efforts, the committee bill supports the Secretary of Defense's
plan to increase the size of the civilian acquisition
workforce, to reduce the Department of Defense's reliance on
contractors for critical acquisition functions, and to
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse through better contract
oversight.
Nonproliferation
The committee believes that efforts to prevent the spread
of weapons of mass destruction and to reduce the risk that
these weapons could fall into terrorists' hands are critical to
our national security. In the area of nonproliferation, the
bill increases funding and creates new authorities to
strengthen the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) Program. The committee bill also fully supports
and increases funding for the Department of Energy's
nonproliferation programs, which includes funding for the
President's plan to secure and remove all known vulnerable
nuclear materials that can be used for weapons.
Quadrennial Defense Review
Next year, the Department of Defense will deliver the
report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which was
established to help Congress develop our national security
priorities. Because reports from previous QDRs have not always
provided the information expected by Congress, the committee
bill encourages the Department of Defense to closely follow the
QDR requirements written in law. Upon completion of the QDR,
the committee bill directs the Government Accountability Office
to assess the degree to which the Department of Defense has
complied with the law, and requires the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress on any shortcomings identified. The
committee bill also creates a Congressionally-appointed
National Defense Panel to conduct an independent review of the
QDR's effectiveness and issue recommendations on how to improve
the decision making process for determining national security
objectives. The committee bill also requires the Department of
Defense to report on the force structure requirements used to
guide the QDR process so that Congress may better understand
the foundation of the QDR's analysis. Finally, the committee
believes that the QDR process provides an opportunity for the
Department of Defense to balance its urgent near term
priorities with its longer term requirements and rethink its
global posture. The committee bill in a range of areas requires
the Department to provide analysis of these issues concurrent
with the completion of the QDR process.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 results from hearings
that began on January 22, 2009, and that were completed on June
4, 2009. The full committee conducted 19 sessions. In addition,
a total of 55 sessions were conducted by 7 different
subcommittees and 1 special oversight panel.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $105.8
billion for procurement. This represents a $1.9 billion
increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2009.
The committee recommends authorization of $104.5 billion, a
decrease of $1.3 billion from the fiscal year 2010 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
procurement program are identified in the table below. Major
issues are discussed following the table.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $5.3
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $4.8 billion, a decrease of $487.4
million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Hostile fire detection system
The committee notes that the United States Army Aviation
Center of Excellence (USAACE) has placed significant focus on
the need for an effective hostile fire detection system on AH-
64 aircraft. Advances in small arms hostile fire detection for
Army Aviation have recently been achieved and demonstrated
which may lead to improvements in survivability and
improvements in reaction to hostile fire. The committee
applauds these advancements and encourages the Army Aviation
community to continue plans for the development and acquisition
of flight proven technologies, which improve situational
awareness, and the targeting of hostile threat systems.
Kiowa Warrior
The committee agrees that the Department of Army has a
critical need to extend the life of the Kiowa Warrior due to
the termination of both the Comanche helicopter program in 2004
and its replacement, the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH),
in 2008. The committee notes that the Department of Army is in
the process of completing a study on the future of the Kiowa
Warrior as part of the analysis of alternatives for the ARH
replacement. The committee also understands that the Department
of Army is initiating ``Life Support 2020'' for the Kiowa
Warrior, to address obsolescence concerns and to incorporate
weight reduction initiatives to increase the useful life of
these platforms.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, by March 1, 2010, on program requirements to
upgrade the power train for the Kiowa Warrior. This report
should include the following:
(1) Options to extend the operational life including
hover out of ground effect and vertical maneuver equal
to or greater than the original ARH requirement;
(2) Review of operational and safety power margin
requirements;
(3) Consideration of existing mature commercial and
military development efforts; and
(4) Estimated schedule and associated cost to
implement findings.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $1.37
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.32 billion, a decrease of $50.0 million,
for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Javelin missile system
The budget request contained $289.6 million for 1,334
Javelin missile rounds.
The committee notes that the Army received $377.9 million
in fiscal year 2009 for 1,320 Javelin missiles, which will
continue maximum rate production of Javelin missiles through
mid-2012. The committee further notes that only 83 Javelin
missiles were expended in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom combined in fiscal year 2008, and that only 40
have been expended in fiscal year 2009. Therefore, the
committee does not believe that the total amount requested in
fiscal year 2010 is required for operational needs.
The committee recommends $264.6 million, a decrease of
$25.0 million, for Javelin missile rounds.
TOW 2 missile system
The budget request contained $167.3 million for 2,459 tube-
launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided (TOW 2) missile
rounds.
The committee notes that the Army received $426.4 million
in fiscal year 2009 for 8,400 TOW 2 missiles, which will
continue maximum rate production of TOW 2 missiles through
2011. The committee further notes that only 262 TOW 2 missiles
were expended in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom combined in fiscal year 2008, and that fiscal year 2009
expenditure rates are not expected to be significantly above
these levels. Therefore, the committee does not believe that
the total amount requested in fiscal year 2010 is required for
operational needs.
The committee recommends $142.3 million, a decrease of
$25.0 million, for TOW 2 missile rounds.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $2.45
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2.40 billion,
a decrease of $51.0 million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the
Army request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Army self-propelled artillery modernization
The committee acknowledges the Paladin Integrated
Management (PIM) program provides more modern capabilities for
the M109A6 Paladin, and will eventually result in an M109A7. At
the same time, the committee notes the need for a future cannon
to address the potential 300 cannon shortfall that the PIM is
not intended to address. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to develop a plan for a future self-
propelled artillery piece as part of the next generation of
ground combat vehicles, and to provide a report on this plan to
the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2010.
Stryker vehicles
The budget request contained $388.6 million for Stryker
vehicle upgrades and program support activities.
The committee notes that of the total amount requested,
only $101.7 million is for survivability upgrades to current
Stryker vehicles. The remaining funds are requested for program
management support, testing, system technical support, and
other administrative program activities. The committee notes
that contractor program management support, contractor
logistics support, and system technical support show
significant increases over fiscal year 2009 levels, even though
no new production vehicles are requested in fiscal year 2010.
In addition, the committee notes that the fiscal year 2009
Overseas Contingency Operations Appropriations Act provided
additional funds for Stryker vehicles not requested or required
by the Army. Therefore, the committee does not believe
increased contractor funding in fiscal year 2010 is necessary,
and that any increased costs could be covered using the
additional funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2009.
The committee recommends $334.6 million, a decrease of
$54.0 million, for the Stryker vehicle program.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $2.05
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $2.07 billion, an increase of $18.2
million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in the
table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
M722 60mm white phosphorus smoke mortar rounds
The budget request contained $23.6 million for 60mm mortar,
all types, but included no funds for additional M722 60mm white
phosphorus smoke mortar rounds.
The committee understands overseas contingency operations
in the Republic of Iraq and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
have increased demand for M722 60mm white phosphorus smoke
mortar rounds. The committee also recognizes the specialized
capability inherent at the Pine Bluff Arsenal for production of
M722 60mm white phosphorus smoke mortar rounds.
The committee recommends $26.6 million, an increase of $3.0
million, for additional M722 60mm white phosphorus smoke mortar
rounds.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $9.9
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $9.7 billion, a decrease of $236.2 million,
for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Enhanced night vision goggles production
The budget request contained $366.8 million for night
vision devices, of which $250.6 million was for 19,072 AN/PSQ-
20 enhanced night vision goggles (ENVG).
The committee understands ENVG production has suffered
continuing delays and that the delivery schedule has shifted at
least three months into calendar year 2010. Further, the
committee is aware the Army has obligated only one percent of
the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2009 for ENVGs. The
committee notes the Army initially intended to receive 9,081
ENVGs from January through December 2009, but now expects to
receive only 1,938 ENVGs during this same timeframe. The
committee believes the ENVG funding profile should be realigned
to accurately reflect realistic production schedules.
The committee recommends $166.8 million for night vision
devices, a decrease of $200.0 million, for ENVG procurement.
Hybrid electric powertrains for tactical wheeled vehicles
The committee commends the Army for its efforts to reduce
its logistical footprint and costs by reducing fuel consumption
as well as considering the fully burdened cost of fuel in
trade-off analysis for all tactical systems to include tactical
wheeled vehicles (TWV). The committee is encouraged by recent
commercial and government funded advances in hybrid electric
powertrain technology for TWVs and believes these advances
could improve fuel consumption and long-term cost savings over
the economic useful life of the vehicle.
The committee understands the Army is recapitalizing its
TWV fleets, to include the M915 heavy tactical wheeled vehicle
platform, in an effort to extend service life and improve
capability through technology insertions as part of its
``resetting the force'' initiative. The committee is concerned
hybrid electric powertrains would not be considered a viable
powertrain option in these TWV recapitalization efforts.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct
a study as to the advisability and feasibility of installing
hybrid electric power trains as part of any service life
extension program for tactical wheeled vehicle programs to
include new start programs. The committee directs the Secretary
to submit the report on the study to the congressional defense
committees by March 15, 2010.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request contained $564.9 million in Army
procurement for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Fund (JIEDDF).
The committee recognizes that JIEDDO (Joint Improvised
Explosive Defeat Organization) responds to rapidly changing
requirements from combatant commanders to counter the threat of
improvised explosive devices (IED), which continue to be the
primary threat to U.S. military forces in the Republic of Iraq
and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee also
understands that in responding to these requirements, JIEDDO is
unable to plan in advance how it will obligate all of its funds
in any fiscal year. However, the committee believes that JIEDDO
has become a sufficiently mature and established organization
to allow it to plan in advance for continuing and enduring
costs, such as staff and infrastructure, multiple-year
initiatives, training support, and information fusion support.
The committee notes that the Department has decided to
institutionalize JIEDDO and understands that the base budget
request represents the enduring costs of the organization. The
committee believes the budget for these enduring costs should
be requested through the appropriate accounts.
The committee recommends $327.1 million, an increase of
$327.1 million, in Army research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E) for JIEDDO RDT&E, and $237.8 million, an
increase of $237.8 million, in Army operation and maintenance,
for JIEDDO operations and information fusion support, for the
Joint Center of Excellence, and for staff and infrastructure.
The committee recommends $0.0 million, a decrease of $564.9
million, in Army procurement for JIEDDF.
Joint tactical radio system hand-held radios
The budget request contained $90.2 million in other
procurement, Army, for joint tactical radio system (JTRS)
radios. Of this amount, $35.0 million was requested for 5,270
JTRS small form factor ``c'' hand-held radios.
The committee notes that despite this request, the Army
plans to equip the first four spin-out early infantry brigade
combat teams (E-IBCT) with legacy RT-1922 enhanced position
location reporting system (EPLRS) radios. The committee is
concerned that the Army is committing to the purchase of more
than 5,000 JTRS hand-held radios at the same time it continues
to plan to invest in legacy EPLRS systems. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 2010,
specifying the combination of radios and waveforms with which
it intends to field the seven E-IBCT sets of equipment. This
report should also include separate cost estimates for fielding
these brigade sets with JTRS radios and EPLRS radios.
The committee recommends $35.1 million, a decrease of $55.1
million, for joint tactical radio system radios.
Non-system training device program
The budget request contained $261.3 million to continue the
non-system training device (NSTD) program, but included no
funds to procure the following NSTD programs: basic rifle and
pistol marksmanship programs for the Army Reserve; marksmanship
skills trainers for the Texas National Guard; mobile firing
ranges for the Texas National Guard; training aid enhancements
for the Vermont National Guard; virtual door gunner trainers
for the Texas National Guard; Virtual Interactive Combat
Environment (VICE) training systems for the Virginia National
Guard; immersive group simulation virtual training systems for
the Hawaii Army National Guard; and VICE training systems for
Ft. Jackson.
The Army's NSTD program is an initiative used to introduce
realistic and effective training devices into individual and
unit training settings. The committee understands there is an
emphasis on training military personnel in urban operations and
asymmetric tactical situations similar to those being
experienced by soldiers in overseas contingency operations in
The Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The committee understands these devices provide capabilities
that allow soldiers and units to train tasks and missions that
would be unsafe or too resource intensive to conduct with
actual weapons, weapons systems, and ammunitions. The committee
supports this initiative and believes these programs could
significantly improve soldier survivability and performance.
The committee recommends $282.0 million for the NSTD
program for a total increase of $20.8 million, including: an
increase of $2.5 million for basic rifle and pistol
marksmanship programs for the Army Reserve; $2.2 million for
marksmanship skills trainers for the Texas National Guard; $1.5
million for mobile firing ranges for the Texas National Guard;
$1.3 million for training aid enhancements for the Vermont
National Guard; $1.1 million for virtual door gunner trainers
for the Texas National Guard; $4.9 million for Virtual
Interactive Combat Environment (VICE) training systems for the
Virginia National Guard; $2.5 million for immersive group
simulation virtual training systems for the Hawaii Army
National Guard, and $4.8 million for VICE training systems at
Ft. Jackson.
Single channel ground and airborne radio system
The budget request contained $135.0 million for single
channel ground and airborne radio (SINCGARS) fielding support.
Section 113 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
restricted obligation of funds for Army tactical radio systems,
pending delivery of a report on the Army's radio fielding and
network strategy. The committee requested this report because
of the following committee concerns: significant Army revisions
to radio procurement funding requests; outdated and unclear
requirements; non-competitive contract awards for radios; and
unexplained increases in unit cost for radios being acquired.
While the report submitted by the Department of Defense
laid out many aspects of the Army's plan to build its future
battlefield network, it neither explained nor justified the
Army's plans to continue to procure SINCGARS. Specifically, the
report did not: support the Army's current acquisition
objective for SINCGARS radios; clearly explain how the Army
will deal with SINCGARS cryptology expiration; or explain how
the SINCGARS radio will support a joint tactical radio system
(JTRS) based battlefield network using modern data waveforms.
As a result, the committee does not believe the funding
requested for SINCGARS in the fiscal year 2010 budget request
is justified.
In addition, the committee believes that the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
should review the Army's SINCGARS acquisition plans to
determine if it should be considered an Acquisition Category
(ACAT) I program. The committee further believes that the only
way to ensure that all of the services are procuring radios
compatible with the future JTRS-based network is to reinstate
the JTRS Joint Program Office (JPEO) as the review and waiver
authority for the Army and Marine Corps to procure tactical
radios. The committee notes that the previous waiver process,
which was canceled in fiscal year 2005, has already been
partially reinstated for hand-held radio acquisition.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to provide a report
by September 30, 2009, to the congressional defense committees,
with his recommendations regarding the appropriate acquisition
category for the Army SINCGARS program and whether or not the
JTRS JPEO should have review and waiver authority over all
service tactical radio procurement actions, as was the case
prior to 2005, and what changes have occurred in the Army's
SINCGARS procurement plans since delivery of the Army Tactical
Radio Fielding Plan in April 2009.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $135.0
million, for SINCGARS procurement.
Tactical combat vehicle egress safety enhancements
The committee recognizes that safety and survivability are
of utmost importance in the design of tactical combat vehicles
such as the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle. The
committee notes that the heavy armor doors that are associated
with these tactical combat vehicles could, in certain
operational environments, pose a potential threat to the safety
and survivability to the military personnel who operate them.
The committee is aware that, in some cases, the armor door can
weigh in excess of 400 pounds, making it very difficult for the
warfighter to rapidly egress the vehicle during emergencies
such as vehicle rollovers. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army to pursue mature technologies that
provide some level of armor door power-assist, to allow
military personnel to quickly egress tactical combat vehicles
in emergencies.
Tactical wheeled vehicle fire suppression systems
The budget request contained $10.3 million for modification
of in-service equipment, but included no funds to procure
tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fire suppression systems.
The committee is aware TWV fire suppression systems are
currently installed on fuel tank, tire, engine, and crew
compartments of the TWVs. These systems provide a proven
capability for force protection against improvised explosive
devices that use fire accelerants to increase lethality and
injury to the warfighter. The committee is aware fire
suppression systems are currently operating in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom with success against the
current threats. The committee understands that fire
suppression systems are a required performance specification
for some TWV platforms but for others they are not required.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
capability-based performance assessment of fire suppression
system technology for TWVs. The assessment should consider fuel
tank, tire, engine, and crew compartment fire suppression
systems. The assessment should also consider results and
conclusions from previous analysis of alternatives and trade
studies regarding the application of fire suppression systems.
The Secretary should determine the advisability and feasibility
of requiring fire suppression systems on all current and future
tactical wheeled vehicle platforms and provide relative cost
assessments. The report should be submitted to the defense
committees by March 15, 2010.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $18.4
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $18.1 billion, a decrease of $276.2
million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Department of the Navy strike-fighter inventory
The budget request contained $2.7 billion for procurement
of 22 EA-18G and 9 F/A-18E/F aircraft, and $4.5 billion for
procurement of 20 F-35B/C aircraft for the Department of the
Navy. This represents a reduction from the fiscal year 2009
program of record of nine F/A-18E/F aircraft and an increase of
two F-35B/C aircraft.
The committee is concerned regarding the current and
forecasted strike-fighter aircraft inventory of the Department
of the Navy. The committee understands that the Department of
the Navy has a fiscal year 2009 strike-fighter inventory
shortfall of 110 aircraft and predicts a fiscal year 2010
shortfall of 152 aircraft, with a potential peak strike-fighter
shortfall of 312 aircraft by fiscal year 2018. The committee
believes such drastic shortfalls in strike fighter-inventory
are unacceptable.
The committee understands that a variety of factors cause
the current and projected strike-fighter shortfall. Those
factors include a fiscal year 2002 decision to reduce F/A-18A
through D inventory by 88 aircraft, a reduction in the program
of record quantity for F-35B/C by 409 aircraft, delays in
development of the F-35B/C program, and F/A 18A through D
aircraft reaching forecasted service life sooner than expected.
The committee remains unconvinced that naval strike-fighter
shortfalls should be viewed against the totality of Department
of Defense strike-fighter inventory. The capabilities of the
naval strike-fighter force are inherent in the capability of
the aircraft carrier as a strike platform and, as such, force
structure requirements for naval aviation must be viewed as
those required to support sufficient carrier air wings (CVW) to
match the number of statutorily mandated aircraft carriers.
The committee supports procurement of additional F/A-18E/F
aircraft to mitigate the naval strike-fighter inventory
shortfall and believes that procurement of additional F/A-18E/F
aircraft through a multi-year procurement contract is more cost
effective and prudent than procuring new aircraft through an
annual contract or applying $25.6 million of additional fiscal
resources per aircraft to extend the service life of the F/A-
18A through D fleet. Therefore, the committee includes a
provision in title I of this Act that would authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multi-year procurement
contract for the purchase of additional F/A-18E/F and EA-18G
aircraft and also includes a provision in title X of this Act
that expresses a sense of Congress that the Department of the
Navy should maintain no less than ten carrier air wings with no
less than 44 strike-fighters each. Additionally, the committee
directs the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 2, 2010, that evaluates the operational effectiveness
and costs of extending and modernizing the service-life of F/A-
18A through D aircraft to 10,000 flight hours versus procuring,
either through an annual or multi-year procurement contract,
additional F/A-18E/F aircraft beyond the current program of
record.
The committee recommends an increase of $108.0 million for
advanced procurement of economic order quantity items in order
to achieve the benefits associated with a multi-year
procurement contract and also recommends an increase of $56.0
million for support items associated with the EA-18G aircraft.
Lastly, the committee fully expects the Secretary of the Navy
to promptly negotiate and enter into a multi-year procurement
contract for additional F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft to
mitigate the naval strike-fighter shortfall.
Electronic warfare system core depot development
The budget request contained $310.8 million for common
electronic counter-measures equipment, but contained no funds
for establishing a core depot maintenance capability for the
ALQ-214 electronic counter-measures (ECM) system employed on
Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft.
The committee notes that depot maintenance repair for the
ALQ-214 ECM system is experiencing a 180 to 240 day repair
turnaround time, and establishing an organic depot maintenance
capability should significantly reduce the turnaround time. The
committee understands that section 2464 of title 10, United
States Code, provides that a core depot maintenance capability
must be established no later than four years after initial
operational capability (IOC) is achieved for mission-essential
weapons systems designated by the Secretary of Defense. The
committee understands that IOC was achieved for the ALQ-214 ECM
system in March, 2006, and that core depot maintenance
capability should be established by March, 2010.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for
common electronic counter-measures equipment to begin
establishment of core depot maintenance capability for the ALQ-
214 ECM system.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $3.5
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $3.5 billion, the amount of the budget
request, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table
below.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $840.7
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps. The
committee recommends authorization of $840.7 million, the
amount requested, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are
identified in the table below.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $13.78
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $13.79 billion, an increase of
$10.0 million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the
table below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Capabilities of the United States Navy
The committee believes the U.S. Navy fleet should be
balanced in both capability of ships and quantity of ships, but
that quantity should have priority over spending excessive
resources for marginal increases in capability. The committee
supports the re-start of the DDG 51 class and believes that a
minimum of two of these vessels should be requested per year.
The committee maintains cautious support for the Littoral
Combat Ship and believes a minimum of three of these vessels
should be requested per year. The committee believes that two
Virginia class submarines is the minimum that should be funded
annually. The committee believes that the operational
availability of aircraft carriers is more important than the
total number of aircraft carriers in the inventory; however,
the committee is not convinced that a total inventory of fewer
than 11 carriers will support the required operational
availability. The committee supports the ongoing efforts to
develop the next generation cruiser. The committee believes
that the next generation cruiser must meet the challenge of
emerging ballistic missile technology and that an integrated
nuclear power system is required to achieve maximum capability
of the vessel. The committee supports the revised Maritime
Prepositioning Force (Future) and the capability of the
Maritime Landing Platform vessel to resupply logistic support
from a sea base. The committee is also supportive of continuing
procurement of amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD) but
recommends the construction of a modified LHD variant for
increased amphibious capability if such modification can be
accomplished with minimal non-recurring costs. Finally, the
committee recommends that the Navy consider combining
acquisition efforts with the U.S. Coast Guard in procurement of
the National Security Cutter vessel for use as a Navy frigate.
U.S. Navy shipbuilding
The budget request contained $13.8 billion for the
construction of 8 Navy ships and completes funding for the 3rd
and final Zumwalt class destroyer (DDG 1000) and the 10th San
Antonio class amphibious transport, dock (LPD 17). The request
also contains advance procurement for long-lead material and
equipment for seven additional vessels, including two Virginia
class submarines, for which full funding is expected in fiscal
year 2011. Overall, the committee considers this budget request
a positive step in restoring the fleet to a level of at least
313 battle force vessels.
The committee is encouraged that the Department of the Navy
has requested funding to complete the last two of the Lewis and
Clark dry cargo ammunition ships (T-AKE) and the final LPD 17
ship. The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has
decided to truncate the DDG 1000 program to three ships and re-
start the Burke class destroyer (DDG 51) program. The committee
agrees with this decision and understands the agreement reached
between the Department and the prime shipbuilding contractors
for construction of the three DDG 1000 ships and the re-start
of the first three DDG 51 ships will ensure industrial
stability at both of the surface combatant construction
shipyards while the Department plans for future surface
combatant capability and force structure.
Aircraft carriers
The committee includes a provision in title X of this Act
that would provide a temporary waiver to the requirement in
section 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code, to maintain 10
operational aircraft carriers. This waiver would be in effect
for the time period between the inactivation of USS Enterprise
(CVN 65) and the delivery of USS Ford (CVN 78). The committee
agrees with the Navy's determination that the cost to conduct a
depot level maintenance availability for USS Enterprise (CVN
65) which would allow for only one additional deployment is
excessive. The committee further understands that conducting
such a maintenance period will decrease the actual operational
availability of the aircraft carrier fleet by delaying the
complex refueling overhaul of USS Lincoln (CVN 72) with
cascading delays for other Nimitz class carriers. The committee
understands that with the commissioning of the USS Ford (CVN
78) in fiscal year 2015, the aircraft carrier force structure
will return to 11 carriers.
However, the committee continues to have serious
reservations regarding the Navy's force planning, transparency
with Congress, and the risk to the national security of the
United States. During consideration of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the committee was assured that the Navy supported the
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, which concluded
that 11 aircraft carriers are needed to meet the combat
capability requirements of the National Military Strategy
(NMS). Yet, less than one year later, the Navy proposed the
inactivation of the USS Enterprise as part of the consideration
of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 and
submitted such a proposal again for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
In addition, the Navy failed to program the funds required to
maintain the USS Enterprise, in accordance with their statutory
obligation. The Secretary of Defense has also announced plans
to permanently reduce the carrier force structure in the out-
years. The committee believes that it is most appropriate to
consider aircraft carrier force structure within the context of
a new QDR and NMS and not as part of a budgetary process.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary to revisit
this issue as part of the ongoing QDR and does not intend this
temporary waiver to reflect the committee's approval of the
Secretary's recommendation to permanently reduce the aircraft
carrier force structure.
Aircraft carrier construction
On April 6, 2009, the Secretary of Defense stated, ``. . .
the healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America's
existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow
production of several major surface combatants and other
maritime programs. We will shift the Navy aircraft carrier
program to a five-year build cycle, placing it on a more
fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers
after 2040.'' The committee recognizes that aircraft carrier
construction is a significant investment and consistently
represents a large portion of the President's budget request
for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee also
acknowledges that shifting from the planned four-year build
cycle to a five-year build cycle will reduce the annual funding
required for aircraft carrier construction.
However, the committee has not been provided with a cost-
benefit analysis justifying the plan to extend carrier
construction schedules. Lacking such an analysis, the committee
is concerned that this shift may increase the total funding
required for aircraft carrier construction and other
shipbuilding programs in the aircraft carrier construction
yard, such as Virginia-class submarines and refueling and
complex overhaul of the current aircraft carrier fleet. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to take a
holistic view of shipbuilding affordability, to optimize the
construction of aircraft carriers for greater efficiency and
retention of skilled labor, and to re-evaluate his decision
following the completion of the aircraft carrier construction
report required by a provision in title I of this Act.
Electromagnetic aircraft launch system
The committee is monitoring the progress of the development
efforts of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS)
and the detrimental effect on cost and schedule that this one
system could have on the delivery of the USS Ford (CVN 78). The
committee concurs with the decision made by the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition to continue with
development of EMALS and avoid the cost and delay associated
with a return to steam catapults. However, because of the
enormity of the impact that a failure of this program to
deliver on time would have on delivery of the USS Ford (CVN
78), the committee believes that it is imperative that a single
officer or civilian official oversee key development,
production, and integration efforts. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to retain the current program
manager in his position throughout the completion of the system
design and development efforts, including production of the
first ship-set of components. Additionally, the Secretary is
encouraged to identify and assign to the program office the
relief for the current program officer at least six months
prior to the detachment of the current program manager. The
Secretary is directed to maintain the relieving program manager
in position until completion of EMALS shipboard installation,
integration, and testing on USS Ford (CVN 78). The committee
directs the secretary to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees not less than 30 days prior to any planned
change of the program manager, and as soon as practicable for
any emergent change of the program manager.
Littoral combat ship
This program was envisioned as the affordable way to
deliver significant capability to the fleet in the shortest
time possible. Neither affordability nor timeliness has
resulted from this troubled program. As of this report, only
one vessel has been delivered to the Navy, significantly over
target cost, with a second due to be delivered later in
calendar year 2009, also significantly over target cost.
While the committee is aware that the cost and schedule
problems associated with this program are shared by both the
contractors and the government, the fact remains that the costs
of the first vessels are too high. The committee is encouraged
by recent actions taken by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition to restore
competition for quantity between the two prime contractors by
combining the request for proposals of the fiscal year 2009 and
fiscal year 2010 ships. The committee is also aware that the
Navy now more fully understands the costs associated with
construction of these vessels. Therefore, the committee
includes a provision elsewhere in this Act that would modify
the structure of the existing cost cap for the littoral combat
ship (LCS) program similar to the requirements of cost caps on
other ship programs. The provision would also allow, for fiscal
year 2010, the Secretary of the Navy to use funds authorized
and appropriated to the program to develop a technical data
package of each vessel if the Secretary is unable to enter into
contracts for LCS vessels within the requirements of the cost
cap. These technical data packages would be for use in bidding
construction of the vessels to other contractors.
The committee expects the Navy, in moving forward with this
program over the next few years, to transition the current
acquisition program, which currently requires performance
specifications for the ships to a program where the government
either supplies, as government furnished equipment (GFE), or
specifies the weapons system, communication system, and the
propulsion system. To the greatest extent possible, the
committee expects that those systems would be common between
the two versions of the LCS vessels. The committee additionally
expects that when the Navy is in a position to make that
transition, that domestically produced major equipment will be
specifically specified or supplied to the shipbuilder as GFE.
Next generation cruiser
The committee supports Navy research efforts to develop a
radar system for the next generation cruiser (CGN(X)). The
committee understands that ongoing analysis to determine radar
sensitivity, power requirements, physical structure, and weight
will dictate the size of the hull necessary for the vessel.
Therefore the committee supports accelerated development of
the combat system along with efforts to begin detailed design
and construction of the vessel.
The committee remains committed to the direction of section
1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181), which requires the use of an
integrated nuclear propulsion system for the CGN(X).
Sea-based strategic deterrent
The committee believes that it is in the national interest
to maintain the submarine design industrial capacity to begin
development efforts for a new class of submarines which could
either continue the mission of the current Ohio-class strategic
submarines (SSBN) or serve as the next generation of tactical
guided missile submarines (SSGN). The committee is also aware
that the United States has agreements with the United Kingdom
to jointly design and develop a common missile compartment
(CMC) module which would be used by both countries for
construction of next generation submarines.
The committee supports both the development of the CMC and
the cooperative manner in which research and design costs are
being shared by the United States and the United Kingdom.
However, the committee is aware of the combatant commanders'
desire for increased presence of the recently converted SSBN to
SSGN submarines due to the significant tactical strike and
special operations capability those platforms can deliver.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the design of the
CMC module account for a non-strategic use with minimal back-
fitting.
Surface combatants
The committee will closely monitor the costs to complete
the DDG 1000 class. The committee is encouraged by the
robustness of design completion prior to the start of
fabrication of the first ship. The committee expects the extra
effort to complete design prior to the start of construction
and the significant investment in infrastructure at the
construction yard will set a new standard for first of class
vessels in meeting target cost. However, the committee notes
that approximately $1.5 billion in research and development
efforts still need to be completed to realize the full combat
capability of the ship.
The committee supports the re-start of procurement of DDG
51 class destroyers. The committee supports the views of the
Chief of Naval Operations that these vessels are required to
counter emerging ballistic missile threats and for the conduct
of deep ocean anti-submarine warfare. Therefore, the committee
includes in title I of this Act, a provision that would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multi-year
procurement contract for additional DDG 51 destroyers.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $5.66
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $5.69 billion, an increase of $28.0 million,
for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Other Procurement, Navy programs are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Multi-climate protection system
The budget request contained $45.3 million for aviation
life support equipment, but only contained $0.3 million for
procurement of 187 multi-climate protection (MCP) systems.
The committee understands the MCP system is an abbreviated
acquisition program intended to develop a modular protective
clothing system which provides flame protection, thermal
protection, and sufficient insulation while reducing heat
stress and bulk commonly associated with cold weather clothing
systems. The committee notes that the Navy requirement is for
25,000 MCP systems but has only been appropriated funding thus
far to procure and field 10,388 MCP systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
aviation life support equipment to procure 3,148 additional MCP
systems.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $1.60
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.61 billion, an increase of $11.1 million,
for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Nitrile rubber collapsible storage units
The budget request contained $35.1 million for tactical
fuel systems, but included no funds for additional nitrile
rubber collapsible storage units.
The committee understands that extreme environmental
conditions in Operation Iraqi Freedom have caused premature
degradation of polyurethane collapsible systems used in
storing, receiving, transferring, and dispensing fuel and
liquid bulk in support of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTF)
operations. The committee is aware that nitrile rubber
collapsible storage units would alleviate failure risk and fill
capacity limitations associated with current polyurethane
collapsible systems involved in MAGTF overseas contingency
operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.1 million for
additional nitrile rubber collapsible storage units.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $12.0
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $11.6 billion, a decrease of $343.1
million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are
discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
C-130 avionics modernization program
The budget request contained $565.2 million for C-130
modifications, of which $209.5 million was included for the
avionics modernization program (AMP).
The C-130 AMP is established to modernize 221 C-130H
aircraft with a common avionics suite and a standardized
cockpit configuration. The committee notes that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reports that delays in the start of
AMP production will result in the Department of the Air Force
executing the AMP funding provided for both fiscal years 2008
and 2009 in fiscal year 2010, and that since the AMP is now
approximately one year behind the planned procurement schedule,
AMP procurement funds planned for fiscal year 2010 will not be
needed until fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends $355.7 million, a decrease of
$209.5 million, for C-130 modifications.
F-22A modifications
The budget request contained $350.7 million for procurement
of F-22A modifications.
The committee notes that $523.0 million was authorized and
appropriated for the advance procurement of 20 F-22As for
fiscal year 2009, that the Department of the Air Force will
procure only four additional F-22As, and that the Department of
the Air Force plans to obligate only $185.0 million of that
amount, leaving $338.0 million that could be applied to meet
fiscal year 2010 F-22A modification requirements.
The committee recommends $12.7 million, a decrease of
$338.0 million, for F-22A modifications.
KC-130J Harvest Hawk
The committee is aware that the Marine Corps has developed
a roll-on, roll-off technology that expands capability of the
KC-130J. The committee notes that the Harvest Hawk program will
enable the KC-130J to fulfill multiple missions individually or
simultaneously from refueling mission, including fire support
missions and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR) missions. The committee understands the challenging
environment that our military is operating in and notes that
the KC-130J Harvest Hawk could provide persistent manned ISR
support both day and night while also providing high precise
close air support. The committee is encouraged by the Marine
Corps' work with Harvest Hawk and their plan to increase the
capability of this aircraft in order to take advantage of the
extended endurance of the KC-130J. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to consider the Harvest
Hawk concept in order to determine if such capability could be
of benefit if also incorporated into the Department of the Air
Force fleet of C-130J aircraft, and provide a report to the
congressional defense committees on the findings by February 1,
2010.
KC-X
The committee notes that the KC-X program is planned to
replace the Department of the Air Force's KC-135 aerial
refueling tanker fleet, which now has an average aircraft age
of 47 years. The committee also notes that the KC-X program has
been subject to delays resulting from contractor protests to
the Government Accountability Office, and believes that further
delay in the acquisition of the KC-X aerial refueling tanker
could jeopardize Department of Defense requirements for global
mobility.
Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Department to
include the necessary funds in its Future Years Defense Program
to rapidly conduct source selection and to award a KC-X aerial
refueling tanker contract as expeditiously as possible.
Report on Air Force plan to address fighter force structure shortfalls
The committee notes that for the past year, the Department
of the Air Force has informed Congress that it requires 2,200
fighter aircraft, and that the Department projects a shortfall
in its fighter aircraft inventory that would begin in fiscal
year 2017 and grow to approximately 800 aircraft by 2024. The
committee believes that such a shortfall will adversely affect
the ability of the active duty forces and air reserve forces to
meet future requirements for both air expeditionary forces and
for the air sovereignty alert mission in the United States.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the Chief of the Air National Guard
and the Chief of the Air Force Reserve, to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2010. The
report should include statements from both the Chief of the Air
National Guard and the Chief of the Air Force Reserve
describing their separate and independent views to Congress, as
applicable. The report should address the so-called ``fighter
gap'' issue in the long- and short-term with alternative
solutions including but not limited to: accelerated procurement
of fifth generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35; an
interim procurement of so-called ``4.5 generation'' fighters;
and fleet management options such as service life extension
programs. The report must include a detailed analysis of the
effect that any shortfalls will have on the Air National Guard
and the air sovereignty alert mission specifically, including
the loss of Air National Guard flying missions throughout the
United States and the resultant loss of Air National Guard
pilot and maintenance capability.
Strategic airlift force structure
The committee notes that the current Mobility Capabilities
Study 2005 (MCS-05) identified a range of 292-383 strategic
airlift aircraft to meet global mobility requirements with
moderate risk. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and
Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary
Forces on February 25, 2009, the commander of the United States
Transportation Command testified that a force structure of 205
C-17s, 52 C-5Ms, and 59 C-5As modified with the avionics
modernization program, a total of 316 strategic airlift
aircraft, meets the requirement to transport 33.95 million ton-
miles per day. Additionally, the committee notes that the
previous commander of the United States Transportation Command
and now current Air Force Chief of Staff, in his letter to the
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on November
6, 2007, also identified 316 strategic airlift aircraft as the
``sweet spot'' to meet global mobility requirements.
The committee further notes that MCS-05 did not consider
the combined Army and Marine Corps increase of 92,000 soldiers
and Marines, a potential increase in strategic airlift
necessary to transport the Army's future combat systems, or the
prospect that future strategic mobility aircraft would be
utilized to conduct intra-theater airlift missions to move
outsized and oversized equipment as they are now being used in
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and believes that the results of MCRS-
16 should more accurately identify the inventory of strategic
airlift aircraft necessary to meet future strategic airlift
mobility requirements.
Accordingly, the committee believes that the long-term
strategic airlift force structure inventory required to meet
global mobility requirements may be subject to future
adjustment based on the results of the Mobility Capability
Requirement Study 2016 (MCRS-16) scheduled for completion in
December 2009, and encourages a continued dialogue between the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, senior uniformed military
officials, and the congressional defense committees. The
committee also recommends a provision elsewhere in this title
that would amend subsection (g)(1) of section 8062, United
States Code, by striking ``299'' and inserting ``316.''
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $822.5
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $822.5 million, the requested
amount, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in
the table below.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $6.3
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $6.2 billion, a decrease of $88.1
million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the
table below.
Items of Special Interest
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
The budget request contained $1.3 billion for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, of which $471.4
million is for launch services for five EELVs for satellite
launches scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2012.
One of the five launches scheduled for fiscal year 2012 is
for the eighth Global Positioning System (GPS) IIF satellite.
However, recently the Government Accountability Office was
provided documentation from the GPS program office indicating
that the launch for the eighth GPS IIF satellite had slipped
from fiscal year 2012 to the first quarter of fiscal year 2013.
Consequently, funding for this launch is not required in fiscal
year 2010. The Air Force estimates that the cost of the launch
vehicle is $88.1 million.
The committee recommends $1.2 billion, a decrease of $88.1
million, for procurement of EELVs.
Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor industrial base sustainment
The committee notes that the Administration's fiscal year
2010 budget request includes funding for a Solid Rocket Motor
Warm Line program to maintain sufficient industrial capability
for solid rocket motors in order to sustain the Minuteman III
weapon system through 2030 as directed by Congress. The
committee further notes that the fiscal year 2009 Unfunded
Requirements List provided to the committee by the Air Force
noted that production of six booster sets per year would
constitute a low-rate solid rocket motor sustainment production
capability while maintaining critical industrial skills,
certifications, and supplier base.
The committee has a strong interest in sustaining the
strategic deterrence industrial base, but remains concerned
that the Air Force to date has failed to develop a plan that
will sustain the ability of the service to fulfill the
strategic deterrent system.
The committee therefore directs the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, no later than February 1, 2010, to provide a report
to Congress on the plan to sustain the solid rocket motor
industrial base, including capability requirements, solid
rocket motor production rates, and a description of how the
fiscal year 2010 funds will be allocated.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $17.29
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $17.30 billion, an increase of $6.7
million, for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are
discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced reconfigurable containers
The budget request contained $8.2 million for items less
than $5.0 million for base support, but included no funds for
advanced reconfigurable containers.
The committee recognizes these funds would be used to
procure additional advanced reconfigurable containers that are
lightweight, collapsible mobility containers designed to be
rapidly deployed with aviation support teams. The committee
notes these containers are capable of independent movement and
are used extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The committee recommends $9.9 million, an increase of $1.7
million, to procure additional advanced reconfigurable
containers for use in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Eagle vision
The budget request contained $22.0 million for intelligence
communications equipment, but included no funds to procure a
one-meter infra-red imagery system for the South Carolina Air
National Guard's (ANG) Eagle Vision program, or for an Eagle
Vision III system for the California ANG. The Eagle Vision
program is a family of systems that provide commercial imagery
data to operational commanders for mission planning and
intelligence support purposes.
The committee understands that the Eagle Vision one-meter
infra-red imagery system would provides the South Carolina ANG
a capability to better plan emergency responses by viewing
objective areas through clouds and smoke, and recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for an Eagle Vision one-meter infra-
red imagery system for the South Carolina ANG.
The committee understands that an Eagle Vision III system
would provide the California ANG with a capability to respond
to natural or man-made disasters, military contingencies,
maritime surveillance and search and rescue operations with
high-resolution imagery, and recommends an increase of $4.0
million for an Eagle Vision III system for the California ANG.
The committee recommends $28.0 million for intelligence
communications equipment, an increase of $6.0 million.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $3.98
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends
authorization of $4.15 billion, an increase of $166.2 million,
for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2010
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed
following the table.
Rapid Acquisition Fund
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2010 contained $79.3
million for Rapid Acquisition Fund. The committee recommends
authorization of $55.0 million, a decrease of $24.3 million,
for fiscal year 2010. The committee recommendations for the
fiscal year 2010 Rapid Acquisition Fund are identified in the
table below.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization OF Appropriations
Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
2010 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Section 105--National Guard and Reserve Equipment
This section would authorize $600.0 million for the
procurement of aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat
vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small arms,
tactical radios, non-system training devices, logistic
automation systems, and other critical dual-use procurement
items for the National Guard and Reserves as part of a specific
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). The
committee expects National Guard and Reserve forces to use this
NGREA funding to procure high-priority equipment that would be
used by these units in their critical dual-mission role of
full-spectrum combat operations and domestic civil support
missions.
Section 106--Rapid Acquisition Fund
This section would provide $55.0 million for the Rapid
Acquisition Fund.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for Army Tactical
Radios
This section would restrict the obligation of funds for all
Army tactical radio sets except for those approved by the joint
tactical radio system joint program office and those
specifically procured to meet an operational needs statement or
joint urgent operational need statement.
Section 112--Procurement of Future Combat Systems Spin Out Early-
Infantry Brigade Combat Team Equipment
This section would limit the Army to procurement of one
brigade set of Future Combat Systems Spin Out Early Infantry
Brigade Combat Team equipment in order to allow for adequate
testing prior to full-rate production. There is an exception
for meeting operational need statements.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Littoral Combat Ship Program
This section would strike section 124 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), as amended, with a restructured cost cap provision that
contains similar requirements as cost caps of other ship
programs. Additionally, the section would authorize the
Secretary to obligate funds authorized and appropriated to the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program to compile a technical data
package necessary for competitive bidding of the vessels to
other shipbuilding contractors if the Secretary was unable to
enter into construction contracts in fiscal year 2010 with the
current contractors due to limitations of the cost cap. The
changes to the limitation on cost for LCS, made by subsection
(a), (c), and (f) are not effective until the Secretary of the
Navy accepts delivery of LCS 1 and LCS2 and makes certain
certifications to the congressional defense committees.
Section 122--Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier Report and Limitation on the
Use of Funds
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 1, 2010 on the effects and cost impacts of using a
five-year interval to construct Ford-class aircraft carriers,
including the cost to other shipbuilding programs, such as
Virginia-class submarines and refueling and complex overhaul of
the current aircraft carrier fleet. This section would also
limit the use of funds provided in fiscal year 2010 for the
aircraft carrier CVN 79, to prohibit the Secretary from taking
any action that would impede his ability to begin construction
of CVN 79 in 2012 and CVN 80 in 2016, as previously planned.
Section 123--Advance Procurement Funding
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
use funds authorized and appropriated for advanced procurement
in shipbuilding and conversion, Navy, in addition to material
procurement, to enter into contracts for production planning
and other related support services that reduce overall
procurement lead time of the vessel. Additionally, this section
would authorize the Secretary to enter into contracts for
advance construction efforts for the aircraft carrier
designated CVN-79 if the Secretary determines that cost
savings, construction efficiencies, or workforce stability
would be achieved through the use of such contracts.
Section 124--Multiyear Procurement Authority for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and
EA-18G Aircraft
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract, beginning in
fiscal year 2010, for the procurement of F/A-18E/F and EA-18G
aircraft.
Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for DDG-51 Burke-class
Destroyers
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract, beginning in
fiscal year 2010, for the procurement of Burke-class DDG 51
destroyers.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Repeal of Certification Requirement for F-22A Fighter
Aircraft
This section would repeal section 134 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417).
Section 132--Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling for F-22
Fighter Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to develop a plan for the preservation and storage of unique
tooling related to the production of hardware and end items for
F-22 fighter aircraft which shall: ensure that the Secretary
preserves and stores such tooling in a manner that allows the
production of such hardware and end items to be restarted after
a period of idleness; identify the costs of restarting
production with respect to the supplier base of such hardware
and end items; and identify any contract modifications,
additional facilities, or funding that the Secretary determines
necessary to carry out the plan. This section would also
require that none of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2010 for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force be obligated or expended for activities
related to disposing of F-22 production tooling until 45 days
after the Secretary submits a report to Congress describing the
plan for the preservation and storage of unique tooling related
to the production of hardware and end items for F-22 fighter
aircraft.
Section 133--Report on 4.5 Generation Fighter Procurement
This section would require the Secretary of the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report on 4.5 generation fighter
aircraft procurement to the congressional defense committees
not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act which
shall include the following: the number of 4.5 generation
fighter aircraft for procurement for fiscal year 2011 through
2025 necessary to fulfill the requirement of the Air Force to
maintain not less than 2,200 tactical fighter aircraft; the
estimated procurement costs for those aircraft if procured
through single-year procurement contracts; the estimated
procurement costs for those aircraft if procured through
multiyear procurement contracts; the estimated savings that
could be derived from the procurement of those aircraft through
a multiyear procurement contract, and whether the Secretary
determines the amount of those savings to be substantial; a
discussion comparing the costs and benefits of obtaining those
aircraft through annual procurement contracts with the costs
and benefits of obtaining those aircraft through a multiyear
procurement contract; a discussion regarding the availability
and feasibility of F-35s in fiscal year 2015 through fiscal
year 2025 to proportionally and concurrently re-capitalize the
Air National Guard; and the recommendations of the Secretary
regarding whether Congress should authorize a multiyear
procurement contract for 4.5 generation fighter aircraft. This
section would also require the Secretary to submit the
certifications required under section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, at the time the budget is submitted for fiscal
year 2011 under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, if the Secretary recommends that Congress authorize a
multiyear contract for 4.5 generation fighter aircraft.
Section 134--Reports on Strategic Airlift Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force,
in consultation with the Director of the Air National Guard, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the
proposed force structure and basing of strategic airlift
aircraft at least 120 days before the date on which a C-5
aircraft is retired.
Section 135--Strategic Airlift Force Structure
This section would amend subsection (g)(1) of section 8062
of title 10, United States Code, by striking ``2008'' and
inserting ``2009,'' and by striking ``299'' and inserting
``316.''
Section 136--Repeal of Requirement to Maintain Certain Retired C-130E
Aircraft
This section would amend section 134 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181; 122 Stat. 31) by striking subsection (c), by re-
designating subsection (d) as subsection (c) and by striking
``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)'' in
subsection (b).
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Body Armor Procurement
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish, within each military service procurement account, a
separate procurement budget line item is assigned for body
armor investment and funding transparency.
The committee notes the total body armor program has
evolved from a $40.0 million program in 1999, to over $5.0
billion through 2009. This represents significant investment by
the military services for individual personnel protection and
the committee recognizes the importance of this program. The
committee believes the establishment of an individual
procurement line item beginning in 2011 would generate better
accountability and transparency in long-term planning,
programming, and investment by the military services for the
acquisition of body armor. Further, a long-term investment
strategy could better position the body armor industrial base
to rapidly respond to new threats or requirements as well as
accelerate the amount of investment by industry to further
advancements in survivability and weight reduction.
Section 142--Unmanned Cargo-Carrying-Capable Aerial Vehicles
This section would preclude funds authorized for the
Department of Defense from being used for the procurement of
Unmanned Cargo-Carrying-Capable Aerial Vehicles until the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics certify to
the congressional defense committees that a joint, common,
requirement for a Unmanned Cargo Carrying Capable Aerial
Vehicle type has been agreed to by the military services, the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $78.6 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $79.6 billion, an increase of $1.0
billion to the budget request.
Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $10.4 billion for Army
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $10.5 billion, an increase of
$100.0 million to the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced lightweight opaque ceramic armor
The budget request contained $55.9 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funds
to develop advanced lightweight opaque ceramic armor solutions.
The committee is aware that current opaque armor systems
used on tactical and combat vehicles for protection against
large improvised explosive devices and explosively formed
penetrators are extremely heavy and impact vehicle performance
and decrease vehicle lifecycle. The committee notes that
improvements in weight reduction without sacrificing
survivability could benefit vehicle platforms that require
improvements with balancing critical key performance parameters
of payload, protection, and performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.25 million in PE
62601A for advanced opaque glass ceramic armor systems.
Advanced nanoscale tungsten kinetic energy composites
The budget request contained $27.2 million in PE 62105A for
materials technology, but included no funds for advanced
nanoscale tungsten kinetic energy composites.
The committee understands the objective of this project
would be to develop partnerships with academia to further
research in advanced tungsten kinetic energy munitions. The
committee notes these munitions would enable the warfighter to
have increased stand-off protection while simultaneously
maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of lethal, kinetic
engagements against an enemy in a defilade position. The
committee is aware this technology could be used to accelerate
the replacement of depleted uranium materials which could be
considered a hazardous material.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62105A for research in advanced nanoscale tungsten kinetic
energy composites.
Army vehicle modernization plans
In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee expressed its concern that the Army's
mid-term and long-term vehicle modernization plans were
unrealistic and unaffordable given the Army's many other
funding needs. The committee noted that a critical element of
this unaffordable plan was the Army's desire to add an entirely
new additional fleet of Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles to
the Army, while also planning to indefinitely upgrade and
maintain current force vehicles.
The committee, as a result, supports the Department of
Defense's decision to terminate the manned ground vehicle
portion of the FCS program, conduct further analysis of the
Army's ground combat vehicle needs, and begin a separate Army
ground combat vehicle development program in fiscal year 2010.
The committee believes that the termination of the FCS vehicles
provides the Army with an opportunity to reconcile its desires
with available resources and create a vehicle modernization
plan that is affordable while also meeting the needs of today
and tomorrow. The committee also views the 2009 Quadrennial
Defense Review as an opportunity for the Army to modify, if
necessary, its current mix of brigade combat teams, which could
significantly impact ground combat vehicle requirements.
Last year, the committee also voiced its preference for the
Army to pursue low-risk approaches to increasing the capability
of ground combat systems in the inventory today, instead of
pursuing high-risk, high-cost efforts to prematurely replace
the current fleet of ground combat vehicles. The committee
still holds this view, and believes that the current fleet of
M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, M109A6 Paladin
artillery systems, M113 personnel carriers, and Stryker
vehicles remain effective due to the many billions of dollars
spent to upgrade and recapitalize these vehicles since 2003.
However, the committee recognizes that continued upgrades for
all of these platforms are essential if they are to maintain
their battlefield effectiveness against all possible threats.
Of the current fleet of vehicles, the committee believes
that the Army should prioritize upgrades to M1 Abrams tanks,
M109A6 Paladins, and the Stryker family of vehicles. The
committee believes that replacing the M1 Abrams tank with a
system that provides equal protection and firepower is too
technically challenging in the near- to mid-term. As a result,
the committee would support an aggressive program to upgrade
the M1 Abrams tank, with a more fuel-efficient engine, an
improved digital communications suite, the ability to fire
beyond line-of-sight munitions, an active protection system,
and other improvements. The committee believes that, given the
termination of the non-line of sight cannon element of the FCS
program, the Army must accelerate the existing Paladin
Integrated Management program in order to ensure that Army
indirect fire systems remain fully capable across the full
spectrum of conflict. In the case of the Stryker fleet, the
committee would support a plan to conduct a fleet-wide upgrade
program that integrates, as priority elements, new digital
communications, improved vehicle automotive performance,
survivability enhancements, and an active protection system.
With regard to the M2 Bradley and M113 fleets, the
committee believes that these vehicles are the most appropriate
candidates for replacement by the new Army ground combat
vehicle program, based on technical feasibility and current
capability, and that the M2 Bradley program's current funding
for upgrades is adequate to meet requirements in the near-term.
However, the committee urges the Army to also consider, in its
analysis of alternatives, domestic production of any currently
available vehicle that, with selected modifications, provides a
significant upgrade in comparison to the M2 Bradley or M113.
The committee notes that this approach enabled the Army to
rapidly field the Stryker family of vehicles. This approach
could save significant time and funds in comparison to
embarking upon an entirely new vehicle design, while also
expanding the defense industrial base for ground combat vehicle
manufacture. The committee also urges the Army to consider, as
part of the analysis of alternatives, a mix of modernized
Stryker and M2 vehicles as possible replacements for the M113
fleet.
While the committee understands that the Army must conduct
significant analysis to make these decisions, the committee
requires an understanding of where the Army is heading in order
to complete the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by September 1, 2009, that defines the Army's new
ground combat vehicle program, explains all alternatives
considered during the analysis of alternatives process, and
provides initial cost and schedule estimates.
Autonomous sustainment cargo container
The budget request contained $36.0 million in PE 64804A for
logistics and engineer equipment, but contained no funds for
the development of autonomous sustainment cargo containers
(ASCC).
The ASCC system consists of a propulsion module and an
optional bow module that would attach to commercial cargo
containers that would provide for cargo container self-
propulsion, as well as deployment of cargo containers from
offshore logistics and commercial vessels. The committee
understands the ASCC system would be comprised of 90 percent
commercial-off-the-shelf and non-developmental technology that
would be compatible with current commercial and military supply
sustainment systems. The committee notes this technology could
improve and streamline joint logistics over-the-shore
operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE
64804A for the development and demonstration of ASCC systems in
joint logistics over-the-shore operations.
Body armor requirements and test and evaluation
The committee believes body armor requirements for the
military services should be coordinated through the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System process. The
committee encourages the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
to review and, if required, update the current body armor
requirements document through capabilities based assessments
that would clearly define current and future force
requirements, particularly in the area of weight reduction
versus protection. The tradeoff between protection capabilities
and weight is a major cost driver in body armor procurements.
It has become a major source of contention related to the
measures of protection body armor must provide. The committee
notes available technology has not been able to keep the system
within the users' desired weight without sacrificing
performance.
The committee understands the Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps have
publicly acknowledged the critical importance of lightening the
warfighter's load for current operations, specifically in
Operation Enduring Freedom, and considers this a high priority
issue. The committee believes there should be urgency in
tailoring equipment to meet the operational demands in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee is aware most
operations in Afghanistan are dismounted operations. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider
establishing and resourcing a temporary Department-wide task
force to help accelerate advancements and efforts in weight
reduction initiatives for body armor systems that could be
readily fielded to the warfighter. The committee notes
previous, similar task forces such as the Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected Vehicle Task Force and the Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance Task Force were established to address high
priority joint urgent operational requirements for Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and have had
great success.
The committee also concurs with the Department of Defense
Inspector General's recommendation that the Department
standardize testing and evaluation of body armor components.
The use of common test and evaluation standards by all military
departments and functional commands will improve the
Department's ability to rapidly procure body armor and increase
the Department's confidence in the level of protection provided
to the warfighter. The committee believes the use of common
test and evaluation standards would also allow commercial
ballistic test facilities and body armor component producers to
more quickly and more effectively respond to the Department's
current, and future, requirements for body armor.
The committee notes that the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) has authority for oversight of body armor
testing and is aware that the DOT&E is leading an effort to
develop and standardize body armor test procedures for use
across the Department. The committee believes it is critical
these test procedures ensure that all procured body armor
components consistently meet the warfighters' requirements
since body armor is the last line of defense for the
warfighter. Therefore, the committee recommends DOT&E to seek
peer review of the proposed standardized test and evaluation
procedures from ballistics experts in other federal agencies
and departments before finalizing these procedures. The
committee is aware that such expertise resides in the
Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and in the National Institute of Justice. The
committee also recommends that representatives from commercial
ballistics test facilities be given an opportunity to comment
on the draft test and evaluation standards before final
versions are issued.
The committee is also aware of the Secretary of the Army's
recent policy decision that directs the Army Test and
Evaluation Command to conduct all body armor Lot Acceptance
Testing (LAT) at the Army's Aberdeen Test Center. The committee
believes that this policy decision may be too restrictive and
could be discounting validated, cost-effective, and proven
surge-capable LAT services. The committee believes that this
policy decision should consider the demonstrated capability and
proven capacity of both government and commercial ballistic
test facilities against rigorous, standardized, comprehensive
test protocols and procedures for body armor systems, that
guarantees this critical, life saving equipment performs to
required specifications and would be delivered in a timely and
urgent manner to the warfighter. The committee encourages the
Army to allow for DOT&E to finalize its standardized test
procedures for the military services before implementing any
unilateral policy decisions regarding body armor test and
evaluation.
Cellulose nanocomposite panels for ballistic protection
The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 62784A for
military engineering technology, but included no funds for the
development of cellulose nanocomposite panels for ballistic
protection.
The committee understands the purpose of this project would
enhance ballistic properties of lightweight, rapidly erectable
field structures, as well as class IV construction materials,
through the development of low-cost, high-performance
nanocomposites. The committee notes this technology could
accelerate the Army's capability in addressing immediate
requirements for blast and ballistic modular protective
structures to meet different threat levels in overseas
contingency operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62784A for the development of cellulose nanocomposite panels
for ballistic protection.
Dual mode mortar semi-active laser integration
The budget request contained $66.4 million in PE 63004A for
weapons and munitions advanced technology, but included no
funds for dual mode mortar semi-active laser (SAL) integration.
Dual mode mortar SAL integration is an initiative to
develop and produce global position system (GPS)-guided
precision mortar rounds, with an integrated semi-active laser
technology for increased accuracy and lethality. The committee
is aware of an urgent operational needs statement (ONS) from
the XVIII Airborne Corps seeking a material solution for a lack
of precision indirect fire support in Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
The committee notes that the Army, in response to this ONS,
has initiated the accelerated precision mortar initiative with
the objective to expedite a GPS precision-guided mortar
capability to the warfighter in OIF and OEF. The committee
supports this initiative, and encourages the Army to rapidly
field a solution that fully satisfies the requirement specified
in the ONS. The committee believes a SAL could provide
increased accuracy and even greater precision than a GPS-only
solution.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE
63004A to further the development of SAL capability for
precision-guided mortars.
Electric vehicle charging network
The budget request contained $5.9 million in PE 63734A for
military engineering advanced technology but contained no funds
for the electric vehicle charging network.
The committee is aware that Executive Order 13423 requires
federal agencies to use plug in hybrid vehicles when
commercially available at a comparable cost and to reduce
annual petroleum consumption. The committee supports
development of an electric vehicle charging network in Hawaii
to help the Department of Defense meet its petroleum reduction
goals.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
63734A for the electric vehicle charging network.
Future Combat Systems
The budget request contained $2.9 billion for the Future
Combat Systems (FCS) program. Of this total, approximately
$426.8 million was requested to cover contract termination
costs related to the pending cancellation of the eight FCS
manned ground vehicles (MGV), with the remaining funds
requested to continue work on the software, network, and spin-
out equipment elements of the program.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 108-106) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the
committee first expressed its support for the overall goal of
the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, stating that ``the
committee supports the Army's transformational objectives of
achieving a more agile, light, and lethal objective force.'' In
the same report, the committee also, for the first time, noted
a series of concerns regarding the budget, structure, and
schedule for the program, pointing out that ``the Army is
embarking on a System Development and Demonstration program of
major technical complexity, which to date is largely undefined
with regard to architecture, requirements, schedule and cost .
. . the key performance parameters are of such a general
nature, lacking any metrics, that many current Army systems
meet the key performance parameters, precluding a need for a
new program . . . [and that] layered management overly
insulates senior Army management from FCS program managers.''
Over the following five years, in authorizing legislation
covering fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the committee, while
supporting the fundamental ideas behind the FCS program,
expressed ever more acute concerns with the specific budget,
technology, and schedule of the program. As a result, the
committee initiated a series of oversight measures, including
an annual review by Government Accountability Office (GAO)
experts, independent cost estimates, and other outside
analysis, in an effort to encourage the Army to fundamentally
reshape the program into a more realistic and affordable
effort. The committee also reduced funding for the program by a
total of approximately $1.0 billion, which was just six percent
of the total $18.0 billion requested over the same time period.
Six years later, the committee believes that the
fundamental problems faced by the FCS program in 2003 were, for
the most part, never resolved, and have now led the Army into a
position where key program elements will be delayed or
terminated despite the FCS program consuming more than $18.0
billion in research and development funding between 2003 and
2009. The committee acknowledges that a small number of
prototype ground and air robotic platforms have been fielded
from the FCS program. However, the committee believes, that
overall, the FCS program fell victim to faults common to many
troubled Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition programs,
including unclear and changing requirements, immature
technology, unrealistic cost estimates, and an inability to
deliver promised capabilities on time. While the committee
commends the many thousands of individual soldiers, Army
civilians, and contractors who worked tirelessly to make the
FCS program a success, it believes that these efforts were
ultimately not properly managed.
Public statements and testimony from Department and Army
leaders indicate that before the end of fiscal year 2009, the
Army will terminate the FCS brigade combat team program, and
what was once the FCS program will devolve into three separate
major defense acquisition programs. The committee supports this
overall approach to harvesting the work done to date on the FCS
program while also placing its derivative elements on realistic
schedules, with solid cost estimates, and achievable
requirements. However, the committee continues to have specific
concerns with how these three new programs move forward, due in
a large degree to the lack of detailed information provided to
the committee, in the 2010 budget request, on how the new
programs will evolve. The committee's views on the evolution of
the terminated FCS manned ground vehicle are specified
elsewhere in this report.
With regard to future spin-outs of FCS equipment, the
committee continues to support providing any equipment that is
ready for combat to troops in the field as soon as possible.
The committee understands that the first such spin-out effort
will be seven brigade sets of equipment under the early
infantry brigade combat team (E-IBCT) program, and that there
are initial plans to continue to field FCS equipment to all
Army infantry brigade combat teams (IBCT), but that beyond the
spin-outs to IBCTs, the Army has yet to develop a plan for
fielding FCS equipment to the Army's more than 200 other
brigades. The committee encourages the Army to focus the next
set of spin-out equipment on Army heavy brigade combat teams or
Stryker brigade combat teams. In particular, the committee
believes that the active protection system (APS), mast mounted
sight (MMS), and platform soldier mission-readiness system (PS-
MRS) elements of the FCS program should be prioritized for the
next FCS spin-out, or transferred to other vehicle
modernization programs that require them, such as the M1E3
Abrams, and Stryker-Mod programs. The committee encourages the
Army to protect the work done to date, through reprogrammings
or other budget adjustments, on these elements of the FCS
program in fiscal year 2009 as the Army restructures the FCS
program.
With regard to the network and software elements of the FCS
program, the committee believes that this aspect of the program
carries both the highest potential payoff in terms of new
military capability, and the greatest risk of additional cost
overruns if not properly scoped and managed. Since the
program's inception, the committee has supported the program's
goal of developing a ubiquitous, secure, flexible, and high-
capacity wireless battlefield network. The committee continues
to believe that, if achieved, this network capability could
lead to dramatic increases in the combat capability of all Army
forces. However, committee concerns regarding the budget and
schedule for this element of the program remain severe,
primarily due to the Department's history of software program
cost overruns, and the halting progress of critical enabling
Army programs such as the joint tactical radio system and the
warfighter information network--tactical programs. For example,
the committee notes with concern that the network hardware and
software element of the FCS request for fiscal year 2010
includes a $415.0 million cost increase. As the Army converts
the FCS network and software program into a separate program of
record, the committee urges the Army to create a program that
fields new network capability in detailed increments, each of
which have realistic schedules, cost estimates, and
requirements. In addition, the committee believes that the Army
must integrate upgrades to its current battlefield network
capability into these new increments, to ensure that at the end
of the process the Army has one network program, not two or
more.
Finally, the committee notes that the completion of the FCS
preliminary design review on May 15, 2009, begins the 120-day
period at the end of which the Secretary of Defense must
provide the congressional defense committees with the milestone
review report on the FCS program, as required by section 214 of
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-354). Absent the termination of the
entire FCS program, the committee directs that this report
should be delivered by September 13, 2009, and provide, in
addition to the content required by statute, a detailed update
on the status of the program. This update should include a
description of the specific contract actions taken since
submission of the fiscal year 2010 budget request, any
reprogrammings impacting what remains of the FCS program, the
plan for allocation of unexecuted fiscal year 2009 FCS funding,
and the specific requirements, updated cost estimates, and
schedules for future spin outs or network increments for which
fiscal year 2010 FCS funding may be allocated.
Future Combat Systems autonomous navigation system
The budget request contained $125.6 million in PE 64663A
for autonomous navigation system (ANS) development.
The committee notes that the Army is developing an onboard
ANS for Future Combat Systems (FCS) unmanned platforms. The
committee believes robotic systems using ANS could provide
soldiers enhanced force protection and combat effectiveness.
Beyond their role in the FCS program, the committee believes
that ANS technologies could also have a direct application to
current force operations. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report, by March 15, 2010, to
the congressional defense committees laying out the cost,
schedule, and feasibility of implementing ANS technologies and
capabilities on existing Army manned and unmanned platforms.
The committee recommends $125.6 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64663A for FCS autonomous vehicle navigation
system development.
Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles
The budget request contained $368.6 million in PE 64660A
for Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicle (MGV)
contract termination costs.
The committee notes that $744.6 million in fiscal year 2009
funds for FCS MGVs had not been executed as of April 30, 2009,
and that the Secretary of Defense has directed termination of
the MGV portion of the FCS program. Therefore, the committee
believes that unexecuted fiscal year 2009 funds will be more
than adequate to cover any possible termination costs to the
government, and that the fiscal year 2010 request for
additional termination funds is not justified.
The committee recommends $100.0 million, a decrease of
$268.6 million, in PE 64660A for FCS manned ground vehicle
development.
Future Combat Systems unattended ground sensors
The budget request contained $26.9 million in PE 64664A for
Future Combat Systems (FCS) unattended ground sensor (UGS)
development.
The committee understands that units will employ UGS to
provide remote perimeter defense, surveillance, target
acquisition, and situational awareness. Prototype versions of
UGS sensors are currently fielded to the Army Evaluation Task
Force, where soldiers are exploring optimizing applications for
the sensors in an expanding variety of tactical scenarios. The
committee notes that the Army plans to field the UGS capability
as rapidly as possible as part of the FCS first ``spin-out''
effort. The committee continues to support any effort that puts
mature enhanced capabilities into our combat units as soon as
possible. The committee understands that the current approved
acquisition strategy allows for direct procurement of the UGS
system outside of the current prime contract. The committee
believes the Army should pursue the most cost-effective
solution prior to making a full-rate production decision.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, by
March 15, 2010, that addresses the potential business case
analysis for or against multi-source procurement of FCS UGS
prior to making a full-rate production decision. The report
should include the viability of integrating existing current
force UGS systems into the FCS UGS development program.
The committee recommends $26.9 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64664A for FCS unattended ground sensors
development.
Heavy duty hybrid electric vehicle demonstration
The budget request contained $89.5 million in PE 63005A for
combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but included
no funds for the demonstration of low-emission and fuel-
efficient hybrid electric engine propulsion systems for heavy
tactical wheeled vehicles (TWV).
The committee understands low emission and fuel efficient
hybrid electric engine propulsion systems could be used to
develop and demonstrate next generation hybrid electric
powertrains on up to five heavy tactical wheeled vehicles. The
committee is aware that prior year funds have been appropriated
for and Air Force first-generation hybrid electric heavy
tactical wheeled vehicle program and the committee expects the
Army to leverage results from the Air Force Program.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63005A for the continued refinement of system development and
demonstration of a low emission and fuel efficient hybrid
electric engine propulsion system for the Army's heavy tactical
wheeled vehicle fleet.
Independent assessment of the Human Terrain System
The committee continues to support the concept behind the
Human Terrain Teams (HTT) and the overall Human Terrain System
(HTS). In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee expressed support for expansion of the
HTT concept, including to other combatant command areas of
responsibility.
The committee is aware of anecdotal evidence indicating the
benefits of the program supporting operations in the Republic
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee
also notes that a number of press accounts provide anecdotal
evidence indicating problems with management and resourcing.
The committee finds it difficult to evaluate either set of
information in the absence of reliable, empirical data.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an independent assessment of the Human Terrain
System, and submit to the congressional defense committees a
report detailing that assessment by March 1, 2010. The
independent assessment should consider the following elements:
(1) An overview of all of the components of HTS,
including related technology development efforts;
(2) The adequacy of the management structure for HTS;
(3) The metrics used to evaluate each of the
components of HTS;
(4) The adequacy of human resourcing and recruiting
efforts, including the implications of converting some
contractor positions to government positions;
(5) An identification of skills that are not resident
in government or military positions, and how the Army
can leverage academic networks or contracting
opportunities to fill those gaps;
(6) An identification of policy or regulatory issues
hindering program execution; and
(7) The potential to integrate HTS capabilities into
existing exercises.
Joint fires and effects trainer system enhancements
The budget request contained $19.4 million in PE 63015A for
next generation training and simulation systems, but included
no funds for joint fires and effects training system (JFETS)
enhancements.
The JFETS call for fire training capability would improve
the warfighter's ability to synchronize fires and effects
across joint service platforms, to include close air support,
precision artillery support, and support from air and missile
defense units. The committee is aware the JFETS program has
trained over 5,000 soldiers; however, currently only one
soldier can be trained at a time. The committee understands the
JFETS program could be improved to allow for a single
instructor to manage nine concurrent sessions.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
63015A, to further the development of training enhancements for
the JFETS program to create efficiencies in training.
Joint land attack cruise missile defense elevated netted sensor system
The budget request contained $360.1 million in PE 12419A
for development of the joint land attack cruise missile defense
elevated netted sensor system (JLENS).
The committee notes that the JLENS program recently
experienced a schedule and cost breach of its acquisition
program baseline due to an Army decision to withhold
procurement funding in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, the
committee does not believe the program will require the full
amount requested for continued system development and
demonstration.
The committee recommends $238.1 million, a decrease of
$122.0 million, in PE 12419A for the JLENS program.
Landmine warfare/barrier program
The budget request contained $82.3 million in PE 64808A for
landmine warfare/barrier development. Of this amount, $42.6
million was requested for development of the airborne
surveillance, target acquisition, and minefield detection
system and the ground standoff mine detection system.
The committee understands that these two sensor packages
are primarily designed for use on the Future Combat Systems
(FCS) class IV unmanned aerial system and the FCS multi-
function utility/equipment logistics unmanned vehicle. The
committee notes that the FCS brigade combat team program will
soon be terminated, and that these two FCS elements are not
part of any planned FCS spin-out. Therefore, the committee does
not believe that funding requested for the sensor packages for
these FCS elements is properly aligned with what remains of the
FCS program.
The committee recommends $61.0 million, a decrease of $21.3
million, in PE 64808A for landmine warfare/barrier development.
Of the funds authorized, the committee expects the Army to
fully fund the Scorpion--intelligent munitions system, which
also has funding in this program element.
Manned ground vehicle program
The budget request contained $100.0 million in PE 65625A
for a new Army manned ground vehicle (MGV) program.
The committee understands that the funds requested in this
line will be used to conduct analysis of alternatives,
requirements development, technology assessments, and cost-
estimating activities related to a new major defense
acquisition program for Army manned ground vehicles. The
committee further understands that the Army does not intend to
complete the initial conceptual work on this program until
September 2009, and that the number, class, and type of
vehicles this program will develop have yet to be determined.
Therefore, the committee does not believe that the full amount
requested is justified or necessary to conduct early, pre-
milestone A work on this program.
The committee recommends $50.0 million, a decrease of $50.0
million, in PE 65625A for Army manned ground vehicle
development.
Mid-range munition program
The budget request contained $33.9 million in PE 63639A for
tank and medium-caliber ammunition research and development. Of
this amount, no funds were requested for the mid-range munition
(MRM) program.
The committee notes that, although tied to the Future
Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicle development program,
the MRM round could be integrated into an improved M1 Abrams
tank design, and could provide significant beyond-line-of-sight
capability the M1 Abrams currently lacks. The committee
believes that the MRM program requires funding from the Army in
fiscal year 2010 to preserve the work done to date on this
program and, if possible, to keep it on its current schedule.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver a
report to the congressional defense committees, by March 15,
2010, explaining the Army's future plans for the MRM program.
Non-line of sight cannon
The budget request contained $58.2 million in PE 64647A for
non-line of sight cannon (NLOS-C) contract termination costs.
The committee notes that $236.5 million in fiscal year 2009
funds for NLOS-C development, procurement, and advanced
procurement had not been executed as of April 30, 2009, and
that the Secretary of Defense has directed termination of the
NLOS-C program. Therefore, the committee believes that
unexecuted fiscal year 2009 funds for the NLOS-C program will
be more than adequate to cover any possible termination costs
to the government, and that the fiscal year 2010 request for
additional termination funds is not justified.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $58.2
million, in PE 64647A for NLOS-C development.
Optimizing Natural Language Processing of Open Source Intelligence
The budget request contained $41.6 million in PE 63772A for
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology, but
contained no funding for the Optimizing Natural Language
Processing of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) project.
The OSINT project would support a cooperative effort
between the State University of New York at Buffalo and its
partners to design and build a prototype text analytics and
extraction tool for use by the Army for more effective
intelligence analysis and decision-making in asymmetric warfare
situations.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63772A for the Optimizing Natural Language Processing of Open
Source Intelligence project.
PacCom renewable energy security system
The budget request contained $5.9 million in PE 63734A for
military engineering advanced technology but included no funds
for the PacCom renewable energy security system.
The committee recognizes that over 90 percent of the energy
consumed in Hawaii is imported from out of state and that this
creates an inherent energy security risk. The committee
supports the PacCom renewable energy security system's
collaborative demonstration project to produce renewable fuel
and enhance energy security in Hawaii.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63734A for the PacCom renewable energy security system.
RAND Arroyo Center
The budget request contained $16.3 million in PE 65103A for
the RAND Arroyo Center.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee expressed its concern about reductions
in the Army's budget request for the RAND Arroyo Center, and
urged the Army to provide stable funding for the RAND Arroyo
Center in future budget requests. Unfortunately, the budget
request for fiscal year 2010 reduced funding for this program.
The committee recognizes the value of rigorous, objective
research and analysis produced by the Arroyo Center for the
senior leadership of the Army. Further, the committee believes
that the core program of the Arroyo Center must be effectively
and efficiently funded, prioritized, and managed.
The committee recommends $20.3 million, an increase of $4.0
million, in PE 65103A for the RAND Arroyo Center.
Review of condition-based maintenance architecture
The committee is concerned that as individual condition-
based maintenance solutions are being developed for systems,
subsystems, and components, the adherence to Department of
Defense Instruction 4151.22 for open architectural design has
not been consistently implemented. The committee encourages the
Department to adopt an industry standard for open system
architecture to ensure the implementation of condition-based
maintenance programs interfaces to military services, original
equipment manufacturers, and third party systems to meet the
performance, safety, reliability, availability, and cost-
reduction goals. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a review of the Department's condition-based
maintenance architecture, and also report the results of the
review to the congressional defense committees by September 30,
2010. The review should include the following:
(1) A determination if the condition-based
maintenance open system architecture requirement stated
in the Department of Defense Instruction 4151.22 has
been implemented by military services;
(2) The viability of open, standard software
architecture to provide diagnostic and prognostic
reasoning for systems, subsystems or components;
(3) A process for including open architecture for the
system, subsystem and component structures, diagnostics
tools, reference models, maintenance and diagnostics
reasoner electronic libraries, and user interfaces
across the military services; and
(4) An evaluation of industrial open architecture
standards for use by the Department.
Further, the committee also encourages the Secretary of
Defense to seek a peer review from the International
Organization for Standardization and S1000D Organization to
ensure the proposed standards would leverage commercial
approaches for an open architecture condition-based maintenance
programs.
Tactical metal fabrication
The budget request contained $55.9 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funds
for tactical metal fabrication (TacFab) system.
The TacFab system would demonstrate a tactically-mobile
rapid metal fabrication capability that would complement the
Army's mobile parts hospital program, as well as provide a
unique, stand-alone capability as a metal casting resource for
Army depots and arsenals in support of equipment reset
activities. The committee understands this would address a
theater requirement for a mobile foundry and could potentially
reduce the time required to produce parts by 90 percent.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE
62601A for tactical metal fabrication technology.
Warfighter information network--tactical
The budget request contained $180.7 million in PE 63782A
for warfighter information network--tactical (WIN-T)
development. Of this amount, $161.6 million was requested for
WIN-T increment 3 development.
The committee understands that a portion of the
requirements for the WIN-T increment 3 program are directly
related to the manned ground vehicle element of the Future
Combat Systems (FCS) program, which will be terminated in 2009.
The committee notes that until May 18, 2009, 50 percent of
fiscal year 2009 funding for WIN-T increment 3 was not
available for obligation pending Department of Defense actions
outlined in section 215 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
The committee also notes that of the $154.7 million available
for obligation on May 18, 2009, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics authorized only $99.0
million for obligation, pending an Army review of WIN-T
increment 3 requirements and cost estimates. Therefore, the
committee believes that the resulting program delays will
reduce funding needed in fiscal year 2010 for WIN-T increment 3
development efforts.
The committee recommends $165.7 million, a decrease of
$15.0 million, in PE 63782A for the WIN-T program. The
committee expects the Army to prioritize the funding authorized
for WIN-T increment 2 development.
Zero waste to landfill demonstration
The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63779A for
environmental quality technology but contained no funds for the
Washington State zero waste to landfill demonstration.
The committee believes that the Washington State zero waste
to landfill demonstration will further enable the military
services to meet their sustainability goals. The demonstration
will: perform a waste stream analysis at Fort Lewis to identify
materials currently dumped in landfills, which could be used by
the military or released to other users for less than the cost
of landfill; initiate the reuse of post-consumer materials
saved from landfill for use in concrete, asphalt, gypsum, and
other green materials; provide a report on data gained from the
demonstration to facilitate similar projects at other military
installations in Washington State; and validate the viability
and technology requirements achieve zero waste to landfill by
2025.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million in PE
63779A for the Washington State zero waste to landfill
demonstration.
Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $19.3 billion for Navy
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $19.6 billion, an increase of
$351.6 million to the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced energy storage technologies for unmanned undersea vehicles
The budget request contained $91.4 million in PE 62123N for
force protection applied research, containing $43.6 million for
the development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical,
and electrical technology, but contained no funds for advanced
energy storage technologies for unmanned undersea vehicles.
The committee notes the 2004 Navy Unmanned Undersea Vehicle
(UUV) Master Plan highlights advanced energy storage as a
critical technology necessary for supporting unmanned undersea
operational requirements. Additionally, the 2007 naval science
and technology strategic plan lists power and energy as a key
focus area for energy assurance to improve maritime freedom of
action. The committee agrees that to meet growing maritime
threats, current and future naval forces' require energy and
propulsion capabilities that provide sufficient power for
endurance, range, and speed requirements for the next
generation of UUVs.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62123N for the development of advanced energy storage and
propulsion technologies for use in UUVs.
Advanced linear accelerator facility
The budget request contained $74.9 million in PE 11221N for
strategic sub and weapons systems support, but included no
funds for the Crane linear accelerator (LINAC) facility.
The committee notes that the linear accelerator simulates
the high radiation environment in space and is a critical tool
for testing the effectiveness of electronic systems that are
deployed in space.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million in PE
11221N for the completion of the LINAC facility and urges the
Navy to use this research facility in coordination with the
goals of the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight
Council.
Advanced steam turbine
The budget request contained $1.7 million in PE 63513N for
shipboard system component development but contained no funding
for development of the advanced steam turbine.
The committee supports developing multiple technologies for
improved competition in the procurement of major equipment for
ships and submarines. Developing improved magnetic bearing
assemblies would provide a secondary turbine source for
improved competition in Virginia class submarines construction.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE
63513N for qualification of magnetic bearing assemblies in
advanced steam turbines.
Automated fiber optic manufacturing initiative for Navy ships
The budget request contained $90.0 million in PE 64567N for
ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation, but
included no funds for automated fiber optic manufacturing
initiative for Navy ships.
The committee understands the benefits of optical fiber and
notes its growing use in a number of current and future defense
platforms, including communication components for tactical
shipboard applications. The committee further notes that
current technology for the manufacture of fiber optic cable
assemblies requires a complex process performed manually adding
costs to production and field maintenance. The committee
applauds the recently completed efforts by the Office of Naval
Research manufacturing technology program to develop an
automated process to produce high quality factory terminated
fiber optic assemblies. The committee understands challenges
remain affecting larger scale deployment of fiber optic
technology aboard naval ships.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million in PE
64567N for the continued development of automated fiber optic
manufacturing initiative for Navy ships.
Common command and control system module
The budget request contained $154.8 million in PE 64558N
for new design SSN but contained no funding for development of
a common command and control system module (CCCS) for advanced
submarine construction.
The committee understands that development of a common
command and control system module for use on Virginia class
submarines (Blk IV/V), SSGN's, and the Ohio class submarine
replacement program will allow for rapid integration of new
technologies due to the highly reconfigurable CCCS.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
64558N for development of common command and control system
module.
Continuous active sonar for torpedo systems
The budget request contained $57.5 million in PE 63506N but
contained no funding for continuous active sonar (CAS)
technology.
The committee understands that CAS technology has been
shown to maximize sound energy on target allowing lower source
levels than used in current pulsed mid-frequency sonar system.
This technology has the potential to significantly enhance the
ability to detect, classify, and localize (DCL) incoming
hostile torpedoes.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63506N for continuous active sonar technology for torpedo DCL
systems.
Deployable autonomous distributed system
The budget request contained $24.8 million in PE 24311N for
integrated surveillance system but contained no funding for
continued development of deployable autonomous distributed
system (DADS).
The committee understands that development of a deployable
network of acoustic sensors which can be delivered from
multiple platforms is essential to combat the threat posed by
increasingly quiet diesel electric and nuclear powered
submarines in high contact density littoral environments.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in PE
24311N for continued development and testing of deployable
distributed systems.
Electronic warfare technology, doctrine and tactics development
The budget request contained $97.6 million in PE 64270N for
electronic warfare development.
The committee notes that electronic warfare is one of the
many critical components that contribute to successful U.S.
military operations. The committee believes that the Department
of Defense must be able to jointly exploit the full range of
the electromagnetic spectrum while denying the same capability
to our enemies. However, given the multiple approaches being
implemented within each of the military services regarding
electronic warfare, the committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense, as a whole, lacks a comprehensive and
coherent electronic warfare acquisition and implementation
strategy.
The committee notes that the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, at the request of the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command,
directed an Electronic Warfare Capabilities Based Assessment
that subsequently identified serious capability gaps that
should be addressed by the military departments. The study
notes that each of the military departments faces unique
challenges in four main areas: sustaining and modernizing
legacy electronic warfare equipment and assets; investing in
critical electronic warfare technologies to counter emerging
and future threats; training and equipping warfighters to
conduct electronic warfare operations in any conflict
environment; and, coordinating joint electronic warfare
capabilities and operations with the other military
departments.
For example, the Department of the Army is rebuilding its
electronic warfare community and capability and in February
2009 issued a doctrinal manual for electronic warfare
operations. However, the Army is years away from reestablishing
necessary electronic warfare expertise and the Army did not
coordinate or consult with either the Joint Staff or the other
military departments prior to the release of its doctrinal
manual. The Department of the Air Force has been slow to
determine its stand-off jammer requirements to meet established
electronic warfare capabilities and has been unable to provide
the congressional defense committees its mitigation plan to
fulfill that capability gap. The Department of the Navy is
successfully replacing the EA-6B Prowler with the EA-18G
Growler, but faces challenges in developing its next-generation
electronic attack capabilities and upgrading its ship
electronic warfare systems. Finally, the Marine Corps is trying
to fully integrate electronic warfare throughout its force, but
challenges exist regarding required fiscal resources and plans
for its next generation of electronic warfare systems.
The committee looks forward to working with the Department
of Defense on the recommendations identified in this study and
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64270N for
electronic warfare technology. The committee also includes a
provision in title X of this Act that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report concerning the
electronic warfare strategy of the Department of Defense.
Extended range joint stand-off weapon
The budget request contained $10.0 million in PE 64727N for
joint stand-off weapon systems, but contained no funds for the
extended range joint stand-off weapon (JSOW-ER).
The committee understands the Navy has a requirement for a
certain number of aircraft launched weapons to engage targets
beyond a range of 70 nautical miles, and that the Navy
currently fills that requirement with the Expanded Response
Stand-off Land Attack Missile (SLAM-ER), Harpoon missile, and
Tomahawk missile. The committee notes that the engine from the
Miniature Air-Launched Decoy program could be integrated into a
Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW) and could engage targets at more
than four times the current range of the JSOW missile and be
more cost-effective than current long-range stand-off missiles.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in PE
64727N for development of JSOW-ER.
Future generation thinline towed array
The budget request contained $560.8 million in PE 63561N
for advanced submarine development but contained no funding for
modernization efforts to produce the future generation thinline
towed array.
The committee understands that the TB 29A thinline towed
array system is the world's premier undersea acoustic sensor
and is in use on all classes of U.S. submarines. The TB 29A
delivers unprecedented information to the commander and has
unique capability, in concert with the ships' sonar and fire
control system, to detect, locate, and classify the most
challenging targets in the most challenging acoustic
environment. However, the current thinline array is susceptible
to failure of telemetry components due to frequent deployment
and retrieval. Additional funding is required to redesign
electronic connectors in the array to significantly improve
array reliability.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.7 million in PE
63561N for development of improved components of the thinline
towed array.
High density power conversion and distribution equipment
The budget request contained $5.6 million in PE 63573N for
advanced surface machinery systems but contained no funding for
development of high density power conversion and distribution
equipment.
The committee understands that surface ships' electrical
distribution systems are being tasked due to the increased
demand for electrical energy from new equipment and weapons
systems. Increasing voltage and current requirements require
advances in switchboard design, current interruptions devices,
and distribution systems. Additional funding will allow for
proof of concept and prototype development for new systems with
the capacity to handle the increased electrical loading of
naval surface ships.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE
63573N for development of high density power conversion and
distribution equipment.
High-Integrity Global Positioning System
The budget request contained $59.1 million in PE 63235N for
the High-Integrity Global Positioning System (HIGPS).
HIGPS is designed to develop the technology required to
demonstrate the capability to use the existing Iridium
satellite constellation to enhance current GPS navigation and
timing capabilities. The benefits of this approach have not
been sufficiently proven. Therefore, the committee does not
recommend funding for this request.
The committee recommends no funds in PE 63235N for the
High-Integrity Global Positioning System, a decrease of $59.1
million from the budget request.
Hybrid electric drive
The budget request contained $5.6 million in PE 63573N for
advanced surface machinery systems but contained no funding for
continued development and testing of hybrid electric drive
systems for surface combatants.
Hybrid electric drive systems have the potential to realize
significant savings in total overall fuel consumption for
surface combatants by allowing a much more efficient drive
system, coupled directly to the ships' reduction gears, to
propel the ship during periods of position keeping, loiter, and
low speed patrol. The committee believes the advancement of
this promising technology is vital in the effort to reduce
operation and maintenance costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63573N for the continued development of hybrid electric drive
technology for surface combatants.
Laser module assembly for Navy's acoustic sensors
The budget request contained $551.8 million in PE 63561N
for advance submarine system development but contained no
funding for continued development and test of a low cost laser
module assembly for Navy acoustic sensors.
The committee remains concerned with a closing acoustic
advantage gap enjoyed by the U.S. submarine force with the
advent of increasingly quiet diesel-electric drive submarines
proliferating throughout the world. To ensure our forces
maintain an acoustic advantage against potential adversaries,
the committee supports research and development efforts
exploring new technologies in acoustic and non-acoustic
detection, classification, and localization. The committee
understands the significant increase in capability that would
be realized with the maturity of laser technology in acoustic
detection systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63561N for the development of a low cost laser module assembly
for use with navy acoustic sensors.
Marine Corps assault vehicles
The budget request contained $293.5 million in PE 63611M
for expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV) research and
development.
The committee recognizes the need for the Marine Corps to
develop and field a new amphibious tracked vehicle in support
of the national military strategy requirement for amphibious
forcible entry capability. In addition, the committee
recognizes the potential risk to Navy ships in some
contingencies inherent in the limited off-shore range of the
Marine Corps' current amphibious assault vehicle, which was
first introduced in the early 1970s.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee noted its concern with the level of
protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and mine
threats provided by the EFV's design. Given the ubiquity of IED
attacks in current conflicts, the committee did not believe
that a flat-bottom EFV design would provide an adequate level
of protection. In response to these concerns, and after
conducting a review of protection enhancement options, the
Marine Corps committed to developing an armor applique kit for
EFVs that could significantly enhance the vehicle's protection
against IEDs. The committee supports this effort to improve the
vehicle's protection against this threat.
Further, the committee believes that the EFV should achieve
a protection level against IEDs equivalent to, or better than,
the protection level of the heaviest mine resistant ambush
protected (MRAP) vehicles in service today prior to low-rate
production beginning for the EFV. Given the high probability
that Marines operating EFVs in future conflicts will face the
threat of IEDs, the committee believes that achieving this
standard of protection for the vehicle should be a major factor
in Department of Defense oversight of the EFV program. In
addition, the committee is aware that there are design changes,
such as a flat-bed engine and other armor solutions, which
could afford additional protection when compared to the current
EFV applique armor kit design. The committee believes that
these and other survivability improvements could be implemented
as a product improvement program, even if not incorporated in
the initial production design.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit, by February 15, 2010, a report to the congressional
defense committees on survivability design aspects of the EFV
and its level of protection in comparison to MRAP vehicles,
against a range of threats, including but not limited to IEDs,
mines, rocket propelled grenades, and anti-tank guided
missiles. This report should also include analysis of EFV
survivability improvement options beyond the armor applique
kit, and the potential requirements, cost, and schedule
implications of EFV improvements that could better protect
against mine and IED threats.
The committee recommends $293.5 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63611M for EFV research and development.
Marine mammal awareness, alert, and response systems
The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare systems development but contained no
funds for the marine mammal awareness, alert, and response
systems.
The committee remains concerned with both the need to
protect marine mammals from adverse effects of mid-frequency
sonar and the need for the Navy to train using mid-frequency
sonar in a realistic environment. The committee understands
that development of the marine mammal awareness, alert, and
response system would significantly increase the Navy's ability
to monitor marine mammal activity in the vicinity of training
exercises using mid-frequency sonar.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63254N for the development of the marine mammal awareness,
alert, and response system.
Mold-in-place coating development for the U.S. submarine fleet
The budget request contained $154.8 million in PE 64558N
for new design SSN but contained no additional funding to
complete mold-in-place efforts for submarine bow domes.
The committee has consistently supported efforts to qualify
a non-autoclave process to produce non-pressure hull structures
for submarines. A non-autoclave process to produce composite
bow domes for submarines has been developed and has the
potential for significant cost reduction savings. Additional
funding is required to complete the bow dome system by
developing and certifying a mold-in-place process for the
manufacture of a rubber boot that will decouple the
hydrodynamic flow of the bow dome from the ships' sonar
receivers.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
64558N for continued development of mold-in-place technology
for a rubber isolation boot used in conjunction with a
composite bow dome.
Nanoelectronics, nanometrology and nanobiology initiative
The budget request contained $413.7 million in PE 61153N
for defense research sciences, but included no funds for the
nanoelectronics, nanometrology and nanobiology initiative.
The committee believes that a wide range of new fundamental
naval capabilities will depend on innovative concepts driven by
nanotechnology development. The committee further believes that
nanotechnology-based devices developed through merging
electronic and biological functionalities will enable critical
developments for high-performance sensors and medical
capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
61153N for the continued integration of nanotechnology-based
capabilities through the nanoelectronics, nanometrology and
nanobiology initiative.
Remote fuel assessment system
The budget request contained $104.1 million in PE 62236N
for warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no
funds for the development of a remote fuel assessment system
(RFAS).
The committee recognizes the RFAS would provide the Marine
Corps with a critical field capability to rapidly assess the
quality of cached and secure fuel supplies at key distribution
nodes without the extensive logistic support presently required
in current overseas contingency operations. The committee
understands this capability could be developed and demonstrated
in a relatively short timeframe and could prove to be a
critical combat enabler.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62236N for the rapid development and demonstration of RFAS
technology.
Standoff explosive detection system
The budget request contained $91.4 million in PE 62123N for
force protection applied research, but contained no funds for
standoff explosive detection systems.
The standoff explosive detection system program would
develop a mobile, vehicle mounted, improvised explosive device
(IED) detector that would safely detect explosives in a buried
IED from a safe standoff distance of 20 meters. The committee
is aware that IEDs are the primary weapons of choice by the
insurgency operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee
understands that IEDs are used as weapons of strategic and
tactical influence and continue to account for the majority of
casualties to the warfighter in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee supports rapid
advances in IED detection and mitigation and would encourage
joint solutions whenever possible.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62123N to begin the development of standoff explosives
detection systems.
Surface ship advanced capability build
The budget request contained $178.5 million in PE 64307N
for surface combatant combat system engineering, but contained
no funds for surface ship open architecture advanced capability
builds.
The committee understands that additional modeling
activities in the current advance capability build will allow
for risk mitigation in rapid capability insertion of processes
for future combat system upgrades.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
64307N for open architecture modeling for surface ship advanced
capability builds.
Trigger and alert sonobuoy system project
The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare systems development but contained no
funds for the trigger and alert sonobuoy system project.
The committee remains concerned with both the need to
protect marine mammals from adverse effects of mid-frequency
sonar and the need for the Navy to train using mid-frequency
sonar in a realistic environment. The committee understands
that the trigger and alert sonobuoy system project would
provide invaluable information about marine mammals and their
environment that could not be gained by other means and would
lead directly to methods to improve the Navy's ability to
mitigate impacts on the marine environment.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63254N for the trigger and alert sonobuoy system project.
VH-71 Presidential helicopter program
The budget request contained $85.2 million for cancellation
costs of the VH-71 Presidential helicopter recapitalization
program recently terminated by the Secretary of Defense.
The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense
announced on April 6, 2009 the cancellation of the VH-71
program based on excessive cost growth and schedule delays. The
committee is disappointed that the Navy has invested $3.3
billion in this program to date. The committee is also
disappointed that the Navy's acquisition system was not
provided adequate support, resources, and authority by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the White House
Military Office (WHMO) to execute a successful acquisition
program. The committee understands that despite the many
warnings and expert advice from the Government Accountability
Office, Navy acquisition officials were directed by OSD and
WHMO to execute a schedule-driven program and were unable to
adequately synchronize and adhere to prudent acquisition
practices.
The committee supports a new acquisition plan which may
incorporate more than a one platform solution to the needs of
the President. The committee notes that a June 5, 2009
Congressional Research Service (CRS) report cites Navy
estimates that a new acquisition program would cost $10.0 to
$17.0 billion. Therefore, the committee strongly suggests that
the Department of Defense consider continuing procurement of
the current ``increment 1'' helicopter for use as the normal
transport for the President, and study other alternatives for
Presidential transport in other situations. The committee notes
that this approach will leverage on the investment already made
by the taxpayer in developing a helicopter that would meet all
normal requirements of the President.
Wave energy power buoy generating system
The budget request contained $4.0 million in PE 63725N for
facilities improvement but contained no funds for the wave
energy power buoy generating system.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
many goals in place relating to the use of renewable energy for
installations. The committee understands that the wave energy
power buoy generating system will help the Department meet its
renewable energy goals.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63725N for the wave energy power buoy generating system.
Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $28.0 billion for Air Force
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $28.5 billion, an increase of
$500.0 million to the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced Modular Avionics for Operationally Responsive Space Use
The budget request contained $104.1 million in PE 62601F
for space technology, but contained no funding for the Advanced
Modular Avionics for Operationally Responsive Space Use
project.
Developing modern modular avionics systems will enable a
dynamic input/output capability for a variety of satellite
systems, thereby bringing interoperability and
interchangeability to systems on tactical satellites.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE
62601F for the Advanced Modular Avionics for Operationally
Responsive Space Use project.
Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center
The budget request contained $196.5 million in PE 62203F
for aerospace propulsion, but contained no funding for the
Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center (AVPC).
The AVPC initiative is a unique, world-class analytical
environment for engineering, design, and development of current
and future propulsion systems, space vehicles, missiles, and
advanced weapon concepts at Edwards Air Force Base in
California. The center could save the Air Force millions of
dollars in future program costs through the integration of the
best engineering, design, analysis, and cost tools from
government, industry, and academia and by providing uniquely
sophisticated system optimization and support.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62203F for the Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center.
Air Force test and evaluation support
The budget request contained $736.5 million in PE 65807F
for Air Force test and evaluation support.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2010 request for
Air Force test and evaluation is $57.9 million below the level
projected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The committee
further notes that the other six program elements that support
Air Force test and evaluation were a combined $24.4 million
below fiscal year 2009 budget projections. The committee is
concerned that these reductions could, over time, reduce the
Air Force's ability to provide adequate test and evaluation
support, and that such a lack of support could negatively
impact numerous critical Department of Defense programs. In
addition, the committee notes that fiscal year 2010 budget
request materials do not show future year's funding for this
program, making it impossible for the committee to fully
evaluate the Air Force's long term plans. Therefore, the
committee directs the Director, Test Resource Management Center
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, by
February 15, 2010, laying out the potential negative impacts of
projected funding levels for the Air Force test and evaluation
program.
The committee recommends $736.5 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 65807F for Air Force test and evaluation
support.
Battle Control Center Acquisition Strategy
Battle Control System-Mobile (BCS-M) is the ground-based
tactical command and control system for theater air defense,
airspace management, aircraft identification, surveillance, and
tactical data link management. BCS-M modernizes the Theater Air
Control System's (TACS) aging Control and Reporting Center. The
command and control operations center-piece of BCS-M is known
as Battle Control Center (BCC). The original Air Force
acquisition strategy for the BCC intended to capitalize on the
common software architecture baseline of the BCS-Fixed North
American Air Defense Command air defense system, which achieved
initial operational capability on October 31, 2006.
The committee notes that the Air Force terminated the BCC
portion of the BCS-Mobile in September 2008, due to budget
constraints. Air Combat Command has stated its intent to
conduct an analysis of alternatives to validate a revised BCC
roadmap in order to include a new program in the fiscal year
2012 budget request.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 15, 2010, on the Air Force's plan to leverage
investments made in the BCS-Fixed air defense program into the
follow-on BCC program. The report should include an analysis of
the investment already made in the BCC, the costs of a new
start program, and the plan to ensure software and hardware
commonality between the BCS-Fixed and the follow-on BCC
programs.
Cyber Boot Camp
The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62788F
for the enhancement of command, control, and communications
systems within the Air Force, including funds to support the
Advanced Course in Engineering (ACE) Cyber Boot Camp summer
program for the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC).
The committee is encouraged by efforts at the Air Force
Research Laboratory Rome Research Site (AFRL/RRS) to develop
educational curriculum to train the future workforce of cyber
operations experts. The mission of the ACE is to develop ROTC
cadets into cyber officers. ACE represents the only cyber
education offered by the Department of Defense for ROTC cadets.
ACE is a 10-week summer program consisting of classes, on-the-
job mentoring, and officer development that targets the top
students in computer-related disciplines and teaches them to
become original thinkers, problem solvers, and technical
leaders. The committee recognizes that this program is vital to
ensuring a robust information technology workforce that is
capable of handling cyber threats to our systems. The committee
believes the ACE Cyber Boot Camp should be expanded beyond the
Air Force to include ROTC cadets from the other military
services.
The committee recommends $116.3 million, an increase of
$1.0 million, in PE 62788F for AFRL/RRS to support the
expansion of the ACE Cyber Boot curriculum to other service
ROTC participants, and to provide for additional 10-week
courses to accommodate this expansion.
Department of Defense Cubesat Bus Development
The budget request contained $83.9 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but contained no funding for
the Department of Defense Cubesat Bus Development project.
The Department of Defense Cubesat Bus Development project
would contribute to the development of smaller and more agile
national space surveillance assets that deliver space-based
capabilities at substantially lower cost than current systems.
The project would perform fundamental research, development,
testing, and validation of domestic source, low-cost key system
components comprised of flight computers, power switching
hardware, and spacecraft attitude determination and control
hardware.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63401F for the Department of Defense Cubesat Bus Development
project.
F-35
The budget request contained $1.9 billion in PE 64800F, and
$1.7 billion in PE 64800N, for development of the F-35, but
contained no funds for development of a competitive F-35
propulsion system. The committee notes that the aggregate
amount requested for F-35 development is $1.4 billion higher
than projected last year, and that $476.0 million of that
amount conforms to increases recommended by a recent joint
estimating team, and understands this amount will be used
primarily for management reserve. The budget request also
contained $2.0 billion for procurement of 10 F-35As and $300.6
million for F-35 advance procurement in Aircraft Procurement,
Air Force, but contained no funds for either procurement of
competitive F-35 propulsion systems or for advance procurement
of competitive F-35 propulsion system long-lead components.
Additionally, the budget request contained $4.0 billion for the
procurement of 16 F-35Bs and four F-35Cs and $481.0 million for
F-35 advance procurement in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, but
contained funds for neither procurement of competitive
propulsion systems nor advance procurement of competitive F-35
competitive F-35 propulsion systems long-lead components. The
Aircraft Procurement, Navy budget request also contained $1.3
billion for spares and repair parts.
The competitive F-35 propulsion system program is
developing the F136 engine, which would provide a competitive
alternative to the currently-planned F135 engine. For the past
three years, in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452)
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007, in the committee report (H. Rept. 110-
146) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008, and in the committee report (H. Rept. 110-
652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee
recommended increases for the F-35 competitive propulsion
system, and notes that in all cases, the other three
congressional defense committees also recommended increases for
this purpose. Despite section 213 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181),
which requires the Secretary of Defense to obligate and expend
sufficient annual amounts for the continued development and
procurement of a competitive propulsion system for the F-35,
the committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has, for the third consecutive year, chosen not to comply
with both the spirit and intent of this provision by opting not
to include funds for this purpose in the budget request.
The committee notes that the F135 engine development
program has experienced cost growth since the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) program began in fiscal year
2002. At the beginning of EMD in fiscal year 2002, the F135
engine development program was expected to cost $4.828 billion
in then-year dollars. The F-35 program manager reports that as
of the end of 2008, development costs have grown to $6.7
billion in then-year dollars, an increase of $1.872 billion, or
38 percent. Additionally, the committee notes that the F-35
program manager has reported an increase of approximately 38 to
43 percent in F135 engine procurement cost estimates between
December 2005 and December 2008, in the annual selected
acquisition reports for the F-35C and F-35A variants. Between
December 2005 and December 2008, engine procurement cost
estimates for the F-35B have grown approximately 47 percent,
but the F-35B engine procurement cost growth is attributable to
both the F135 engine and the F-35B's lift fan. Conversely, the
F136 engine program has not experienced any cost growth since
its inception. The F136 pre-EMD contract, which began in 2002
and was completed in 2004, was for $411.0 million and did not
experience cost growth. The F136 EMD contract was awarded in
2005, and the cost estimate, at $2.486 billion, has been stable
since contract award. Given the F135 development and
procurement cost increases, the committee is perplexed by the
Department's decisions over the past three years to not include
an F-35 competitive propulsion system program in its budget
requests. Based on the F135 cost growth, F135 test failures
noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, and resultant schedule delays due to F135 engine
test failures, the committee remains steadfast in its belief
that the non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive
program such as better engine performance, improved contractor
responsiveness, a more robust industrial base, increased engine
reliability and improved operational readiness, strongly favor
continuing the F-35 competitive propulsion system program.
The committee also notes that the Office of the Secretary
of Defense's Director of Portfolio Acquisition testified before
the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee on May 20, 2009, and
stated that the Department planned a 75 percent higher year-
over-year production rate for the F-35 program for fiscal year
2010 and that this rate, ``seems to be an achievable rate.''
The committee further notes that the production rate for fiscal
year 2009 is 17 aircraft, of which 14 are for the Department of
Defense and 3 are international aircraft. A 75 percent higher
production rate for fiscal year 2010 would total 30 aircraft,
and the committee notes that 2 international aircraft are
planned, leaving 28 DOD aircraft in fiscal year 2010 necessary
to achieve the 75 percent year-over-year production rate, two
less than the 30 F-35s contained in the Department of the Navy
and Department of the Air Force budget requests. Therefore, the
committee recommends a reduction of one F-35B in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy and one F-35A in Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force, and their associated spares, as noted in the tables
elsewhere in this report.
The committee understands that $320.0 million of the $476
million recommended by the recent joint estimating team would
meet requirements for sufficient management reserve, and
therefore recommends an aggregate reduction of $156.0 million
in PEs 64800N and 64800F as noted in the tables elsewhere in
this report.
For continued development of the competitive F-35
propulsion system program, the committee recommends a total
increase of $463.0 million in PEs 64800F and 64800N as noted in
the tables elsewhere in this report. The committee also
recommends an aggregate increase of $140.0 million as noted in
the tables elsewhere in this report in Aircraft Procurement,
Navy and Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the procurement of
four F136 engines, F136 spare parts, and advance procurement of
F136 long-lead components to continue F136 procurement in
fiscal year 2011.
KC-X tanker replacement program
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should implement measures to ensure competition throughout the
lifecycle of the KC-X tanker replacement program to ensure that
the program delivers the best capability to the warfighter and
the best value to the U.S. Government. Accordingly, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to utilize as many of
the competitive measures specified in subsection (b) of section
202 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-23) as is practicable when developing the
acquisition strategy and source selection plan. The committee
notes that the intent of section 202 is to require the
Secretary of Defense to plan for persistent competition to
control program costs and improve the reliability of the KC-X
tanker acquired by the Department throughout the program's
lifecycle, including development, procurement, and sustainment.
Metals Affordability Initiative
The budget request contained $37.9 million in PE 63112F for
advanced materials for weapon systems.
The committee supports the continued government-industry
collaboration provided through the Metals Affordability
Initiative. It provides significant improvements in the
manufacturing of specialty metals for aerospace applications
for the government and aerospace industry, and provides
improved affordability of aerospace metals. Further, the
committee encourages the Air Force to budget for this highly
successful initiative in future years.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative.
Multi-Mode Propulsion Phase IIA: High Performance Green Propellant
The budget request contained $196.5 million in PE 62203F
for aerospace propulsion, but contained no funding for the
Multi-Mode Propulsion Phase IIA: High Performance Green
Propellant project.
The Multi-Mode Propulsion (MMP) system is designed to be an
enabler of Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) by meeting
multiple program needs with the same propulsion system.
However, as currently planned, MMP would not meet a key
requirement for ORS, which is the ability to launch within
seven days from a stated need. The current hydrazine chemical
solution being demonstrated under MMP Phase III does not allow
such launch flexibility due to its toxicity and related
extended launch operations loading procedures. Funding would
accommodate a Phase IIA risk-reduction effort to develop an
alternate chemical solution.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62203F for the Multi-Mode Propulsion Phase IIA: High
Performance Green Propellant project.
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
The committee is concerned that the tri-agency National
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) program will not deliver operational weather data in a
timely fashion. The committee is aware of the cost, schedule,
and management issues that continue to impede progress, and is
not confident that the tri-agency executive committee governing
the program can remedy the chronic problems plaguing this
national priority acquisition.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Executive Agent for Space, in consultation with the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to evaluate options for
restructuring the program, ranging from improving the current
management structure to creating two separate programs based on
the Defense Meteorological Satellite and the Polar Orbiting
Environmental Satellite programs.
The committee further directs that, for each option, the
Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space assess the
prospects for achieving the objectives of the May 5, 1994,
Presidential Decision Directive, National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC)-2 that created the NPOESS program.
NSTC-2 placed emphasis on maintaining continuity and reducing
the cost of the operational weather mission. The description of
the options should also include cost analyses and proposed
mechanisms for cost control. The committee directs the
Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space to submit the
evaluation of options for restructuring the NPOESS program to
the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2009.
Operationally Responsive Space
The budget request contained $112.9 million in PE 64857F
for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). However, the budget
request did not include sufficient funding to complete and
launch ORS Satellite-1, an intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance satellite being developed to satisfy an urgent
and compelling combatant commander requirement, validated by
U.S. Strategic Command, to directly support U.S. Central
Command's ongoing operations. The Chief of Staff of the Air
Force identified this requirement in his letter of May 18,
2009, describing unfunded requirements.
The committee recommends $136.3 million, an increase of
$23.4 million, in PE 64857F for Operationally Responsive Space
to fund the remainder of the development and launch costs for
ORS Satellite-1.
Protected military satellite communications
On April 6, 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced his
recommendation to the President to terminate the $26.0 billion
Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) program, which
was intended to extend high-bandwidth protected satellite
communications capabilities to deployed troops and deliver more
data at higher speeds for ``on the move'' military users.
The budget request contained no funding for the TSAT
program and the Department has begun the process of closing it
down.
With the cancellation of the TSAT program, the budget
request for Air Force national security space programs shifted
emphasis to the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF)
program to meet future requirements for protected
communications. However, the current version of the AEHF
satellite will only be capable of delivering a fraction of the
protected communications bandwidth that was anticipated in the
TSAT program, and currently has almost no capability for
delivering data to mobile users.
In addition, the committee is aware that, as a result of
the cancellation of the TSAT program, the industrial talent
focused on developing systems to meet the very specific
military requirement for jam-resistant communications will
begin to rapidly dissipate over the next year.
In a related effort to meet growing military requirements
for communications bandwidth, the budget request contained
increased funding for the Wideband Global Satellite (WGS)
communications program, a constellation of commercial-class
satellites that will provide high bandwidth for mobile, as well
as fixed users. However, the WGS system does not currently
provide jam-resistant communications.
Contractors participating in both the AEHF and WGS programs
have provided to the committee various recommendations for
modifying each of these satellites in ways that might address
bandwidth requirements for protected communications.
Section 1047 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
requires the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National
Intelligence to conduct a joint review of the bandwidth
capacity requirements of the Department of Defense and the
intelligence community by October 14, 2009. In coordination
with this statutory review, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to prepare a strategy for addressing the military
requirements for jam-resistant, protected communications that
addresses the fragility of the industrial base supporting
efforts to meet these requirements, and to deliver the strategy
concurrent with the submission of the statutory review.
Rivet Joint RC-135 Services Oriented Architecture
The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 35207F for
manned reconnaissance systems, but did not contain sufficient
funding to complete implementation of the Rivet Joint RC-135
Services Oriented Architecture (SOA) program.
The RC-135 SOA project will ensure full integration of
Rivet Joint into the intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise, and will meet Department of
Defense and intelligence community requirements for making ISR
data and information discoverable, accessible, and to enable
information sharing.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
35207F to complete implementation of the Rivet Joint RC-135
Services Oriented Architecture program, including the RC-135
Processing and Analysis Center.
Small Responsive Spacecraft at Low-Cost
The budget request contained $83.9 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but contained no funding for
the Small Responsive Spacecraft at Low-Cost (SRSL) project.
The SRSL would build on previous accomplishments of the
Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University in
conjunction with the Air Force Research Laboratory, to develop
and demonstrate technologies for new, low-cost space systems
that have military utility and address warfighter needs. The
project would develop a series of quick-response, small, lower-
cost reconnaissance spacecraft, modular in design, to allow
configuration to meet specific military needs under
Operationally Responsive Space mission requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE
63401F for the Small Responsive Spacecraft at Low-Cost project.
Third Generation Infrared Surveillance
The budget request contained $143.2 million in PE 64443F
for Third Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS).
The 3GIRS program is designed to provide advanced
capability to warn of ballistic missile attacks on the United
States, its deployed forces, and its allies, while also
supporting missile defense, battlespace awareness, and
technical intelligence missions. The program, originally
referred to as the Alternative Infrared Satellite System
(AIRSS), was initiated in 2006, as a result of a Nunn-McCurdy
review of the Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS)-High program
to generate competition for the SBIRS geosynchronous orbit
(GEO)-3 satellite and to explore alternative technologies.
With the Defense Acquisition Executive's decision to
procure SBIRS GEO-3 in July 2007, and following congressional
guidance, the Air Force has redirected AIRSS resources to
pursue risk reduction, system definition, and ground tests to
enable a Third Generation Space Based Infrared program after
the SBIRS satellites are delivered.
Originally conceived as a low-technical risk system, the
3GIRS program now includes significant technology development
and flight-test demonstrations. The fiscal year 2010 budget
request would support continued risk reduction and maturation
of full-earth, wide field-of-view (WFOV) infrared (IR) sensor
technology, enabling improved detection sensitivities and
faster warning times of new and emerging worldwide missile
threats against the United States, its deployed forces, and its
allies. Sensor test and evaluation efforts would include
hosting an IR payload prototype on a commercial host, WFOV
algorithm development, and planning for integration into the
existing SBIRS ground architecture.
While the committee supports continued development of the
innovative sensor technologies being explored by this program,
it finds the 3GIRS development program is somewhat premature
given the continuing challenges involved in fielding the
current generation of SBIRS satellites.
The committee recommends $123.2 million, a decrease of
$20.0 million, in PE 64443F for 3GIRS.
Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $20.7 billion for Defense-Wide
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $20.8 billion, a decrease of
$100.0 million to the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Airborne Laser
The budget request contained $186.7 million in PE 63883C
for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program.
The committee continues to have concerns about the
operational effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and
affordability of the ABL program. The committee notes that the
ABL program is eight years behind schedule and approximately
$4.0 billion over budget. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff echoed these concerns in testimony before the committee
this year and noted that ABL's operational concept was
``flawed.''
Given these concerns, the committee supports the decision
to cancel the second ABL prototype aircraft. This action is
consistent with section 235 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417), which limits the availability of funds for procurement of
a second or subsequent ABL aircraft until the Secretary of
Defense, after receiving an assessment by the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, submits a certification to the
congressional defense committees that the ABL system has
demonstrated a high probability of being operationally
effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable.
The committee recommends $186.7 million, the amount of the
budget request, in PE 63883C for the ABL program.
Arrow-3 upper-tier weapons system
The committee supports efforts to develop an upper-tier
follow-on to the Arrow Weapons System for the State of Israel.
After a number of changes to Israel's requirements, the United
States and Israel have chosen to pursue the development of the
Arrow-3 interceptor as the primary approach for an upper-tier
missile defense capability for Israel. However, the committee
notes that this is a technically challenging undertaking that
involves the development of a number of critical and complex
technologies that neither Israel nor the United States have
ever produced. This has led a number of senior Department of
Defense officials to label Arrow-3 as a ``high-risk'' program.
Consequently, it is uncertain as to whether Israel can succeed
in developing all of the technologies associated with the
Arrow-3 interceptor in time to meet its required fielding
schedule.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
currently negotiating a project agreement with the Israeli
Ministry of Defense for the Arrow-3 program. Given the high-
risk nature of Arrow-3, the committee understands that the
Arrow-3 project agreement will contain clear knowledge points
(i.e., technical benchmarks) and a schedule that will govern
the development of the program. Future decisions about the
program should be based on the Arrow-3 system's ability to meet
the agreed knowledge points and schedule. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by April 15, 2010, that
describes the agreed knowledge points and schedule, and
assesses whether the Arrow-3 program is meeting the agreed
knowledge points and schedule. The committee further directs
that the report include a discussion of alternative paths the
Department is examining to assist Israel in developing an
upper-tier missile defense capability, such as the land-based
version of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), should the Arrow-3
program fail to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule.
Noting the evolving ballistic missile threat in the Middle
East region, the committee believes that if the Arrow-3 program
fails to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule within a
reasonable timeframe, the Department should give serious
consideration to deploying a land-based version of the SM-3
missile to Israel as an alternative.
Center for technology and national security policy at the National
Defense University
The budget request contained $44.8 million in PE 65104D8Z
for technical studies, support, and analysis, but contained no
funds for analyses by the Center for Technology and National
Security Policy (CTNSP) at the National Defense University.
The committee recognizes that CTNSP continues to provide
valuable support to the Department through the development of a
wide range of studies which are designed to inform and sharpen
national security decision making. The committee continues to
be the beneficiary of CTNSP studies and CTNSP experts, and
encourages the CTNSP to continue to explore issues of
importance to the Department and the nation. The committee
believes the CTNSP should explore research into several key
areas, including science and technology to support irregular
warfare, test and evaluation infrastructure, improving
integration of social science research into defense programs,
and workforce development for future cyber warriors.
The committee recommends $45.8 million, an increase of $1.0
million, in PE 65104D8Z for the CTNSP.
Coordination of energy storage device requirements and investments
The committee is aware that there are currently over 500
battery related programs and thousands of devices being
developed or used by the Department of Defense, defense
agencies, combatant commands, and military services that rely
on batteries for some or all of their functionality. These
devices include night vision goggles, navigational devices,
thermal weapon sights, radios, chemical-biological sensors,
unmanned drones, and tactical vehicles among others. Further,
the demand for portable power on the battlefield continues to
grow, and power requirements for portable and mobile
electronics continue to outpace the capacity of existing power
sources. The committee is particularly concerned that soldiers
may be required to carry 20 to 40 pounds of batteries on a
typical four-day mission. Additionally, the acquisition,
storage, distribution, and disposal of batteries pose a
formidable logistical challenge on the battlefield. The
committee is also aware that the number of batteries required
for military effectiveness may be further complicated by
requirements for military-unique and system-unique battery
sources that can be costly to manufacture and support.
Section 218 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
required the Secretary of Defense to develop an advanced energy
storage technology and manufacturing roadmap. Further, that
provision required that the roadmap be developed in
coordination with all elements and organizations of the
Department of Defense, other appropriate federal, state and
local government organizations, and representatives from
private industry and academia. The committee notes that that
report is due October 14, 2009. The committee believes that the
roadmap will provide an opportunity for enhanced coordination
and communication regarding development and production of
energy storage technologies such as batteries, fuel cells, and
capacitors. The committee includes a provision elsewhere in
this title that would require the Comptroller General to
conduct an assessment of the Department of Defense coordination
of energy storage device investments and requirements.
Counterproliferation analysis and planning system
The budget request contained $21.3 million in PE 116405BB
for special operations intelligence systems development, but
contained no funds for the counterproliferation analysis and
planning system (CAPS).
The committee is aware that the counterproliferation
analysis and planning system provides military planners and
intelligence analysts with a capability to identify facilities
and buildings that are critical nodes in foreign weapons of
mass destruction manufacturing processes. CAPS is developed and
maintained by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and
managed by the U.S. Special Operations Command in coordination
with the U.S. Strategic Command. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to incorporate funding for CAPS into the
baseline budget in future years.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.1 million in PE
116405BB for the counterproliferation analysis and planning
system.
Defense computing challenges
The committee notes the important role of information
technology (IT), computing, and processing capabilities in
providing critical defense capabilities. In the past,
Department of Defense funding for IT research and development
has provided a solid foundation for pervasive technologies now
firmly available in both the defense and commercial sectors.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to do
more to improve our ability to address future and emerging
grand challenges in defense computing. For example, increased
persistent surveillance leads to challenges in providing
management and discovery in large complex data sets. The
emergence of ultra-large-scale systems and new high-end
computing capabilities will require new programming approaches
to handle massive parallel processing. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to increase resources devoted to research
on these challenges in order to maintain its military edge into
the future.
Director, Test Resource Management Center
Section 231 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) established the
Department of Defense (DOD) Test Resource Management Center
(TRMC) to provide improved management and oversight of the DOD
major range and test facility base (MRTFB). Section 231, as
amended in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) and the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163),
established the TRMC as a DOD field activity, and tasked its
director with review and oversight of DOD proposed budgets and
expenditures for test and evaluation resources of the MRTFB,
drafting of biennial strategic plans, review of annual military
service budget requests, and administration of the central test
and evaluation investment program (CTEIP). Congress established
this activity and the position of the director to ensure that
the military services were adequately funding their test and
evaluation infrastructure to a level necessary to meet DOD test
and evaluation requirements.
In the eight years since its founding, the committee
believes that the TRMC has largely fulfilled its purpose. Its
annual certifications and reports provide a valuable tool for
Congress to ensure that the MRTFB is adequately funded to meet
its mission requirements. However, the committee remains
concerned that the military services have, at times, not
provided the Director, TRMC with adequate notice and
information concerning significant proposed changes to service
elements of the MRTFB to allow the director to meet his
statutory obligations. The committee also remains concerned
that over time, the test and evaluation infrastructure of the
Department of Defense has continued to deteriorate. Therefore,
to ensure that the Director, TRMC has the information necessary
to provide timely and accurate recommendations, this Act
includes legislative language providing the director with the
same access to information granted to the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation.
Ground-based Midcourse Defense program
The budget request contained $982.9 million in PE 63882C
for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program.
The committee notes its continuing concerns with the
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of
the GMD system. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) continues to raise concerns about GMD testing. DOT&E's
``Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report to Congress'' stated, ``GMD
flight testing to date will not support a high level of
confidence in its limited capabilities . . . additional test
data collected under realistic test conditions is necessary to
validate the models and simulations and to increase the ability
of those models and simulations to accurately predict system
capability.'' Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office
noted in a March 2008, report on the missile defense program
for fiscal year 2008 that the deployment schedule for the GMD
system has outpaced testing.
The committee understands that the Department plans to
limit the deployment of operational GMD interceptors in Alaska
and California to 30. The committee notes that in testimony to
Congress earlier this year, the Secretary of Defense indicated
that given the limited nature of the long-range missile threat
from rogue states, 30 GMD interceptors should be sufficient to
meet warfighter requirements in the near- to mid-term. Based on
this and other information, the committee supports the decision
to limit the deployment of additional GMD interceptors in
Alaska and California. Furthermore, the committee remains
concerned that in the rush to deploy an initial system in 2004,
suitability concerns associated with the system failed to
receive sufficient attention. This concern was reinforced
earlier this year when the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency testified to the committee that health and status
indicators had forced the agency to remove a number of GMD
interceptors from their silos to perform unscheduled
maintenance and missile refurbishment. The committee believes
that greater attention must be focused on the reliability,
maintainability, and suitability of the GMD system. Elsewhere
in this title, the committee includes a provision to address
this issue.
The committee recommends $982.9 million, the amount of the
budget request, in PE 63882C for the GMD program.
High Accuracy Network Determination System
The budget request contained $198.4 million in PE 63648D8Z
for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations, but contained
no funding for the High Accuracy Network Determination System-
Intelligent Optical Network (HANDS-ION) program. HANDS-ION
addresses critical space situational awareness needs and
reduces the potential for collisions of space assets by
reducing errors in the current space-object maintenance
catalog, as well as supplements the catalog with system
characterization information.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63648D8Z for the HANDS-ION program.
Hybrid air vehicle technology
The committee is aware that the Rapid Reaction Technology
Office in the Department of Defense is exploring early
development activities for a hybrid air vehicle (HAV). If the
proposed capabilities for a rigid-hull lighter-than-air vehicle
come to fruition, the Department of Defense has the potential
to revolutionize the future of intra-theater airlift. The
conceptual goals for the HAV would greatly increase the heavy
cargo lift capability, reduce the logistics footprint in
theater, and radically change the hub and spoke logistics
structure that has developed since the end of World War II. HAV
capability could reduce our dependence on foreign airbases and
ports, as well as the effectiveness of anti-access strategies
like those used to disrupt our supply routes from the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan into the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
In the nearer term, HAV could serve an important role in
providing persistent surveillance capabilities, through longer
duration dwell times and a wider range of sensor packages, than
is currently possible with existing technologies. The committee
encourages the Department to continue to invest in developing
and demonstrating core technologies for HAVs, and believes that
such efforts should include closer coordination and cooperation
with the Air Force and Transportation Command.
Implementation of the defense agencies initiative
The committee continues to support the implementation of an
enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in order to improve
the financial management of the defense agencies. The Defense
Agencies Initiative (DAI), the ERP solution being implemented
by the Business Transformation Agency, is a vital step to
improving the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of
financial transactions within the 16 defense agencies and 7
field activities of the Department of Defense.
The committee is concerned that important lessons from
recent implementations of ERPs are not being followed. Early
integration activities of other ERPs, like DAI and the Defense
Integrated Military Human Resources System, indicate the need
to pre-process and cleanse the data in preparation for
transition from legacy systems to the new ERP. The failure to
do so has resulted in extensive program delays.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to have each of the defense agencies and field activities
participating in DAI to begin the process of auditing their
financial data. Each of these audits should be initiated not
less than 6 months before they begin implementing DAI in order
to improve the chances for a successful implementation. The
Secretary should submit notifications to the congressional
defense committees within 15 days of the initiation, as well as
the completion, of a financial audit for each defense agency
and field activity participating in DAI.
K-12 education in computer sciences and mathematics
The budget request contained $226.1 million in PE 61101E
for basic research in the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), including $2.0 million for the Computer Futures
program; $96.1 million in PE 61104A for basic research in the
Army, including $5.3 million for the eCybermission program; and
$413.7 million in PE 61153N for basic research in the Navy, but
included no funds for educational outreach programs in STEM to
stimulate careers in computer science and engineering.
The committee is concerned about reports such as the
National Academy of Science study ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,'' which indicate that the United States may not be
producing sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers (S&E)
to meet our future national security needs. The strength of the
nation is founded on a knowledge economy, so should the nation
be unable to provide for its demands in S&Es, it will have
severe detrimental effects on the defense sector and the
broader economic health of the nation. Facing a similar
challenge 50 years ago, President Eisenhower increased
investments in science and mathematics education that continue
to pay dividends today.
In that same spirit, service and agency investments in K-12
educational outreach programs represent an investment in the
nation's intellectual capital that the committee believes will
reap significant rewards in the future. The Computer Futures
program is supporting K-12 educational programs to develop and
foster students of computer science and mathematics at an early
age in order to create a pipeline to support the nation's
future scientific and engineering needs in these areas. The
eCybermission program is a nationwide, web-based science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) competition
designed to stimulate interest and encourage continued
education in these technical areas among middle and high school
students.
The committee recommends $227.1 million, an increase of
$1.0 million, in PE 61101E for DARPA's Computer Futures program
to create and validate additional curriculum covering new
topics, and to expand the program into new school systems. The
committee recommends $97.1 million, an increase of $1.0
million, in PE 61104A for expansion of the e-Cybermission
program to create new curricula and to expand the geographic
diversity of the participating schools.
The committee also recommends $415.7 million, an increase
of $2.0 million, in PE 61153N for the development of a Navy
cyber educational outreach program, similar to DARPA's Computer
Science Futures program, or the Army e-Cybermission. In
developing this program, the committee encourages the Navy to
consider innovative strategies to leverage Department of
Defense and Department of Navy laboratories and advanced
educational institutions to create long term partnerships. The
committee also encourages the Navy to consider developing a
full-spectrum program that encompasses K-12 and even
undergraduate outreach, including the possible provision of
scholarships for promising students.
Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Multiple Kill Vehicle technology
applications
The committee recognizes that the Kinetic Energy
Interceptor (KEI) program and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV)
program have completed research and development of certain
technologies that could be beneficial to other defense
programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 31, 2010, on the feasibility of completing
development of certain technologies that were in the process of
being developed through the KEI and MKV programs and could have
additional useful defense applications.
Missile defense and military operational requirements
One of the key themes resident in the three missile defense
programs that the Secretary of Defense has recommended for
termination in the fiscal year 2010 budget request (the second
Airborne Laser aircraft, the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, and
the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program) is that each
program has not been linked to clear military operational
requirements. The committee believes that this is a direct
result of the Department's decision in 2002 to remove the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) from the normal Department of
Defense requirements process, and from oversight by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council. For example, the KEI program
was originally presented to Congress as a sea-based, mobile
missile defense interceptor. However, the current KEI
interceptor is too large to fit into any existing Navy surface
combatant without significant and costly modifications.
The need to effectively link missile defense programs with
the Department's overall requirements process is essential if
the United States is to deploy operationally effective,
suitable, and survivable systems. While a number of steps to
improve MDA's integration with the rest of the Department of
Defense have recently occurred, such as the establishment of
the Warfighter Involvement Program and the Missile Defense
Executive Board, the committee believes that additional effort
is required in this area. As the Department conducts the
missile defense policy and strategy review required by section
234 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), the committee encourages
the Department to take the necessary actions to ensure that
missile defense programs are closely linked to the military
operational requirements process.
Missile defense inventory and force structure analysis
The committee has long been concerned about how the
Department of Defense has developed missile defense force
structure and inventory requirements. In the committee report
(H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee
directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a process and
methodology for determining overall missile defense force
structure and inventory requirements. The Department recently
notified the committee that it has begun an initial review of
requirements and plans to address the committee's direction as
part of the missile defense policy and strategy review required
by section 229 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
The committee supports this decision.
The committee expects that once the requirements review is
complete, the Department will provide the results of the review
to the committee, similar to the manner in which the Department
provided the Joint Capabilities Mix II study results.
The committee believes that missile defense should be
placed within a stronger defense planning framework to identify
the nation's longer-term missile defense requirements to defend
the United States, its deployed forces, and friends and allies
against the full range of ballistic missile threats. Without
such a framework, the committee is concerned that program
decisions and tradeoffs may be made without a comprehensive
understanding of the end-to-end requirements of the entire
ballistic missile defense system. The committee believes that
it is important for the Department's review to include
participation of key stakeholders such as the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands,
and the relevant defense agencies. Furthermore, the committee
believes that the analysis supporting the review should ensure
that missile defense force structure and inventory requirements
are clearly linked to threat assessments and warfighter
requirements, such as operational effectiveness, suitability,
maintainability, and survivability.
Missile Defense Agency space support
The committee recognizes that global, pervasive and
persistent sensor coverage is necessary to support on-demand
engagement of ballistic missiles early in flight. Space sensors
provide such coverage free from geographical constraints and
the need for host nation basing. The Missile Defense Agency is
pursuing a space architecture which will integrate feeds from
existing and programmed Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR)
satellites with an envisioned fire control quality Precision
Tracking Space Sensor (PTSS) constellation in Low Earth Orbit.
Leveraging of OPIR assets will result in substantial technical
simplification of the PTSS layer and significant cost savings.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the defense committees not later than March 1, 2010,
providing a description of the PTSS long lead risk reduction
activities to include: (1) payload design, prototyping and
laboratory characterization; (2) continuing work on
consolidated ground processing of overhead sensor feeds; and
(3) implementation of the C2BMC interface.
New approaches for national security information sharing
The committee notes that since the attacks of September 11,
2001, the Department of Defense, Department of State,
Department of Homeland Security, and other members of the
intelligence community have made some progress in implementing
recommendations for improved interagency information sharing.
The committee is concerned, however, that in pursuing
information technology solutions with traditional systems
providers, the Departments are neither fully coordinated nor
are they leveraging the full range of innovative information
technologies offered by small businesses.
The committee is aware that many such technologies offered
by small businesses have already been prototyped on programs
such as the Department of State's Net-Centric Diplomacy
initiative and the U.S. Special Operations Command INFORM
program. Therefore, in an effort to ensure information sharing
solutions through leveraging breakthrough technology
innovations, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
to explore new, emerging commercial information technologies
for interagency information sharing by:
(1) Transitioning mature innovative technology
prototypes for information sharing in ways that are
independent of current large systems development
efforts performed through traditional lead systems
integrators; and
(2) Integrating Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) proposals to support major Departmental programs
for information sharing, command and control and data
fusion.
Organic social science expertise within the Department of Defense
The committee is encouraged by the amount of effort that
the Department of Defense has focused on cultivating social
science expertise to support defense missions. In the committee
report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the
committee noted concerns about the dearth of social science
expertise within the Department. As new human, cultural, and
social behavior related research and operational initiatives
are started or expanded, such as the Minerva Initiative and the
Human Terrain System, the lack of organic expertise is becoming
more acute.
The committee supports the greater development of in-house
capacity to take advantage of increasing social science methods
in order to reduce dependencies on contractors or academics on
the battlefield. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to utilize the full range of tools at the Department's
disposal to increase that capacity, including:
(1) Encouraging the development of appropriate
personnel specialties in the military departments;
(2) Encouraging advanced degrees for officers and
enlisted personnel in key disciplines, such as
anthropology, social psychology, sociology, and
computational social sciences;
(3) Expanding faculty positions in military colleges
for key disciplines, such as anthropology, social
psychology, sociology, and computational social
sciences, especially as they support multidisciplinary
research centers in those institutions; and
(4) Developing a more robust concept for reachback
that better leverages the academic community.
Quantum computing research
The committee is aware that quantum computing is emerging
as a potentially new disruptive technology. While it has the
potential to greatly enhance U.S. computing capability, it can
also be used as a tool by adversaries wishing to compromise our
technological capabilities. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense (DOD) to continue to lead research in
this area, but requires a better understanding of the state of
research by the Department as well as by industry, academia,
other federal and international entities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in
coordination with the scientific offices of the military
departments and defense agencies, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees assessing the state of quantum
computing research. The report should be submitted within 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act, and should
include the following elements:
(1) A description of quantum computing research
activities within the Department of Defense, including
those associated with cryptography, encryption, and
stenography;
(2) An assessment of the possible impacts of quantum
computing on DOD operations;
(3) An assessment of the secondary materiel impacts
associated with the adoption of quantum computing
techniques, such as hardware, routing or networking
upgrades required to implement a quantum computing
architecture;
(4) A comparative assessment of efforts within the
United States and internationally in quantum computing,
including civilian agency and commercial research and
development; and
(5) An assessment of the sufficiency of the national
workforce, including those civilian and military
personnel within the Department capable of carrying out
or managing these quantum computing research
activities.
Report on joint wargaming simulation management
The committee has reviewed the Department's Report on
Department of Defense Joint Modeling and Simulation Activities,
submitted in response to section 1042 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The committee notes that the current value of modeling and
simulation (M&S) to the Department of Defense (DOD) is clear
and affirms the House of Representatives 2007 declaration (H.
Res. 487) that M&S is a national critical technology. The
committee further notes the utility of M&S continues to expand
and that the application of this technology will become
pervasive in all aspects of defense military and business
operations.
As the impact of, and reliance upon, M&S increases, its
trustworthiness must be assured by disciplined validation. To
be affordable, duplicative efforts must be identified and
rationalized. Because all possible uses of models and
simulations and ways of employing them in combination cannot be
anticipated, they should adhere to standards that maximize
their interoperability and reuse. To allow the Department to
use M&S to collaborate with other government agencies and
allied nations to plan, train, and develop new defense
capabilities, those standards must be common. M&S requirements
and resources must be visible across the Department to
facilitate cooperative developments and reuse. Additionally,
the work force must be educated to use M&S to its full
potential.
Attaining these enterprise-level goals requires an
effective DOD M&S management process, but it is not clear that
the Department's new approach as outlined in DOD Directive
5000.59, entitled DoD Modeling and Simulation Management, rises
to that level. Although the report claims that ``the Department
is executing enterprise management of M&S capabilities to
enhance the return on M&S investment,'' it does not provide any
specifics supporting that assertion. Additionally, the report
is largely unresponsive to the requirement to describe
``incentives and plans to reduce or divest duplicative or
outdated capabilities.'' The report claims the Department's M&S
steering committee management and coordination efforts are
``yielding a high return on investment from the over $2.2
billion annual investment in joint M&S programs . . .,'' but it
does not provide any metrics to validate that claim.
For these and other reasons, the committee believes a more
careful consideration of DOD M&S management is appropriate. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report that explains the
investments from the funding provided to its M&S management
organization (PE 63832D8Z, Joint Wargaming Simulation
Management Office) and their impact on the rest of DOD M&S
investments to achieve greater cost-effectiveness. The report
should cover fiscal years 2006-2009 and should be submitted by
January 31, 2010.
In light of the fact that M&S technology has transitioned
beyond the technology development stage into mainstream use,
the report should also consider the appropriateness of the
current management of this Program Element by the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering.
Report on requirements for non-lethal weapons
In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the
committee noted the value of non-lethal weapons in reducing
risks to the warfighter and to non-combatants in current and
prospective contingency operations. The committee urged the
Department to accelerate its efforts to field such systems,
including active denial technologies to: ensure adequate
funding for the non-lethal weapons science and technology base;
and to develop policy, doctrine, and tactics for their
employment. Since then, the increase in piracy on the high
seas, unintended noncombatant casualties in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, and the evolution of U.S. defense
strategy toward a greater focus on support and stability
operations, support to civil authorities, humanitarian
assistance, and unconventional and irregular warfare reinforce
the committee's belief that non-lethal weapons can play a
valuable role in ensuring mission success. Despite this, the
General Accountability Office (GAO), in an April 2009 report
titled DOD Needs to Improve Program Management, Policy, and
Testing to Enhance Ability to Field Operationally Useful Non-
lethal Weapons, noted flaws in the Department's process for
procuring non-lethal weapons. The committee agrees with the GAO
that the acquisition process for procuring these capabilities
must be streamlined and made more efficient. The process must
also support the Department's requirements for fielding such
systems in a timely manner in support of mission objectives.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report, by
November 1, 2009, on the Department's requirements for non-
lethal weapons. The report should address, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) A description of the types of missions where non-
lethal weapons would provide a useful adjunct to the
use of lethal force;
(2) An explanation of how the Department intends to
integrate non-lethal weapons into U.S. defense
strategy, including the role envisioned for non-lethal
systems in the Quadrennial Defense Review;
(3) An assessment of whether the services have
adequately prioritized the development and fielding of
non-lethal weapons vis-a-vis other capabilities
tailored to the requirements of irregular warfare;
(4) An assessment of how the combatant commanders
view the utility of non-lethal weapons for operations
in their respective theaters;
(5) A description of the actions the Department has
taken to address the concerns contained in the GAO
report and the results of those actions; and
(6) An identification of impediments to the
development and fielding of non-lethal weapons and an
explanation of what actions the Department is taking to
overcome those impediments.
Short-range ballistic missile defense
The budget request contained $119.6 million in PE 63913C
for Israeli Cooperative Programs.
The short-range ballistic missile defense program is being
jointly developed by the United States and the State of Israel
to provide an affordable and effective defense against the
threat from long-range artillery rockets and short-range
ballistic missiles, and will provide direct benefits to the
security of both nations.
The committee recommends $140.1 million, an increase of
$20.5 million, in PE 63913C to support continued development of
the short-range ballistic missile defense program.
Solid state technology for non-lethal systems
Current active denial non-lethal systems require large
gyrotron tube-based technology that limits these systems to
primarily support fixed site operations. In order to make this
non-lethal technology tactically viable to mobile forces, the
current tube-based technology must be replaced by smaller,
lighter, lower-cost systems that allow active denial technology
to be integrated with ground combat vehicles. One enabler for
smaller size and cost reduction is the development of a
versatile high-power solid-state array. The committee urges the
Department to pursue other technologies, such as a high-power
solid-state source, to accelerate the development and
demonstration of a more compact Active Denial System.
Theater missile defense
The committee has been concerned for several years that the
missile defense program has been too focused on the threat from
long-range ballistic missiles at the expense of providing
combatant commanders with sufficient theater missile defense
capabilities. The threat from short- and medium-range ballistic
missiles represents the overwhelming ballistic missile threat
to U.S. interests, deployed forces, and friends and allies
around the world. According to estimates from the U.S.
intelligence community, the total number of ballistic missiles
other than from the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization nations, the Russian Federation, and the People's
Republic of China is over 5,900. Of that number, short- and
medium-range ballistic missiles represent 99 percent of the
total inventory.
The Joint Capabilities Mix Study II, conducted by the Joint
Staff in 2007 to examine theater missile defense inventory
requirements, concluded that combatant commanders required
nearly double the 96 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) interceptors and the 133 Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)
interceptors than originally planned to address the short- and
medium-range ballistic missile threat. The committee notes its
support for the Department's decision to increase funding for
the THAAD and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense programs by
$900.0 million in fiscal year 2010. Under the revised program
plan, the SM-3 interceptor inventory will grow from 133 to 329,
and the THAAD interceptor inventory will grow from 96 to 287
over the Future Years Defense Program.
This decision represents an important milestone in
providing the warfighter with the capabilities necessary to
defend against the threats to U.S. interests, its deployed
forces, and friends and allies around the world. The committee
also supports the Department's decision to initiate the
development of a land-based version of the SM-3 interceptor.
Deployment of such a capability has the potential to expand
missile defense coverage for U.S. deployed forces and friends
and allies around the world.
Operational Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $190.8 million for Operational
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $190.8 million, the requested
amount for fiscal year 2009.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would establish the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Navy Next
Generation Enterprise Network
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
obligating more than 50 percent of the remaining funds for the
Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Continuity of Services Contract or
the Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) until a detailed
architectural specification for NGEN is submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
Section 212--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds for Joint Multi-Mission
Submersible Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to
complete an assessment of a potential cost-sharing agreement
between the Department of Defense and the intelligence
community for the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS)
program. This section would further prohibit the expenditure of
funds in fiscal year 2010 for JMMS until the congressional
defense and intelligence committees receive the required
assessment and a certification from the Secretary that the plan
developed pursuant to the aforementioned assessment represents
the most effective and affordable means for meeting the
underlying requirement.
Section 213--Separate Program Elements Required for Research and
Development of Individual Body Armor and Associated Components
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that within each research, development, test and
evaluation account a separate, dedicated program element is
assigned to the research and development of individual body
armor.
The committee understands the objective for body armor
science and technology (S&T) initiatives are to advance
protection levels, reduce armor weights, and develop
manufacturing practices that ensure quality and affordability.
Current S&T programs are pursuing two technical design paths to
enhance current fielded body armor designs. The first path is
pursuing the same level of protection at significantly reduced
weights. The second path is exploring increased levels of
protection at equal weight and/or in better flexible
configurations. The committee strongly supports these S&T
initiatives and believes these efforts directly focused on body
armor are collaborative, coordinated, and leveraged with the
work of other military services, industry, and academia.
While these S&T activities are reasonably robust, the
committee notes there are currently no significant research,
development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts to transfer
the S&T activities into. The committee expects the
establishment of RDT&E program elements to: ensure the
warfighter is equipped with the most current individual
protection gear; find ways to reduce weight with current
technologies via mission tailoring and low-risk reduced
protection; and increase investment in promising technologies
that would eventually achieve reduced weight and increased
protection together, as well as maximize flexibility and
modularity.
Section 214--Separate Procurement and Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation Line Items and Program Elements for the F-35B and the F-35C
Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
This section would require the would require the Secretary
of Defense, beginning with the fiscal year 2011 annual budget
submission of the Department of Defense to the President, to
provide a separate budget line item and program element within
the Department of the Navy aircraft procurement and research,
development, test and evaluation accounts for the F-35B and the
F-35C aircraft.
Section 215--Restriction on Obligation of Funds Pending Submission of
Selected Acquisition Reports
This section would fence 50 percent of research and
development funding for specified Army development programs
pending receipt of required Department of Defense selected
acquisition reports.
Section 216--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for Future Combat
Systems Program Pending Receipt of Report
This section would restrict the obligation of 75 percent of
fiscal year 2010 Future Combat Systems research and development
funds pending receipt of the milestone review report required
by section 214(c) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
Current law only restricts procurement funding.
Section 217--Limitation of the Obligation of Funds for the Net-Enabled
Command and Control System
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating more than 25 percent of the funds for the Net-
Enabled Command and Control (NECC) system until a plan for
reorganizing and consolidating the management of the NECC and
the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) family of systems
is submitted to the congressional defense committees.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has been unable to develop a rational plan for modernizing
joint command and control. While the program has continued to
address previous concerns with technical risk, testing, and
cost, it is apparent that the Department's management and
governance construct for this program has delayed approval of
milestone B to such a point that the program will be in breach
of the Nunn-McCurdy temporal limitations. This in turn, has
affected the Department's ability to develop and field the next
generation of joint command and control capabilities.
Section 218--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for F-35 Lightning II
Program
This section would limit the obligation of amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2010 for research, development, test, and
evaluation for the F-35 Lightning II program to 75 percent
until 15 days after the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics certifies in writing to
the congressional defense committees that: all funds made
available for the continued development and procurement of a
competitive propulsion system for the F-35 Lightning II have
been obligated; the Secretary of Defense submits the report
required by section 123 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417);
and the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees the annual plan and certification for fiscal
year 2010 required by section 231a of title 10, United States
Code.
Section 219--Programs Required to Provide the Army with Ground Combat
Vehicle and Self-Propelled Artillery Capabilities
This section requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out
programs to develop, test, and, when demonstrated operationally
effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable, field new or
upgraded Army ground combat vehicle and self-propelled
artillery capabilities. The Section requires a report, by
February 1, 2010, on the Secretary of Defense's plans to
implement these programs. The section also restricts obligation
of 50 percent of the funds for certain Army vehicle research
and development programs pending receipt of the report.
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
Section 221--Integrated Air and Missile Defense System Project
This section would limit the obligation of funding for the
Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) System project until
the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense
committees that he has: executed a review of the IAMD project;
determined the project is an affordable, executable project;
determined that the project meets a current required
capability; and, concluded that no other project could be
executed, at less cost, that would be capable of fulfilling the
required capability.
Section 222--Ground-based Midcourse Defense Sustainment and
Modernization Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a sustainment and modernization program to ensure the
long-term reliability, availability, maintainability, and
supportability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
system to protect the United States against limited ballistic
missile attacks, whether accidental, unauthorized, or
deliberate. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees
outlining the Department of Defense's long-term sustainment and
modernization plan for that system.
The committee notes its continuing concern about the long-
term sustainment, maintainability, and modernization of the GMD
system. The committee believes that the establishment of a
lifecycle sustainment program, as required by this provision,
would ensure the long-term reliability of the GMD system
through surveillance, analysis, modeling and simulation,
testing, and preserve a responsive industrial base.
Furthermore, the committee believes that a modernization
program would allow for the industrial base to enhance the GMD
system in response to evolving threats, introduce new
technology as it becomes available, and mitigate parts
obsolescence.
The committee further notes that the Department plans to
terminate the ground-based interceptor (GBI) production line in
2012 but intends to retain the option for future procurement of
GBIs, including for flight-test assets and spares. However,
several second and third tier suppliers complete GBI component
deliveries in 2009 and 2010. As part of the sustainment and
modernization program, the committee encourages the Department
to develop a strategy for preserving the industrial base that
supports the GMD system.
Section 223--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Acquisition or
Deployment of Missile Defenses in Europe
This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from
acquiring (other than for initial long-lead procurement) or
deploying operational missiles of a long-range missile defense
system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after
receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense committees a
report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be deployed
as part of such a missile defense system has demonstrated,
through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a
high probability of working in an operationally effective
manner and the ability to accomplish the mission.
Section 224--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Continued Support for
Protecting the United States Against Limited Ballistic Missile Attacks
Whether Accidental, Unauthorized, or Deliberate
This section would express the sense of Congress for the
continued support for protecting the United States against
limited ballistic missile attacks (whether accidental,
unauthorized, or deliberate) by continuing robust research,
development, test, and evaluation of the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system and the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA
interceptor.
Section 225--Ascent Phase Missile Defense Strategy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees
outlining a strategy for ascent phase missile defense within
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 226--Availability of Funds for a Missile Defense System for
Europe and the United States
This section would make various findings regarding missile
defense, and reserve $343.1 million from funds available for
the Missile Defense Agency in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for
the purpose of developing missile defenses in Europe.
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
obligate and expend funds reserved under this section for one
of two purposes. Either the Secretary may obligate and expend
funds on the research, development, test, and evaluation of the
proposed midcourse radar element of the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system in the Czech Republic and the proposed long-
range missile defense interceptor site element of such defense
system in the Republic of Poland; or the Secretary may obligate
and expend funds on the research, development, test, and
evaluation, procurement, site activation, construction,
preparation of, equipment for, or deployment of an alternative
integrated missile defense system that would protect Europe and
the United States from the threats posed by all types of
ballistic missiles.
This section would condition obligation or expenditure of
funds for the second option on a certification of the Secretary
that the alternative is expected to be: consistent with the
direction of the North Atlantic Council to address ballistic
missile threats to Europe and the United States in a
prioritized manner that includes consideration of the level of
imminence of the threat and the level of acceptable risk; at
least as cost-effective, technically reliable, and
operationally available in protecting Europe and the United
States from missile threats as first alternative; deployable in
a sufficient amount of time to counter current and emerging
ballistic missile threats (as determined by the intelligence
community) launched from the Middle East region that could
threaten Europe and the United States; and interoperable with
other components of missile defense and compliments the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization's missile defense strategy.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 231--Comptroller General Assessment of Coordination of Energy
Storage Device Requirements and Investments
This section would require the Comptroller General to
conduct an assessment of Department of Defense coordination of
energy storage device requirements and investments and submit
the findings and recommendations of the assessment to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed
Services no later than March 1, 2010.
Section 232--Annual Comptroller Report on the F-35 Lightning II
Aircraft Acquisition Program
This section would require the Comptroller General to
conduct an annual review of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft
acquisition program by March 15 of each year, from 2010 through
2015, and submit a report to the congressional defense
committees which shall include: the extent to which the
acquisition program is meeting development and procurement
cost, schedule, and performance goals; the progress and results
of developmental and operational testing and plans for
correcting deficiencies in aircraft performance, operational
effectiveness, and suitability; and aircraft procurement plans,
production results, and efforts to improve manufacturing
efficiency and supplier performance.
Section 233--Report on Integration of Department of Defense
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities
This section would limit the obligation of the amounts made
available for PE 35884L for intelligence planning, to not more
than 25 percent until 30 days after the date on which the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence provides the information
required in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of section
923(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004
(Public Law 108-136).
Section 234--Report on Future Research and Development of Man-Portable
and Vehicle-Mounted Guided Missile Systems
The section requires a report from the Secretary of the
Army on the Army's future plans for upgrades to, and
replacement of, selected Army missile systems. The section
restricts obligation of 30 percent of Army missile research and
development funding pending submission of the report.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 241--Access of the Director of the Test Resource Management
Center to Department of Defense Information
This section would grant the Director, Test Resource
Management Center (TRMC) the same authority to military service
department information that current law provides the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation. The purpose of this new
authority would be to ensure that the Director, TRMC has access
to all the information he needs to carry out his duties to
certify service budgets and provide recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense regarding Department of Defense test and
evaluation infrastructure.
Section 242--Inclusion in Annual Budget Request and Future-Years
Defense Program of Sufficient Amounts for Continued Development and
Procurement of Competitive Propulsion System for F-35 Lightning II
This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section 235 that would require
that the Secretary of Defense to include, in the materials
submitted by the Secretary to the President, a request for such
amounts as necessary for the full funding of the continued
development and procurement of a competitive propulsion system
for the F-35 Lightning II effective for the budget of the
President submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title
31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal
year thereafter. This section would also require that the
Secretary of Defense ensure that, of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2010 or any year thereafter for
research, development, test, and evaluation and procurement, be
obligated and expended in sufficient annual amounts for the
continued development and procurement of two options for the F-
35 Lightning II propulsion system in order to ensure the
development and competitive production of the F-35 Lightning II
propulsion system. Additionally, this section would amend the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) by striking section 213.
Section 243--Establishment of Program to Enhance Participation of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving
Institutions in Defense Research Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program that would enhance the capability of
minority-serving institutions, as defined under title III and
title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-
329), to perform research that is vital to national defense.
The committee asserts that our nation requires and will
continue to require a highly trained, technical workforce in an
ever-increasing knowledge-based economy. As occupations in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) rise,
a critical number of America's scientists and engineers prepare
to retire over the next 10 to 15 years. The committee remains
concerned that this continued imbalance will leave a tremendous
gap in our nation's ability to provide qualified students to
meet the rising demand for a strong scientific workforce,
especially within the Department of Defense (DOD).
The DOD scientific workforce has traditionally been at the
forefront of technological advances supporting defense
platforms, weaponry, and command and control systems as well as
the changing demands of battlefields and special operations
activities. However, the committee notes that several articles
over the last 5 years, including the National Academies study,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future (July 2008), argue that
the United States' pre-eminence in science and technology
advances has begun to erode. Over the past 5 years, senior DOD
officials have testified to the committee that the Department's
science and engineering workforce has experienced an attrition
of more than 13,000 personnel over the last 10 years, while the
demands for that same workforce is projected to increase by
more than 10 percent over the next 5 years. The committee notes
that several major studies since 1999 conclude that the
production of U.S. graduates in critical areas of science and
engineering are not meeting national, homeland, and economic
security needs. The committee understands that the federal
workforce and, in particular, the national security workforce,
faces direct and escalating competition from domestic and
global commercial interests for top-of-their-class scientists
and engineers.
The committee stresses that, to address the nation's
science and engineering workforce shortfall, the United States
must marshal all its human capital reserves, including minority
groups who are engaged or have propensity to engage in STEM
fields. The committee supports the conclusion reached in the
National Science and Technology Council report, Strong U.S.
Scientific, Technical, and Engineering Workforce in the 21st
Century, that as minority groups increase within the U.S.
population, increasing their participation rate in science and
engineering is critical if our nation is to maintain the
overall participation rate in the STEM disciplines. The
National Science Board's 2004 Science and Engineering
Indicators emphasized that African Americans, Hispanics, and
other minority groups are about a quarter of the U.S.
population, but make up only 18 percent of the undergraduate
population, 2.5 percent of the science and engineering majors,
and 6 percent of the science and engineering workforce. Given
that the overall number of U.S. students receiving bachelor
degrees and the number of such students attending graduate
school in most STEM fields have declined sharply by comparison
to the previous decade, the committee remains committed to
ensuring that the Department adequately supports the training
and development of all students, including those ethnic and
gender-specific groups that are the most at risk within the
STEM disciplines, as well as ensure an adequate supply of
scientists and engineers to meet the national security needs of
our nation. Therefore, the committee believes that increasing
the participation of underrepresented groups is critical to
ensuring the United States can draw upon a robust workforce of
scientists and engineers who can continue to produce innovative
technological advances for the purposes of national and
economic security.
The committee notes that minority-serving institutions
defined under title III and title V of the Higher Education Act
(HEA) of 1965 (Public Law 89-329) represent a significant
source of minority students in the engineering, science,
mathematics, technology education and research fields.
According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy,
approximately 2.3 million students, or about one-third of all
African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and
Hispanics in all higher education institutions in the United
States and Puerto Rico, were enrolled at institutions funded
under title III and title V of HEA. These numbers have grown
rapidly in recent years. The committee notes that the National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,
reports enrollment at these institutions accelerated by 66
percent from 1995 to 2003, compared to only 20 percent at all
postsecondary institutions. The committee believes that by
educating the nation's increasingly diverse minority
populations, these institutions represent the vanguard of the
country's potential and promise, which should be appropriately
supported.
The government's interest in the promotion of racial
diversity has been found by courts to be sufficiently
compelling in the context of higher education. The committee
notes that sections 1067, 1101, and 1051 of title 20, Unites
States Code, emphasize that there is a particular national
interest in supporting institutions that serve a high
percentage of low-income students. Further, those sections,
express and support the nation's interest in aiding those
institutions of higher education that have historically served
minority students and whose participation in the American
system of higher education is in the nation's interest.
Accordingly, in the spirit and intent of the above noted
statutory codes, the committee reaffirms this position and
further confirms that the government's compelling interest in
promoting diversity in higher education is buttressed by its
compelling national security interest in a cohesive military.
This requires a diverse civilian and enlisted base that have
been educated and trained in varied educational settings to
perform research, development, testing, and evaluation within
the Department.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
efforts to support programs designed to provide opportunities
for minority-serving institutions to participate in defense
research programs. The committee encourages the Department to
continue to maximize opportunities for these institutions and
recommends that the Department develop innovative ways to
continue the involvement of these institutions in defense
research, test and evaluation programs. This section would
assist the Department with implementing outreach, technical
assistance, capacity building, and mentoring programs relative
to minority-serving institutions.
Section 244--Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for Advanced
Technology Achievements
This section would extend the Department's ability to award
cash prizes in recognition of outstanding achievements and
innovative research, development, and technology development of
interest to the Department from both traditional and non-
traditional sources. The committee recognizes that prize
authority is a useful tool in generating broad public interest
and engagement in defense technology needs and provides a means
for the Department to gain a significant return on investment
in the areas of research, technology, and prototyping. The
committee notes the Department's past use of prize authority
for robotic vehicle competition and wearable power systems and
encourages further use.
This section would extend the authority from September 30,
2010 to September 30, 2013.
Section 245--Executive Agent for Advanced Energetics
This section would require the establishment of an
executive agent to oversee Department of Defense activities
related to advanced energetics. In the committee report (H.
Rept. 110-652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee expressed
concerns over the known advances in energetic materials
research, development, and manufacturing technologies by
foreign countries. The committee noted that such advances could
pose a national security risk arising from new and
unanticipated energetic materials developed by foreign
governments. The committee further noted that the Department of
Defense has not maintained a robust energetics program
necessary to develop future innovative munitions and the next
generation of energetic scientists and engineers. As a result
of these concerns, the committee directed the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with other federal agencies, to assess
the current state and future advances in energetic material
research, development, and manufacturing in both foreign
countries and the United States and submit its findings to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2009. As of May
2009, the Department has yet to submit the report.
The committee believes the Department lacks a consistent,
future capability-based strategy for energetics research,
development, and manufacturing and notes that efforts to
address these concerns have been underfunded and disjointed.
Fragmented programs supporting energetic research and the
decline of the workforce affiliated with these programs create
a significant loss of capacity for such a critically important
capability. The committee believes that advanced energetic
technology crosses the domain of all the military departments
and requires a consolidated and focused approach to enhance the
capability across the Department.
Section 246--Study on Thorium-Liquid Fueled Reactors for Naval Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) to carry out a
study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for
naval power needs. The report would analyze and compare thorium
liquid fueled reactors and uranium fueled reactors for safety,
power requirements, and lifecycle costs. The Secretary and CJCS
would be required to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on their findings by February 1, 2011.
Section 247--Visiting National Institutes of Health Senior Neuroscience
Fellowship Program
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the
authority to establish a visiting National Institutes of Health
(NIH) neuroscience fellowship within the Department of Defense.
The program would include fellowships with the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency and the Defense Center of Excellence
for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury for the
purposes of expanding collaboration with the NIH on
neuroscience research. The period of any fellowship under this
program should not last more than two years.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained approximately $185.7 billion
in operation and maintenance funds to ensure that the
Department of Defense can train, deploy, and sustain U.S.
military forces. The budget request increased the operation and
maintenance account by $6.6 billion over the fiscal year 2009
enacted level, resulting in a 3.7 percent increase after
accounting for inflation. The committee commends the Department
for applying additional resources to the readiness accounts in
fiscal year 2010, but overall readiness remains tenuous and
further attention will be needed in subsequent fiscal years to
return U.S. forces to full-spectrum preparedness.
By relying upon Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding to achieve air, ground, and sea training at levels
required to maintain military standards, the fiscal year 2010
budget request essentially leaves training at a steady state.
Vital to training for the full-spectrum mission are Combat
Training Center rotations, sustained air crew training, and
increased ship-deployed steaming days. The fiscal year 2010
budget request slightly increases tank training miles to 550
(from 547 funded in fiscal year 2009). Flying hours slightly
increase for the Navy. The Air Force's flying-hour program has
been reduced by $67.0 million, or 52,000 hours, due to the
retirement of roughly 250 aircraft. Additionally, the Navy will
rely upon OCO funding to achieve 58 ship underway, or steaming,
days per quarter.
The Army budget request of $83.4 billion represents an
increase of $600.0 million over last year's request. This
increase is achieved, in part, by the movement of a number of
items between the base budget authorization and the OCO
request. This flat-lining of operation and maintenance funding
comes at a time when the Army's readiness to meet threats
across the full spectrum of conflict remains poor. Readiness
reports since 2003 have shown a continual downward trend in
full-mission readiness ratings. The Army remains under
significant strain to meet current requirements in the Republic
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in terms of
equipment and personnel.
Because of ongoing requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the Navy today has more officers and sailors (10,743) on the
ground serving as individual augmentees than it has at sea in
the Central Command area of responsibility. The Department of
the Navy's budget request is $600.0 million above last year's
request. With the funding requested, Navy and Marine Corps
pilots both achieve their training goals, but fleet replacement
squadrons are budgeted well below their monthly flying-hour
goal. Navy aircraft depot maintenance is expected to cover 100
percent of the primary authorized aircraft goal for deployed
squadrons' airframes and 97 percent of non-deployed squadrons'
airframes, but the budget request of $5.3 billion for ship
maintenance leaves $186.0 million in deferred maintenance.
Of the Marine Corps' current active end strength of
200,931, some 28,000 are on deployment or forward deployed,
including 5,686 in Afghanistan and the majority (16,585) still
in Iraq. Specific increases in the Marine Corps budget request
were driven primarily by the movement of family support
programs out of the OCO request and into the baseline. Receipt
of the requested $554.0 million in OCO funding is critical to
reducing risk in Marine Corps depot maintenance which funds the
reset of the combat equipment supporting operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Department of the Navy budget documents state that
Marine Corps equipment is being used at seven times its
peacetime rate.
Air Force readiness continues to decline due to the high
operational tempo required by ongoing overseas contingency
operations. Of the 27,000 airmen deployed to Central Command,
6,600 are providing support for Army and Marine Corps ground
combat operations in a variety of roles, including explosive
ordnance disposal, military police operations, and logistics
support. Since September 11, 2001, the Air Force has flown more
than 570,000 sorties, including 50,000 to directly protect the
United States. The Air Force has committed more than 250
aircraft to support Central Command combat operations and has
been flying more than 200 sorties per day. This high
utilization of aging Air Force assets has resulted in readiness
rates that are 17 percent below unit operational readiness
rates prior to September 11, 2001.
After more than seven years of continuous combat
operations, skills not required for the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan have atrophied and will take time to restore once
the troops are allowed sufficient dwell time. Readiness will
improve in the out years only with intensive management and
resourcing as the services require funding to reset equipment
and retrain their forces. The committee strongly urges the
Secretary of Defense to use every available authority to
accelerate restoration of a strong readiness posture to reduce
risk as soon as possible.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
The committee recommends the following adjustments to the
fiscal year 2010 amended budget request:
Operation and Maintenance, Army Adjustments:
BA 1 M-Gator..................................... +2.0
BA 1 Operational & Technical Training Validation +1.0
for Joint Maneuver Forces at Fort Bliss.........
BA 1 Texas Defense Manufacturing Supply Chain +5.0
Initiative......................................
BA 1 Fort Bliss Data Center...................... +1.7
BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%............. +244.0
BA 1 Transfer from Title I....................... +237.8
BA 1 MI-17 Aircraft Modifications................ +8.0
BA 3 Junior ROTC................................. +13.0
BA 4 Operational and Tactical Logistics Asset +3.0
Visibility (Fuel/Ammo)..........................
BA 4 M24 Sniper Weapons System Upgrade........... +1.0
BA 4 NATO Special Operations Coordination Center. +10.0
Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..... (340.0)
Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.................... (62.9)
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Adjustments:
BA 1 Aviation Depot Maintenance.................. +195.0
BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance...................... +186.0
BA 1 Ship Life Assessment Pilot Program.......... +1.5
BA 1 Navy Tactical Development................... +1.0
BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%............. +148.0
BA 3 Mobile Learning Cultural Training for +1.5
Military Personnel..............................
BA 3 Navy Sea Cadet Corps........................ +0.7
BA 3 Junior ROTC................................. +4.9
BA 4 Mobile Condition Assessment System Pilot for +3.0
Commander, Navy Region Hawaii...................
BA 4 International Headquarters and Agencies..... (2.5)
Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..... (166.0)
Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.................... (112.4)
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Adjustments:
BA 1 Cold Weather Layering System................ +2.6
BA 1 Flame Resistant Organizational Gear......... +5.0
BA 1 Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net System..... +4.0
BA 3 Junior ROTC................................. +1.0
BA 3 Increase in Sustainment to 100%............. +66.0
Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..... (35.0)
Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.................... (9.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Adjustments:
BA 1 Advanced Autonomous Robotic Inspections for +2.0
Aging Aircraft..................................
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. +143.7
BA 1 Air Education and Training Command Range +4.6
Improvements....................................
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. +130.5
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. (3.6)
BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%............. +289.0
BA 1 Wage Modification for US Azores Portugese +0.2
National Employees..............................
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. +4.0
BA 2 Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Strategic +2.0
Airlift Aircraft Availability Improvements......
BA 2 Fee for Service Refueling................... (10.0)
BA 3 Junior ROTC................................. +4.5
BA 4 Service-wide Technical Support.............. (36.0)
BA 4 Service-wide Administration................. (54.7)
BA 4 Service-wide Other Activities............... (53.0)
Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..... (128.0)
Undistributed--USAF Civilian Underexecution...... (400.0)
Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.................... (191.7)
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide Adjustments:
BA 1 Special Operations Forces Modular Glove +2.5
System..........................................
BA 4 National Guard Youth Challenge Program...... +20.0
BA 4 Starbase.................................... +7.0
BA 4 Procurement and Technical Assistance Program +9.0
BA 4 SoAR Recruiting Initiative.................. +3.4
BA 4 Increase DoDEA Schools Sustainment to 100%.. +11.0
BA 4 Impact Aid.................................. +65.0
BA 4 Redevelopment of Naval Station Ingleside.... +3.0
BA 4 Transfer from Title XIV..................... +808.4
BA 4 Corrosion Prevention and Control............ +6.0
BA 4 Critical Language Training.................. +2.0
BA 4 Readiness and Environmental Protection +20.0
Initiative......................................
BA 4 Tools for Implementation of Weapons Systems +10.0
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009..................
BA 4 Reduction to Security and Stabilization (175.0)
Assistance......................................
Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..... (124.0)
Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.................... (9.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Adjustments:
Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..... (48.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve Adjustments:
BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance...................... +14.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Adjustments:
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. +10.8
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. (1.5)
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Adjustments:
BA 1 Modular Shoot House......................... +2.2
BA 1 Joint Command Vehicle and Supporting C3 +2.3
Systems.........................................
BA 1 North Carolina National Guard Family +1.6
Assistance Centers..............................
BA 1 Our Military Kids........................... +3.5
BA 1 Camp Ethan Allen Training Site Road +0.3
Equipment.......................................
BA 4 Emergency Management Staff Trainer +2.0
Distributed Learning Courseware.................
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Adjustments:
BA 1 MBU-20A/P Oxygen Mask and Mask Light........ +6.0
BA 1 Restoration of Legacy Aircraft Retirements.. +27.7
Miscellaneous Appropriations:
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Increase.... +30.0
Assessments and Analytical Tools for Implementation of the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
The budget request included no funding for assessments and
analytical tools for implementation of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). The
committee recommends $10.0 million for the performance of
assessments and the purchase of analytical tools by officials
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense who are assigned
additional duties under the Act, particularly those relating to
the performance of analyses of alternatives for major defense
acquisition programs. The committee notes that the majority of
the resources required to implement the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 will involve the hiring of
additional personnel for the performance of cost estimation,
systems engineering, developmental test and evaluation, and
performance assessment in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and throughout the military departments. The committee
expects that funding for these purposes can, and should, come
initially from the Acquisition Workforce Development Fund and
eventually be included in the base budget request of the
department concerned.
Combat Air Forces Restructuring
The budget request contained $4.1 billion for Primary
Combat Forces. Additionally, the budget request contained $7.1
billion for Administration and Service-wide Activities. Of that
amount, $735.0 million is for Technical Support Activities,
$646.0 million for Administration, and $1.1 billion for Other
Activities.
The committee has identified $200.9 million in unexecutable
peacetime operations due to deployments in the Air Force
Operating Forces Primary Combat Forces budget activity. The
committee has identified an additional $143.7 million in
unjustified program growth in the Air Force operation and
maintenance administrative budget activity, specifically
Service-wide Technical Support, Service-wide Administration,
and Service-wide Other activities. In title 10 of this Act, the
committee has included a provision that requires these funds
totaling $344.6 be used for the continued operation and
maintenance of the 249 legacy fighter aircraft that were slated
for retirement during fiscal year 2010 until such time as the
Secretary of the Air Force provides the report related to the
Air Force Combat Air Forces restructuring plan required
elsewhere in this Act.
Fee for Service Refueling
The budget request contained $10.0 million for a fee-for-
service refueling pilot program.
The committee recommends eliminating the funds for the
pilot program. A provision is included elsewhere in this title
that would repeal the requirement to conduct a fee-for-service
pilot program.
Navy Depot Maintenance
The budget request contained $4.3 billion for Navy active
ship depot maintenance and $41.9 million for Navy reserve ship
depot maintenance. The budget request for ship maintenance
would leave $200.0 in deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2010
for active and reserve ships at a time when it is questionable
whether the Navy can sustain ship material readiness while
serving as a key element of the nation's strategic reserve
force. The budget request of $1.1 billion for Navy aircraft
depot maintenance would cover 100 percent of the primary
authorized aircraft goal for deployed squadrons' airframes and
97 percent of non-deployed squadrons' airframes. While the
requested funding would meet the zero bare firewall goal for
aircraft engines, it would fall far short of the ready-for-
issue engine spares goal and represents a risk area for the
Navy. Therefore, the committee authorizes $4.5 billion for
active and reserve ship depot maintenance, a total increase of
$200.0, and $1.3 billion for aviation depot maintenance, an
increase of $195.0 million. The committee notes that these
programs were identified by the Chief of Naval Operations as
the sole priorities in the Navy's unfunded priority list for
fiscal year 2010 that was submitted to the committee.
Procurement Technical Assistance Program
The budget request contained $20.7 million for the
Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP).
The committee recognizes the importance of PTAP, a
nationwide network of community-based procurement professionals
that provides critical assistance to small businesses seeking
to participate in Department of Defense and other federal
agency procurement contracts. The program is authorized under
section 2412 of title 10, United States Code. The PTAP helps
generate new procurement suppliers for the Department,
resulting in a stronger industrial base, greater competition,
and higher-quality goods at lower cost for the taxpayer. The
committee is concerned that the budget request for the PTAP has
been insufficient to fund the needs of the many state and
regional centers carrying out the program. The committee urges
the Department to increase the PTAP annual budget request to a
level sufficient to fully fund the operations of all state and
regional centers.
The committee recommends $29.7 million, an increase of $9.0
million, for the Procurement Technical Assistance Program.
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative
The budget request contained $36.7 million for the
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI).
The committee expects the secretaries of the military
departments to use the authority and funding available through
REPI to partner with public and private entities to establish
protective buffer zones around military installations that have
impending encroachment pressures. The committee recognizes the
benefits of REPI, including its ability to enhance military
readiness, increase protection of key military spaces and
natural habitats, foster public safety standards, and encourage
economic growth.
The committee recommends $56.7 million, an increase of
$20.0 million, for the Readiness and Environmental Protection
Initiative.
Security and Stabilization Assistance Authority for Transfers to the
U.S. Department of State
The budget request included a proposal for authority to
transfer $200.0 million from the operation and maintenance
account to the Department of State for security and
stabilization assistance. The committee included a provision in
title XXII of this Act authorizing $25.0 million for transfer
to the Department of State for this purpose. The committee
recommends a reduction of $175.0 million in operation and
maintenance, defense-wide to reflect the reduction in this
authority.
Energy and Environmental Issues
Camp Lejeune Drinking Water
The committee is aware that the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is reconsidering portions of its
1997 public health assessment for Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune. According to ATSDR, this is due, in part, to ATSDR's
ongoing water modeling and exposure reconstruction study and to
consideration of information about the historical presence of
benzene in one drinking-water supply well in the Hadnot Point
drinking water system. The committee is aware that that well
was shut down sometime prior to 1985. The committee encourages
the Commandant of the Marine Corps to ensure that information
about this development is provided to potentially impacted
service members. The committee is pleased that the Marine Corps
plans to notify more than 130,000 stakeholders about the reason
for, and implications of, ATSDR's decision to revisit portions
of the assessment. The committee expects that that
notification, as well as information made available by the
Marine Corps via the internet and other public outreach
efforts, will contain specific information regarding the types
of toxins being investigated.
Fuel Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations
The committee is concerned that base operations at forward-
deployed locations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan are fuel-reliant, and as such, are
dependent upon the delivery of fuel supplies via logistical
convoys that are vulnerable to insurgent attacks. As of
November 2008, according to United States Central Command,
there were more than 300 forward deployed locations in Iraq and
more than 100 in Afghanistan that consumed, on average, more
than 68 million gallons of fuel per month. In a study titled
``Defense Management: DOD Needs to Increase Attention on Fuel
Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations,'' the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that base support
activities, which do not include air and ground operations,
account for more than 70 percent of the fuel consumption at 3
of 5 surveyed forward-deployed locations.
The committee is aware that Department of Defense
components have some efforts under way to reduce fuel demand at
forward-deployed locations. Some of these efforts include the
application of foam insulation to tent structures, the
development of more fuel-efficient generators and environmental
control units, and research on alternative and renewable energy
sources for potential use at forward-deployed locations. The
committee is encouraged by these initiatives but is concerned
with the GAO finding that many of these efforts are in a
research and development phase, and the extent to which they
will be fielded and under what time frame is uncertain. The
Government Accountability Office makes six recommendations in
response to its findings. The first three of the
recommendations are that: the combatant commanders, in
consultation with their service component commands, establish
requirements for managing fuel demand at forward-deployed
locations within their areas of responsibility; the military
services develop guidance that implements the requirements;
and, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requires that
fuel demand considerations be incorporated into the Joint
Staff's initiative to develop joint standards of life support
at forward-deployed locations. The final three recommendations
address roles and responsibilities related to section 902 of
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), which establishes a position
for a Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs
(Director of Operational Energy) and requires designation of
senior officials within each of the military services.
The committee expects that the Director of Operational
Energy, once confirmed, will work with the combatant commanders
and military services to provide the needed guidance to direct
operational commanders and forces at forward-deployed locations
to reduce their fuel demand in ways that enhance operational
capability. The committee includes a provision within this
title that would require the Director of Operational Energy, or
the Secretary of Defense in the event that the Director is not
yet confirmed, to provide a report on what specific actions
have been taken to address the first three of the Comptroller
General's recommendations. The report would be required by
February 1, 2010.
Overseas Environmental Standards for Solid Waste Disposal
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has issued guidance establishing environmental compliance
standards, criteria, and management practices for overseas
installations. The most recent guidance was issued in a May 1,
2007, DOD publication 4715.05G titled ``Overseas Environmental
Baseline Guidance Document.'' The committee is aware that this
guidance prohibits use of open burn pits for solid waste
disposal at certain installations. The committee is aware that
open burn pits are currently being used at certain United
States military installations in the Republic of Iraq. The
committee assesses that either the Department of Defense is
using open burn pits for solid waste disposal in violation of
the guidance document, or installations in the Republic of Iraq
are exempted from the requirements of this guidance document,
pursuant to the exemption clauses it contains.
The committee is concerned that, according to a Department
of the Air Force fact sheet, use of open burn pits ``can be
harmful to human health and environment and should only be used
until more suitable disposal capabilities are established.''
The committee believes that the duration of operations in the
Republic of Iraq has provided ample time for the Department of
Defense to establish ``more suitable disposal capabilities.''
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report on the health and environmental compliance standards the
Department of Defense has established for military and
contractor operations in the Republic of Iraq with regard to
solid waste disposal, including an assessment of whether those
standards are being met. The report should also contain the
health and environmental compliance standards applicable to
military and contractor operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan with regard to solid waste disposal, including an
assessment as to whether those standards are being met. The
report should describe the ability of existing medical
surveillance programs to identify and track exposures to toxic
substances as a result of open burn pits, as well as make
recommendations on what changes may need to be made to those
programs to properly identify and track toxic exposures. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the report
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2010.
Workplace and Depot Issues
Air Force Civil Engineer Supply Functions
The committee understands that the Air Force is reviewing
options for providing civil engineer supply functions at local
installations. The committee believes this review should be
comprehensive in nature and include all methods (government,
contractor, and third-party contracts) for providing civil
engineer supply functions. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to add to his review the following items and
to provide a copy of the completed review to the congressional
defense committees within 30 days of the date of completion:
(1) An assessment of the type of contract (i.e.,
requirement versus indefinite delivery-indefinite
quantity, commodity versus service, and statement of
work versus performance work statement) that should be
employed to provide civil engineer supply functions to
achieve best value at the lowest cost to the
government;
(2) An assessment of what is appropriate for
inclusion in a civil engineer supply commodity contract
versus a service contract;
(3) An assessment of the Air Force's intent to
convert government-operated civil engineer supply
operations to contractor operations; and
(4) A cost-benefit review of using strategic sourcing
for high-volume commodity items and a plan to ensure
small businesses have the opportunity to participate in
strategic sourcing.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force not to
take any action to implement the findings of this review until
180 days after the date of the receipt of the review by the
congressional defense committees.
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities
The committee is disappointed that the Department of
Defense has not included funding for the Commercial
Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program in its
budget request. The CTMA program is a unique partnership that
addresses the technology needs of the Department's maintenance
facilities by developing maintenance and repair solutions
faster and at less cost and less risk. By the Department's own
metric, the program historically realized $70.0 million in
annual cost savings with estimates that savings would grow to
$1.2 billion by 2020. With the leverage provided by industry
through this program at a two-for-one level, a small investment
by the Department would result in substantial cost savings,
reductions in repair times, and improved weapon system
availability.
Initially funded by the Department, the CTMA program has
not been included in the Department's budget despite strong
support for the program by Congress and the depot-level
activities of the Department, as well as confirmation by the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics that the program is providing the outcomes envisioned
by the CTMA partnership. The committee continues to believe
that the CTMA program is of great value as a technology
resource for the maintenance community and will help improve
readiness levels of our armed forces.
The committee strongly urges the Department to develop a
long-term funding plan for the CMTA program.
Corrosion Control and Prevention
The committee applauds the military departments for
establishing corrosion control and prevention executives to
serve as the departments' senior officials for coordinating
department-level corrosion control and prevention program
activities, as required by section 903 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) and as consistently recommended by the Government
Accountability Office. The committee commends the Department of
the Army for programming into its fiscal year 2010 budget
submission $4.4 million in funding for the Army's corrosion
prevention and control (CPC) office for ``the implementation
and management of an effective corrosion prevention and control
program for all Army equipment, systems, and components.''
Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight (as designated by section 2228
of title 10, United States Code) to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees detailing the actual benefits
achieved and benefits expected to be achieved from implementing
the efforts funded through the $4.4 million requested for the
Army CPC office, including the return on investment from
specific corrosion projects managed by the Army CPC office in
fiscal year 2010. The committee directs this report to be
submitted by March 1, 2011.
The committee encourages the Navy and Air Force to follow
the Army's example and sufficiently resource CPC implementation
and management offices at the departmental level and to invest
their department's corrosion control and prevention executive
with the authority appropriate to carry out the mandates of
section 903 of Public Law 110-417.
However, the committee is disappointed that the Department
of Defense (DOD), for the second consecutive year, failed to
submit with its fiscal year 2010 budget materials, the report
on the corrosion control and prevention strategy and funding
requirements as required by section 371 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The committee is also disappointed that, in the face of
demonstrated successes by the DOD Office of Corrosion Control
and Prevention Policy, the Department cut the Office's funding
in the fiscal year 2010 budget request by $642,000. The
committee notes that the Department of Defense, through its
cost-of-corrosion studies, estimates that the annual cost of
corrosion to the Department is approximately $22.5 billion.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the
Department's budget documents show a fiscal year 2010 unfunded
CPC project requirement of $14.6 million. Based on a 42-1
return on investment for CPC projects, the potential cost
avoidance for these requirements would be $506.0 million.
The budget request contained $8.2 million for the corrosion
prevention program. In light of the potential cost avoidance
cited above, the committee recommends $14.2 million, an
increase of $6.0 million, for the corrosion prevention program.
Corrosion Evaluation of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The committee is concerned that the lessons learned
regarding the prevention and management of corrosion in the F-
22 Raptor aircraft have not been fully applied to development
and acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The
committee's desire to have corrosion prevention and management
addressed early in weapons system development and acquisition
prompted inclusion of a provision in the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requiring
the development of systems engineering master plans for major
defense acquisition programs that include considerations of
lifecycle management and sustainability.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Corrosion
Policy and Oversight (as designated by section 2228 of title
10, United States Code) to evaluate the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program. The evaluation should include, but not be
limited to, information obtained from floor inspections and
examination of program documentation and should involve any and
all manufacturing and engineering processes. The Director of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight is directed to consult with the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics to determine the appropriate level of
access necessary to conduct an effective and comprehensive
evaluation of the F-35. The committee directs that the findings
of the evaluation be reported to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act. The evaluation report should also include implications for
existing and future weapons systems based on the findings of
the F-35 evaluation. The committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to provide an assessment to the
congressional defense committees of the completeness of the
evaluation within 60 days of the evaluation's delivery to the
congressional defense committees.
Impact of Contractor Support on Operational Readiness
The committee is concerned that, to date, the Department of
Defense (DOD) has neither undertaken formal planning to
determine the level of contractor support necessary to sustain
overseas contingency operations, nor included contractor
employees in any readiness assessment. This hinders awareness
of the true readiness of all forces available. The committee is
aware that the Department of Defense recently created a task
force known as the DOD Dependence on Contractor Support in
Contingency Operations Task Force, which is assessing the
Department's dependence on contractor support across a range of
capability areas. The committee recognizes that the efforts of
the task force should assist Congress and the Department in
determining the effects contractors have on overall unit and
force readiness. In addition, such efforts should allow the
Department to track the services being provided by contractors
and associated contractor employees to joint capabilities
areas, and assess whether the mix of contractors is appropriate
for current operations and those anticipated in the next 10 to
15 years. These efforts should also build on information in the
service contract inventories required by section 807 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181).
The committee notes that in the summer of 2008, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff initiated a study that
focused on the Department's use of contractors in the Republic
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and its
dependence on contractor-provided combat and security training.
This subsequently led to the creation of the Dependence on
Contractor Support in Contingency Operations Task Force,
described above. Results of this study should facilitate
congressional oversight of the appropriate use and role of
contractors in providing support in areas that are critical to
mission accomplishment, not only in contingency operations, but
across all key operations.
In the section of this report relating to title VIII in the
item of special interest entitled ``Contingency Contracting
Planning, Oversight, and Visibility'', the committee requires
the Secretary of Defense to address these issues in a report to
the congressional defense committees.
Insourcing New and Contracted-out Functions
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense on his
decision to scale back significantly the role of contractors in
support services and bring appropriate contracted out functions
back in-house. The committee notes that section 324 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) requires the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement guidance to
provide managers within the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
military services with the flexibility to consider using
federal civilian employees for work that is new or currently
being performed by contractors in certain circumstances.
Guidance for implementing section 324 was issued on April 4,
2008. The committee expects this policy to be helpful to the
Department as it reshapes the DOD workforce to ensure it has
the proper skill sets and capabilities in that workforce, and
undertakes plans to reduce the number of service support
contractors and replace them with full-time DOD employees. The
committee expects this policy to assist the Department in
fulfilling the intent of the President's March 4, 2009
government contracting memo to ensure that ``inherently
governmental'' functions and those closely associated with
inherently governmental functions, as well as certain personal
services contracts, are performed by government personnel and
not by contractor personnel.
The committee stresses, however, that this insourcing
initiative should not be driven by random goals or arbitrary
budget reductions which may prove to be counterproductive. The
use of a contractor inventory review and planning process as
prescribed by section 807 of Public Law 110-181 establishes a
rational basis for goals and reductions. Furthermore, the
committee notes that insourcing should not be considered only
in the context of contracting, but should be considered as part
of an overall strategic plan that looks at the total workforce
requirements (military, civilian employee, and contract)
required to accomplish the Department's mission. The committee
notes that insourcing initiatives should give appropriate
consideration to impacts on contractor employees. The committee
notes that a proper balance should be struck between
encouraging all qualified candidates to apply for a newly
created federal employee position and the appearance of undue
pressure on contractor employees to convert to government
employees. While the committee commends the Department on its
ambitious insourcing initiative, the committee is concerned
that neither the Department nor the military services have
developed a comprehensive plan to implement the initiative.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide the congressional defense committees an outline of its
insourcing plan, including how it intends to address the
impacts of insourcing on contractor employees and to comply
with sections 324 and 807 of Public Law 110-181 in meeting its
insourcing objectives, by October 1, 2009.
Lifecycle Operations, Maintenance, and Supply Mission Simulation
The committee is concerned about spare parts inventory and
supply management by the services. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended in reports 09-199
and 09-103 that spare parts inventory and supply management
should be strengthened, in part, by improving demand
forecasting procedures and monitoring effectiveness of
providing operational information to item managers. The
committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts regarding the UH-
60, OH-58, and T-700 engine programs, and the Marine Corps'
efforts regarding the light armored vehicle, mine-resistant
ambush protected vehicle, MV-22, and H-53 programs to adopt
improved spares demand forecasting and lifecycle cost analysis
methodologies.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to adopt
advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodology that
incorporates asset demand-influencing factors to include time,
usage, aging of parts, origin of critical parts, maintenance,
and logistics support for all aviation and ground equipment
programs. To address recommendations made in GAO Report 09-41,
the committee further encourages the Department to extend
advanced predictive modeling and simulation throughout the
weapons system lifecycle, especially with regard to
performance-based logistics support arrangements. The committee
also encourages the Department to establish, through the
military departments, pilot programs for appropriate aircraft
and ground systems to demonstrate the benefits of demand
forecasting models which include cost savings and avoidance,
reduction in unscheduled maintenance, and increased efficiency
in supply chain management and budget projections.
Repair Capability for Low-Observable Technology
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
the capability, including facilities, personnel, and equipment,
to carry out state-of-the-art maintenance, repair, and overhaul
support to military weapons systems that employ low-observable
technology, as required in section 2464 of title 10, United
States Code. The Secretary is further directed to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2010, on the results of the assessment, including the efforts
being made, in the context of section 2464, to provide organic
workload for the maintenance, repair, and overhaul of systems
that employ low-observable technology. In reviewing this
important capability area, the committee recognizes the high
quality of work and capabilities taking place in the public and
private sectors. The committee directs the Secretary to give
consideration to establishment of a Center of Industrial and
Technical Excellence at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, for
the maintenance, repair, and overhaul of systems that employ
low-observable technology.
Other Matters
Accessibility of Military Historical Information
The committee recognizes that military historians and
public affairs officers are presently collecting a variety of
data on unit history, membership, training, deployments, social
activities, and awards. These records are already being
collected for historical preservation purposes under long-
standing Department of Defense directives and policies,
predominantly in digital formats. Unfortunately, most of that
data is presently inaccessible to service members and their
families.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense and the
military departments to utilize cost-effective commercial-off-
the-shelf technologies to organize this data and make it
available to service members, customized at the unit level as a
permanent commemoration of their time in service. The committee
believes that this historical information could serve as a
powerful tool for recruitment and retention, as well as a good
public relations communications opportunity. The committee
anticipates that such products could be offered through the use
of existing funds otherwise used by military units for
commemorative awards.
Air Force Combat Support Forces
The committee recognizes that, as a result of the high pace
of ongoing contingency operations, much attention has been
focused on the current stress on U.S. military forces. While
most of this attention has been focused on ground forces, all
the military services have been affected by the high tempo of
operations since September 11, 2001. During this period of
increased operational tempo, the Air Force has experienced
increased stress on certain career fields and challenges in
maintaining the availability of certain units and personnel for
future deployments in support of ongoing operations and other
commitments. In view of the Government Accountability Office's
prior work on readiness issues, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by June 1, 2010, that
evaluates the Air Force's ability to provide combat and
expeditionary combat support forces. This review should
identify: the extent and type of demand for Air Force combat
and expeditionary combat support capabilities; factors
affecting the Air Force's ability to meet demands for ongoing
operations, as well as to maintain sufficient forces and
capabilities to meet other global commitments; and any
potential gaps in meeting demands and Air Force plans to
address such gaps, including adjustments to force structure and
manning authorizations.
Combat Skills Training for Support Units
Operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan have demonstrated that combat service and combat
service support units are often exposed to hostile fire. These
units are required to respond to enemy attacks on a regular
basis under dynamic situations and, in some cases, without
support from friendly combat arms units. The committee
understands that support units receive a different level of
combat training and that this may impede their ability to
operate in asymmetric combat environments. To better understand
the situation, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the adequacy of combat skills
training provided for non-combat arms units operating in the
Central Command area of responsibility. The committee directs
that the Comptroller General provide a report on this review to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2010. This
review and report should include:
(1) An evaluation of the adequacy of existing combat
skills training for support units performing missions
in an asymmetric combat environment;
(2) An assessment of the system the services are
using to determine the appropriate level of combat
training for non-combat arms military occupational
specialties and to adjust that training to support the
realities of current combat operations; and
(3) Recommendations on potential improvements that
could be made to increase the effectiveness of support
units operating in current and future combat
environments.
Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies Vulnerability Assessments
The committee is concerned that cybersecurity
vulnerabilities in many sectors of critical infrastructure pose
a significant risk to the Department's ability to assure its
own mission capabilities. The Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative articulated the need to extend the
government's protective envelope to the critical infrastructure
sector, but failed to provide any concrete recommendations. The
current Administration's new Cyberspace Policy Review also
points to the need to develop a process between government and
the private sector to assist in preventing, detecting, and
responding to cyber incidents.
The committee is aware that there are efforts underway for
the Department of Defense to actively assess vulnerabilities of
critical infrastructure providers on which the Department is
dependent to support critical warfighting missions. The Air
Force's 262 Network Warfare Squadron (NWS) has been active in
developing and executing the Critical Infrastructure
Independencies Vulnerability Assessment (CIIVA) program. The
CIIVA program supports a full-spectrum analysis of critical
infrastructures, such as power, water, communications, and
transportation, which are critical to the functioning of a
military installation.
The committee supports the activities of the 262 NWS and
recommends that the Department of Defense fund the 262 NWS to
conduct additional critical infrastructure independencies
vulnerability assessments and migrate their methodologies to
other units within the Department of Defense.
Defense Travel System
The committee remains concerned that the web-based Defense
Travel System (DTS) is not user-friendly and does not serve as
the Department of Defense's single online travel system as
required by the Department's March 2008 directive. Travelers
continue to experience difficulties using the system and
consequently revert back to inefficient legacy systems that
cost significantly more to maintain per trip than DTS. The
Department is still unable to identify the number of legacy
systems in existence, or identify funding for these systems so
that redundancy among systems can be minimized.
The committee recognizes the recent actions the Department
has taken to improve DTS by including more types of travel, and
by making progress with system testing to measure the proper
functioning of DTS requirements. The committee acknowledges
that DTS, despite its problems, has the potential to be a
viable and cost-effective travel system for the Department.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to: enforce
the March 2008 directive that DTS serve as the Department's
only online travel system; speed efforts to make DTS more user-
friendly; incorporate more travel types; and develop consistent
measures for system testing. The committee directs the
Secretary to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed
Services on the Department's progress in meeting these
directives by December 31, 2009.
The committee directs the Secretary to include in this
report the number, functionality, cost, and funding sources of
current operating legacy systems.
The committee further directs the Secretary to accelerate
the schedule for shutting down redundant portions of legacy
systems and provide this schedule to the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 31, 2009.
Evaluation of Readiness of U.S. Forces
As the Department of Defense draws down forces in the
Republic of Iraq and increases force levels in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, it will likely face challenges in
providing trained and ready forces to meet the needs of
warfighting commanders and in managing and synchronizing these
deployments and redeployments. For example, due to operational
demands over the past several years, the entire U.S. force,
particularly ground forces, is stressed and facing readiness
challenges. These challenges include maintaining the
availability of units and personnel for future deployments to
ongoing operations and meeting other national security
commitments.
Current training capacity has been primarily focused on
operations in Iraq, thereby requiring adjustments in training
regimens to shift the focus to preparing larger numbers of
ground forces to deploy to Afghanistan. Similarly, requirements
to provide units or personnel to fill specialized requirements,
such as transition teams to train Iraq and Afghanistan security
forces, are projected to continue. Other needs could also arise
as the drawdown in Iraq and deployments to Afghanistan
progress.
The committee is aware of the Government Accountability
Office's prior evaluations of the readiness of U.S. forces and
directs the Comptroller General to review the Department of
Defense's approach to managing the deployment of forces to meet
operational needs in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
implications of these commitments for overall force readiness.
This review should evaluate: the Department's efforts to
establish processes and responsibilities for analyzing and
responding to requests for force capabilities from operational
commanders; the Department's ability to provide ground forces,
combat support, and other specialized capabilities, such as
transition teams to train Iraq and Afghanistan security forces;
factors affecting the Department's ability to meet demands for,
and maintain sufficient forces and capabilities to meet, other
global commitments; and any challenges the Department faces in
adjusting training capacity and scope to support larger
deployments to Afghanistan while still preparing forces for
deployments to Iraq.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit
this review by June 1, 2010, to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.
Facilitation of Strategic Deployment
The committee recognizes that strategic embarkation ports
are critical to efficient and effective deployment and
redeployment of forces to support combatant commander
requirements. The committee is concerned that less than one-
quarter of current first-call contingency sealift is positioned
at layberths that support expeditious embarkation. Therefore,
the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Transportation
Command to develop criteria for the selection of strategic
embarkation ports and ship layberth locations that place
primary importance on facilitation of strategic deployment and
reduction of combatant commander force closure timelines. In
developing such criteria, consideration should be given to such
factors as time required to crew, activate, and sail the
sealift vessel to the embarkation port; distance and travel
times for the forces from the assigned installation(s) to the
embarkation port; availability of adequate infrastructure to
transport forces from the assigned installation(s) to the
embarkation port; and time required to move forces from the
embarkation port to likely areas of force employment around the
world. Furthermore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Transportation Command to provide to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act a listing of the established criteria and a description of
the manner in which the criteria will be used to inform
selection of strategic embarkation ports and to inform the
procurement of ship layberthing services.
Medical Care Provided by the Military for Contractors in Combat Zones
The committee is aware that many contractors whose
personnel receive care in U.S. military medical facilities in
the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
are not reimbursing the U.S. Government for that care. At the
same time, the committee does not believe that it is
appropriate to hold field medical units responsible for medical
billing, as they are neither designed nor resourced to perform
that function. As a result, the committee recommends that the
Secretary of Defense build a contractual reimbursement
mechanism by requiring a medical treatment clause in all
current and future contracts for services provided in Iraq,
Afghanistan, or other combat zones that does not require
billing activities by military medical personnel.
Remediation of Cybersecurity System Vulnerabilities
The committee is concerned that systemic issues within the
Department of Defense create disincentives for conducting
information assurance vulnerability assessments, thus masking
the need for proactively identifying and remediating hardware
and software vulnerabilities. The committee believes that
sustained senior leadership, coupled with a standardized
process across the military departments and defense agencies,
is necessary for the Department of Defense to overcome this
challenge.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the heads of the military departments and
defense agencies, to establish a process for addressing
hardware or software vulnerabilities to defense information
technology systems identified during an information assurance
vulnerability assessment. The committee further directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees within 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act detailing how this process should work, and an
estimate of the resources needed to ensure hardware and
software vulnerabilities identified through the assessments are
remediated.
Report on Navy Training
As a result of the high pace of ongoing operations, much
attention has been focused on the current stress on our
military forces. While most of this attention has been focused
on the Army and Marine Corps, all the services have been
affected by the increased tempo of operations since September
11, 2001. During this period of increased operations, the Navy
has undertaken a number of initiatives designed to improve
fleet readiness while achieving cost savings. Because the cost
of a ship's crew is the single largest cost incurred over the
ship's lifecycle, many of these initiatives have led to changes
in the ways the Navy trains its surface personnel and crews its
ships.
In view of these changes, which can affect the Navy's
personnel and the readiness of its ships, on March 16, 2009,
the committee requested the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) review the training, size, composition, and capabilities
of the Navy's ship crews. Specifically, the committee requested
that GAO:
(1) Evaluate current requirement, authorization, and
on-hand personnel levels for selected ship types
compared to historical data for the same or similar
ship types, including underlying reasons for any
differences;
(2) Compare shipboard rank/rate distributions over
time and analyze underlying reasons for any changes,
and their impact on ship capabilities;
(3) Evaluate qualification training for personnel in
selected shipboard designators/ratings to determine any
changes to formal off-ship training programs, including
whether such changes have affected personnel
availability and the amounts and types of on-the-job
training that is required for personnel to achieve
required qualifications; and
(4) Evaluate to what extent, if any, requirements to
provide personnel for individual augmentee positions
and transition and training teams in support of ongoing
operations are impacting the levels or composition of
shipboard manning.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit
this report to the congressional defense committees by May 1,
2010.
Secure Telework Center Pilot Project
Teleworking provides benefits for continuity of operations
during emergencies by providing alternate locations for workers
to operate when their primary workplace is not available. The
committee is concerned that there are limited facilities for
teleworking in a secure environment for federal workers whose
primary duties require access to highly classified processing
systems.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Office of Personnel Management and the
General Services Administration, to assess sites within the
Washington Metropolitan Area in order to identify at least two
sites for a possible pilot program to provide secure
teleworking for federal employees. Possible sites must meet the
security requirements necessary to process classified
information at the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented
Information level. Ideal sites would be designated, or have a
portion of the facility designated, as a Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility and would be built to or
meet the standards established by the Director of Central
Intelligence Directive 6/9. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on this assessment within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Security Clearance Reform
The committee is aware of the continuing challenges
inherent in reforming the security clearance process, with
primary emphasis on the impacts to the Department of Defense
mission. The committee notes that unauthorized release of
classified and sensitive information impacts readiness and
poses a severe security risk, especially in the current global
terrorism environment. In addition, delays in clearance
processing increase risks to national security and increase the
cost of classified work for the government. Furthermore, the
committee recognizes that, while the Government Accountability
Office has placed the Department's security program on its
annual high risk list, many of the security clearance process
problems are not limited to the Department but are government-
wide in nature. Among other calls for reform, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) required the Department and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence to implement a demonstration project on
new and innovative approaches to improve the process.
In December 2008, the Joint Security and Suitability Reform
Team, which also included the Office of Management and Budget
and the Office of Personnel Management, released its plan for
substantially modernizing and automating the security clearance
process across the federal government by the end of 2010. The
committee endorses this transformation plan which outlines
policies, standards and electronic tools, including
modifications to existing forms, to make the system more
efficient and effective. The committee is concerned, however,
that the reform initiative may be encountering bureaucratic
resistance and that the status of key initiatives is unclear.
Given the extensive work already done by the Joint Security and
Suitability Reform Team, the committee expects the Department
and its agency partners to move forward expeditiously in
implementing the reforms to the security clearance process. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
on the status of implementing all elements of the reform plan,
rationale for any delays, and any obstacles that have been
encountered. The committee directs the Secretary to submit the
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2009.
Ship Material Readiness
The committee is concerned that, at a time when the Navy
intends to extend the operational life of its surface ships
five years or more beyond their designed lifespan, systemic
problems with the Navy's manning, training, and maintenance
call into question the Navy's ability to achieve even the
expected service life of the fleet and sustain fleet readiness,
let alone extend the service life of entire ship classes in
support of force-level objectives.
The committee commends the Navy for establishing a pilot
program of technical inspections to assess the surface force
ships' true lifespans through assessments of their material
readiness. The pilot program is designed to provide an
objective assessment to the fleet regarding the capability of
its ships to meet their expected service life, predict where
serious or limiting material conditions may develop, establish
a process for structured assessment of the degree to which
current fleet ships vary from established technical criteria,
and provide the analytical basis for required maintenance
investment to achieve expected service life.
However, the committee is concerned that assessing only one
ship each from the amphibious, destroyer, cruise, and frigate
classes will not provide sufficient data to achieve the pilot
program's desired outcomes. The committee has added $1.5
million in funding in the ship depot operations support account
to extend the technical inspections pilot program through
fiscal year 2010. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy
to assess multiple ships in each class.
Additionally, the committee supports the partnership
between Naval Sea Systems Command and the Navy Surface Warfare
Enterprise to address acknowledged deficiencies in class
planning and technical support created by the shift from an
engineered operating cycle for maintenance planning to a
progressive maintenance strategy. The Surface Ship Life Cycle
Management Activity should instill rigor into the Integrated
Class Maintenance Plan, both in work package development and in
availability execution, and restore emphasis to deep, long-term
maintenance tasks that have recently been subject to deferral
or cancellation.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit
with the fiscal year 2011 budget documents a report on the
findings of the technical inspections pilot program and actions
planned as a result of the assessment findings to achieve and
extend ships' expected service life. The report also should
include a description of the steps taken to mitigate material
readiness deficiencies through actions initiated by the Surface
Ship Life Cycle Management Activity.
Strategic Port Optimization
In December 2008, the military's Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command, a component of the United States
Transportation Command, submitted to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a plan
on optimizing the use of strategic ports. The plan is based on
a report, Port Outlook 2008, required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
Strategic seaports are designated as those the Department of
Defense intends to utilize for the rapid movement of personnel
and equipment overseas in a time of crisis. The report noted
that the currently designated commercial strategic and military
seaports (which are located on the East, West, Gulf, and
Alaskan Coasts) do not provide an optimum number of ports to
meet the future needs of the Department. The committee supports
the recommendation that alternative seaports should be assessed
for suitability as strategic seaports in addition to those
currently designated in order to increase capacity.
In selecting additional strategic seaports, the committee
encourages the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to
consider the Port of Guam. The increasing military presence on
Guam, and its strategic location in the Asia-Pacific region,
would facilitate movement of military cargo in the event of a
national emergency or major mobilization. The committee
recognizes that the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
has outlined an implementation plan based on the
recommendations of the Port Outlook 2008 report, including
establishing a selection team to enhance existing strategic
seaports and identify additional ones to provide future
capacity to the Department. The committee supports this effort
and directs the Commander of the Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command to provide to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a
progress report on its implementation of the Port Outlook 2008
recommendations by January 15, 2010.
Tire Privatization
As part of the Tire Commodity Management Privatization
initiative, undertaken in compliance with the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) as amended, the
Department of Defense shifted responsibility for tire supply,
storage, and distribution from the Defense Logistics Agency to
a contractor who would be in charge of procuring and
distributing all ground and air military tires worldwide for
the Department and the military services. The committee
recognizes that the intent of this initiative was to lower
costs as well as streamline and improve the process of getting
tires to the warfighter. However, the committee has long-
standing concerns that the original acquisition strategy did
not provide all qualified tire manufacturers with an equal
opportunity to compete in the defense market.
The committee recognizes that the Defense Logistics Agency
has recently taken steps to start developing an acquisition
strategy for its follow-on contracts to maximize competition
and ensure that all qualified tire manufacturers have a fair
opportunity to compete, and that technical performance,
reliability, service, and price are all fully considered. The
committee notes that the Defense Logistics Agency has reported
that tires for both the aviation and ground vehicle contracts
are being delivered within the allowable logistics response
time and with high on-time delivery rates. The committee,
therefore, urges the Defense Logistics Agency ensure that there
are no contract delays in providing ground vehicle or aviation
tires to the warfighter. The committee directs the Director,
Defense Logistics Agency, to provide the congressional defense
committees a description of the selected acquisition strategy
30 days prior to release of any request for proposal for
procurement and distribution of ground and air military tires.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $157.3 billion in operation
and maintenance funding for the military departments and
defense-wide activities.
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions
Section 311--Clarification of Requirement for Use of Available Funds
for Department of Defense Participation in Conservation Banking
Programs
This section would clarify authority for the Department of
Defense to participate in conservation banking and in-lieu fee
programs provided by section 311 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
Section 312--Reauthorization of Title I of Sikes Act
This section would amend section 670f of title 16, United
States Code, to reauthorize title I of the Sikes Act.
Section 313--Authority of Secretary of a Military Department to Enter
into Interagency Agreements for Land Management on Department of
Defense Installations
This section would amend section 670c-1 of title 16, United
States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to enter
into interagency agreements with other Federal agencies
regarding the maintenance and improvement of natural resources.
Section 314--Reauthorization of Pilot Program for Invasive Species
Management for Military Installations in Guam
This section would amend subsection (g) of section 670a of
title 16, United States Code, to reauthorize a pilot program
for invasive species management for military installations in
Guam from 2010 through 2015.
Section 315--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for
Certain Costs in Connection with the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
Site, Suffolk, Virginia
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $68,623 to the Former Nansemond Ordnance
Depot Site Special Account, within the Hazardous Substance
Superfund. This transfer is final payment to reimburse the
Environmental Protection Agency for all costs incurred in
overseeing a time critical removal action under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program for ordnance and explosive
safety hazards at the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site,
Suffolk, Virginia.
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues
Section 321--Public-Private Competition Required Before Conversion of
Any Department of Defense Function Performed by Civilian Employees to
Contractor Performance
This section would require a public-private competition
whenever the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to convert to
contractor performance functions performed by DOD civilian
personnel.
Section 322--Time Limitation on Duration of Public-Private Competitions
This section would restrict to 540 days the time from the
beginning of preliminary planning to when a final performance
decision is made for any public-private competitions conducted
pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. The
time period would take into account any delays resulting from a
protest before the Government Accountability Office or the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims. The committee does not intend this
statute to be used by the Department of Defense to stop an A-76
competition that has overrun the 540 days to then restart at a
later date. The committee notes that public-private
competitions that last a lengthy amount of time create an
unfair strain on the federal employees whose jobs are being
competed, as well as on the contractors who have submitted bids
for the work. In addition, estimated savings will less likely
be achieved the longer a competition takes to reach a final
performance decision.
Section 323--Inclusion of Installation of Major Modifications in
Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair
This section would amend section 2460 of title 10, United
States Code, to include the installation of major weapons
system modifications in the definition of depot-level
maintenance and repair. The amendment would clarify the
original intent of section 2460, namely to allow for the
installation of major modifications to be performed by private-
or public-sector depot-level activities. The committee is aware
of recent Department of Defense documents that state the ``50/
50 rule'' promulgated in section 2466, title 10, United States
Code, in conjunction with section 2460, does not apply to
procurement-funded projects, particularly the installation of
major modifications. The committee disagrees with this
interpretation of the statutes. Section 2466 simply limits the
amount of contracted depot maintenance to not more than 50
percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year to a
military department or agency for depot-level maintenance and
repair, regardless of type of funds (i.e., procurement,
research and development, or operation and maintenance).
Section 324--Modification of Authority for Army Industrial Facilities
to Engage in Cooperative Activities with Non-Army Entities
This section would amend section 4544(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to clarify that the eight contracts or
cooperative agreements referred to in section 328(a)(1) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) are in addition to the contracts or agreements in
effect as the date of enactment of Public Law 110-181.
Section 325--Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternatives for Performance of
Planned Maintenance Interval Events and Concurrent Modifications
Performed on the AV-8B Harrier Weapons System
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to
perform a thorough economic analysis of the costs and benefits
associated with each alternative under consideration for AV-8B
Harrier aircraft periodic maintenance inspections. The economic
analysis would include an estimate of the impact of the loss of
workload on organic depot labor rates, and the impact this
could have on the depot maintenance costs of other weapon
systems for each alternative under consideration. In addition,
this section would prohibit the Secretary from entering into
any contract for AV-8B Harrier periodic maintenance inspections
or associated maintenance activities until 45 days after the
Secretary delivers a report to the congressional defense
committees that includes: the results of the cost-benefit
analysis; the criteria and rationale used to classify work as
organization-level or depot-level maintenance; an explanation
of the core logistics capabilities and associated workload for
the AV-8B; and an assessment of the effects of proposed
workload transfers on the Department of the Navy's division of
depot maintenance funding between the public and private
sectors.
Section 326--Termination of Certain Public-Private Competitions for
Conversion of Department of Defense Functions to Performance by a
Contractor
This section would halt any public-private competition
conducted pursuant to section 2461 of title 10, United States
Code, or Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 that had
not resulted in award to a contractor as of March 26, 2009,
until the Secretary of Defense has an opportunity to review
whether such studies should be continued, and provides a report
to Congress. In addition, all studies that have extended beyond
18 months would be terminated unless the Secretary provides a
justification to Congress for the continuation of such studies.
In light of concerns raised by the military services, on
March 25, 2009, the committee wrote to Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates urging an immediate halt to any pending A-76
studies as well as the initiation or announcement of any A-76
study, and to rescind the 2008 competitive sourcing policy
memo. The committee's letter noted that this suspension would
allow the Administration and Congress time to conduct a
comprehensive review of the Department's A-76 program and to
determine the best course for moving forward with a sound
competitive sourcing policy.
Section 327--Temporary Suspension of Public-Private Competitions for
Conversion of Department of Defense Functions to Performance by a
Contractor
This section would suspend until Fiscal Year 2012 any
Department of Defense public-private competitions conducted
pursuant to section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, or
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.
Section 328--Requirement for Debriefings Related to Conversion of
Functions from Performance by Federal Employees to Performance by
Contractor
This section would require the Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation
to allow for pre-award and post-award debriefings of federal
employee representatives in the case of a public-private
competition for conversion of any function performed by a
federal employee to performance by a contractor.
Section 329--Amendments to Bid Protest Procedures by Federal Employees
and Agency Officials in Conversion of Functions from Performance by
Federal Employees to Performance by a Contractor
This section would make technical and clarifying amendments
to sections 3551 and 3557 of title 31 of United States Code
related to the filing of bid protests by federal employee
representatives to appeal the outcome of a public-private
competition that resulted in award to performance by a
contractor.
Subtitle D--Energy Security
Section 331--Authorization of Appropriations for Director of
Operational Energy
This section would authorize $5.0 million for the Director
of Operational Energy Plans and Programs established by section
902 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), to be made available
upon the confirmation of an individual to serve as the
Director.
Section 332--Report on Implementation of Comptroller General
Recommendations on Fuel Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations
This section would require the Director of Operational
Energy, or the Secretary of Defense in the event that the
Director is not yet confirmed, to provide a report on what
specific actions have been taken to address three of the
recommendations in a report by the Comptroller General dated
February 20, 2009, titled ``Defense Management: DOD Needs to
Increase Attention on Fuel Demand Management at Forward-
Deployed Locations.'' The report would be required to be
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2010.
Section 333--Consideration of Renewable Fuels
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
consider renewable fuels for testing, certification, and use in
aviation, maritime, and ground transportation fleets. This
section also would require a report on the use of renewable
fuels to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2010.
Section 334--Department of Defense Goal Regarding Procurement of
Renewable Aviation Fuels
This section would establish a goal for the Department of
Defense to procure 25 percent of the total quantity of aviation
fuel consumed by the Department in the contiguous United States
from renewable aviation fuel sources in fiscal year 2025 and
each subsequent fiscal year.
Subtitle E--Reports
Section 341--Annual Report on Procurement of Military Working Dogs
This section would amend section 358 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to require the Secretary of Defense to submit an
annual report to Congress on the procurement of military
working dogs for the previous fiscal year. The report would
include the following: the number of military working dogs
procured from domestic breeders categorized by service or
defense agency; the number of military working dogs procured
from non-domestic breeders broken down by service or defense
agency; and the total cost to procure military working dogs
broken down by source (domestic or non-domestic) and service or
defense agency.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 351--Authority for Airlift Transportation at Department of
Defense Rates for Non-Department of Defense Federal Cargoes
This section would grant authority to the Secretary of
Defense, for a five-year period, to charge the same rates for
airlift services to all federal customers supporting national
security objectives in order to maximize loads into areas where
the Department of Defense might otherwise fly missions with
partial aircraft loads. This section would also require the
Secretary to submit an annual report by March 1 of each year to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services on the use of this authority.
Section 352--Requirements for Standard Ground Combat Uniform
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Defense Logistics Agency, to require that
future ground combat uniforms be standardized in order to
ensure increased interoperability of ground combat forces and
reduce tactical risks encountered when military personnel wear
a different uniform from their counterparts in the other
military services in a combat area. The committee notes that,
previously all the military services used the same desert
camouflage uniform or the standard battle dress uniform, both
in the temperate and enhanced weather versions. However, the
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia of the Defense Logistics
Agency, which is responsible for the manufacture of all U.S.
military uniforms, now procures unique camouflage utility
uniforms for each of the military services: the Army combat
uniform, the Airman battle uniform, the Navy working uniform,
and the Marine Corps combat utility uniform.
The committee is concerned that the recent move toward
unique service camouflage uniforms has resulted in increased
costs and production inefficiencies. For example, problems with
consistency in fabric shading have required remanufacture of
some uniforms. In addition, the costs for the unique uniforms
are substantially more than for the standard battle dress
uniform because of the differences in design, camouflage
pattern, and type of fabric. Most importantly, the committee is
concerned that this uniqueness poses a tactical risk in
theater, especially for those assigned to combatant commands or
as individual augmentees who may be wearing a different uniform
from those they are serving with in combat. The committee also
notes that service-specific battle dress uniforms magnify the
challenges and costs associated with procuring personal
protective gear and body armor that conform to the design and
coloration of the basic uniform.
Section 353--Restriction on Use of Funds for Counterthreat Finance
Efforts
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
limit Department of Defense (DOD) financial support of
counterthreat finance (CTF) efforts to only those activities
carried out by DOD personnel and supporting DOD contract
personnel until a report is provided to the congressional
defense committees describing the nature, extent, and expected
future cost requirements associated with the mission.
The committee is uncertain about the extent and scope of
current and future CTF activities and is concerned about the
generation and imposition of non-DOD cost requirements
competing with Department of Defense priorities. The committee
believes greater fidelity on CTF requirement and projected
activities would allow for better Department of Defense budget
planning and congressional oversight.
Section 354--Limitation on Obligation of Funds Pending Submission of
Classified Justification Material
This section would limit the obligation of operation and
maintenance funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
in budget activity 4, to not more than 90 percent until 15 days
after the information cited in the classified annex
accompanying this Act relating to the provision of classified
justification material to Congress, is provided to the
congressional defense committees.
Section 355--Condition-Based Maintenance Demonstration Programs
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army and
the Secretary of the Navy to conduct 12-month condition-based
maintenance demonstration programs on, respectively, tactical
wheeled vehicles and four systems or components of the guided
missile destroyer class of surface combatant ships. This
section would specify the issues to be addressed in the
demonstration programs and would require that the demonstration
programs be conducted with an open architecture approach.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of the
Army and the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2010, that
assesses whether the respective military departments could
reduce maintenance costs and improve operational readiness by
implementing condition-based maintenance for the current and
future tactical wheeled vehicle fleets and Navy surface
combatants.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee is pleased that the fiscal year 2010 budget
request includes a permanent increase in the authorized end
strength for the active Army of 547,400 and 202,100 for the
active Marine Corps. It also commends the Secretary of Defense
for his commitment to include the increase in active duty end
strength in the base budget. However, while the increases in
end strength for the Army and Marine Corps will help to reduce
the pressure on the current forces, the committee is concerned
that these increases may not be sufficient to meet both the
increased operational tempo and the increasing support
requirements that are being generated by a nation that has been
at war for over seven years.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense, and the
service chiefs, to review both the new operational and support
requirements that are developing, and determine whether a
change to their force structure will allow them to meet these
increasing demands, or whether additional permanent end
strength is needed to support these new and emerging
requirements. Under current law, the services have the ability
to increase the active duty end strength up to three percent
above the authorized levels, and the committee notes that the
services have availed themselves of this authority. However,
the committee is concerned that the steady increase in
operational demand and the increasing numbers of non-deployable
personnel in the Army will require a hard look at whether an
increase in permanent end strength is needed for the
foreseeable future. As such, the committee provided authority
for the Army to increase its end strength in fiscal years 2011
and 2012, and would require the additional funding to be
included in the baseline budget.
The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense has
restored the military-to-civilian positions within the military
medical community in the fiscal year 2010 budget request, as
required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). The committee urges the
services to assess where these additional positions can best be
used to improve the efficiency and access to care for service
members and their families. Given the increased demand for
mental health services, the committee urges the services to
consider utilizing a portion of these restored positions to
recruit and retain mental health providers.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September
30, 2010:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Change from
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Committee FY 2010 FY 2009
Authorized Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................ 532,400 547,400 547,400 0 15,000
Navy........................................ 326,323 328,800 328,800 0 2,477
USMC........................................ 194,000 202,100 202,100 0 8,100
Air Force................................... 317,050 331,700 331,700 0 14,650
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD......................................... 1,369,773 1,410,000 1,410,000 0 40,227
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum
Levels
This section would establish new minimum active duty end
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of
September 30, 2010. The committee recommends 547,400 as the
minimum active duty end strength for the Army, 328,800 as the
minimum active duty end strength for the Navy, 202,100 as the
minimum active duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
331,700 as the minimum active duty end strength for the Air
Force.
Section 403--Additional Authority for Increases of Army Active Duty End
Strengths for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012
This section would authorize additional increases of active
duty end strength for the Army in fiscal years 2011 and 2012
above the strengths authorized in fiscal year 2010. Over the
two-year period, the Army would be authorized to increase
active duty end strength by 30,000 for a total of up to
577,400.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for
Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves, as of
September 30, 2010:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Change from
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Committee FY 2010 FY 2009
Authorized Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 352,600 358,200 358,200 0 5,600
Army Reserve................................ 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0
Navy Reserve................................ 66,700 65,500 65,500 0 -1,200
Marine Corps Reserve........................ 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0
Air National Guard.......................... 106,756 106,700 106,700 0 -56
Air Force Reserve........................... 67,400 69,500 69,500 0 2,100
DOD Total............................... 838,056 844,500 844,500 0 6,444
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Reserve..................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves as of
September 30, 2010:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Change from
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Committee FY 2010 FY 2009
Authorized Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0
Army Reserve................................ 16,170 16,261 16,261 0 91
Naval Reserve............................... 11,099 10,818 10,818 0 -281
Marine Corps Reserve........................ 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard.......................... 14,360 14,555 14,555 0 195
Air Force Reserve........................... 2,733 2,896 2,896 0 163
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 78,683 78,851 78,851 0 168
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2010:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Change from
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Committee FY 2010 FY 2009
Authorized Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 27,210 26,901 27,210 309 0
Army Reserve................................ 8,395 8,154 8,395 241 0
Air National Guard.......................... 22,452 22,313 22,313 0 -139
Air Force Reserve........................... 10,003 10,417 10,417 0 414
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 68,060 67,785 68,335 550 275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, establishes
the authorization for dual status military technicians. This
section of law also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit
a justification to the congressional defense committees, if the
budget submitted for any fiscal year reduces the number of dual
status military technicians established in law. The
justification should include the basis for the reduction, as
well as clearly delineate the specific force structure
reductions that form the basis for the reduction in dual status
technicians. The committee is concerned that the Department has
failed to comply with this requirement.
Upon further investigation, the committee understands that
the proposed reductions, particularly for the Army Reserve, may
have resulted in erroneous information that was provided during
the development of the budget. The committee, therefore,
maintains the current authorized end strength level for dual
status technicians for the Army National Guard and the Army
Reserve.
The committee did receive additional information that
justified the reduction of 139 for the Air National Guard.
However, the committee urges the Air National Guard to meet
requirements and officially submit its budget justification for
the reduction to the congressional defense committees as
required by law.
The committee is open to continue this dialogue with the
Department as this Act continues through the legislative
process.
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2010 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status
Technicians
This section would establish the maximum end strengths for
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual
status technicians as of September 30, 2010:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Change from
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Committee FY 2010 FY 2009
Authorized Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 1,600 2,500 2,191 -309 591
Army Reserve................................ 595 836 595 -241 0
Air National Guard.......................... 350 350 350 0 0
Air Force Reserve........................... 90 90 90 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 2,635 3,776 3,226 -550 591
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the modification of dual status military technicians
in the previous section, the committee recommends a
corresponding reduction in the proposed increases for non-dual
status technicians for the Army National Guard and the Army
Reserve.
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to be on
Active Duty for Operational Support
This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b)
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve
Component personnel who may be on active duty or full-time
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2010 to provide
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count
against the end strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Change from
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Committee FY 2010 FY 2009
Authorized Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve................................ 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Naval Reserve............................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve........................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard.......................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve........................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 416--Submission of Options for Creation of Trainees,
Transients, Holdees, and Students Account for Army National Guard
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
report to the congressional defense committees on options for
the creation of a Trainee, Transient, Holdees, and Students
(TTHS) Account within the Army National Guard. This section
would express the sense of Congress that an increase in Army
National Guard end strength should be considered in the
deliberations of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations
Section 421--Military Personnel
This section would authorize $135,723,781,000 to be
appropriated for military personnel. This authorization of
appropriations reflects both reductions and increases to the
budget request for military personnel that are itemized below:
Section 422--Repeal of Delayed One-Time Shift of Military Retirement
Payments
This section would repeal section 1002 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), which required a one-time delay in military
retirement payments from September 1, 2013, to October 1, 2013.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERVIEW
On March 11, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
House Concurrent Resolution 64, which urged the President to
declare 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family.'' This
declaration builds upon the committee's active interest in
expanding and enhancing programs and policies that support our
military families. As our nation continues in its eighth year
of military conflict, it is service members and their families
who are shouldering the burdens of these multiple and lengthy
deployments. Their quality of life is not only important to
their physical and mental well-being, it is vital to our
national security. Without the outstanding men and women in
uniform and their families, the freedoms that all Americans
enjoy would be in jeopardy.
The committee recognizes the selfless sacrifices that both
our military men and women and their families are making on
behalf of this country. To ensure that we continue to support
military families, the committee included a provision that
would establish a pilot program for military spouses to secure
internships with other federal agencies and departments that
will lead to employment portability and advancement. The
committee also included a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review the housing standards used to
calculate the monthly rate for basic allowance for housing to
determine if the housing standards are meeting the needs of
today's military families. In addition, the committee also
supports the transportation of an additional motor vehicle for
members on permanent change of station to or from a non-foreign
area outside the United States. In today's world, more than one
vehicle is needed to support a family, and having another
vehicle will allow spouses to seek employment outside of a
base, or transport children to and from schools, after-school
activities, and other daily activities. The committee also
recognizes the importance of leave to families and recommends a
section that would extend the period during which service
members may accumulate 75, in lieu of 60, days of leave at the
end of a fiscal year from December 31, 2010, to December 31,
2012. The committee also recommends additional funding to help
local educational agencies that are providing support to
military children by including $50.0 million for local
educational agencies that are heavily impacted by the
attendance of military dependents, and an additional $15.0
million for local educational agencies that experience
significant increases or decreases in the average daily
attendance of military dependent students due to military force
structure changes. There are additional provisions throughout
other sections of the bill that continue the committee's effort
to support military families.
The committee heard from various organizations of the need
to improve and enhance the capabilities and resources of the
Department of Defense in its efforts to account for missing
persons from all conflicts in a timely manner. The committee
believes that the Department should provide a comprehensive,
coordinated, and fully resourced program that provides for the
timely recovery and identification of remains from all
conflicts beginning with World War II. As a nation, we make a
commitment to our service members that they will not be
forgotten or left behind, we must do all we can to honor that
commitment.
The committee recognizes the Army in moving forward to
improve the career development for Public Affairs Officers
(PAO). This new career path will create a new standardized and
continuous training program that will allow the professional
development of strategic communications officers in the Army.
In today's vast communications environment, the Army requires
well-rounded leaders who can build upon their operational
experience, and develop communication skills, as well as
regional and cultural understanding, to develop effective
communication strategies for the Army. The committee is pleased
that the Army is taking this initiative.
Items of Special Interest
Addressing the Shortage of Company Grade Officers Within the Army
National Guard and Army Reserve
The committee understands that the Army National Guard and
Army Reserve have historically been challenged with company
grade officer shortages, primarily at the captain (0-3) rank.
The reasons for these shortages stem from a number of issues,
including the difficulty officers have in meeting the
requirement for a bachelor's degree as a condition for
promotion to captain.
The committee is concerned that this shortage of company
grade officers needs to be addressed if the Army National Guard
and Army Reserve are to be an effective part of the operational
reserve force. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau and the Chief of the Army Reserve, to conduct a
comprehensive study of this issue and to make recommendations
on how to address these officer shortages. The study should
include:
(1) A review of the concept of a National Guard military
academy, similar to the service academies including the
following: whether such a National Guard academy is a feasible
partial solution to the officer shortages and, if feasible, the
roles and responsibilities for operating a military academy;
the estimated costs for the establishment of an academy; the
annual operating costs, to include staffing requirements and
academic faculty requirements to meet accreditation
requirements of a four-year institution of higher learning; and
the ability to incorporate junior military colleges into the
program. It should also address: issues of compulsory service
obligations; the challenges involved with granting commissions
to cadets from different states; how funding for students and
resources for the academy might be provided; what academic
programs the academy might offer; the admissions process; the
training requirements for cadets/student; and the number of
cadets/students that would have to be authorized each school
year.
(2) A consideration of the feasibility of requiring state
Officer Candidate School programs to require candidates to hold
a four-year degree in order to participate in the program, and
the necessary programmatic changes that may be required to
support such a requirement.
The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings,
conclusions, and recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within
one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Joint Duty Assignment Credit for Military JPME Faculty Members
The committee is encouraged to find that many military
officers serving on the faculties of joint professional
military education (JPME) phase II institutions are being
appropriately recognized for their joint experience on the
joint duty assignment list (JDAL). However, the committee finds
that some of these officers, who should have this assignment
designation, still do not. The committee encourages these
institutions to be proactive in ensuring that military faculty
at the senior level institutions receive the appropriate joint
credit, and that those positions are included on the JDAL
through the validation process. As part of its comprehensive
review of professional military education, the committee is
reviewing the faculty positions at JPME I level institutions.
The Department of Defense should also review the faculty
positions at the JPME I level institutions for JDAL suitability
and provide the committee the results of its review.
Recognizing Service Women Who Have Participated as ``Lionesses'' During
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
The committee is aware that there are members of the armed
forces deployed in support of contingency operations who, as a
result of operational requirements on the battlefield,
volunteer to provide mission support outside of the
requirements of their military occupation. These individuals
are often temporarily removed from their regular assignment to
serve in these capacities before returning to their regular
duties during their deployment.
One such group of volunteers are women who are serving at
the point of the spear and are referred to as ``Lionesses.''
They participate in offensive operations by providing
culturally-sensitive search and engagement activities for
certain combat units deployed in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The committee is aware that service women, particularly
those who volunteered during the early stages of the Lioness
program, have encountered difficulties in gaining proper
recognition for their service, both within the services and
when they leave active duty and seek assistance from the
Department of Veterans Affairs. For example, service women who
volunteered to accompany units during the Battle of Fallujah in
2004 have had to rely on the support of an outside organization
in order to provide the witnesses and documentation needed to
seek recognition of their actions under fire and to establish
their combat experience while deployed, in order to receive
health care and disability benefits from the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
The committee is concerned that there is no mechanism in
place within the services to properly document service member
participation in operational missions outside of the
requirements of their military occupation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the services, to review the way the
services manages and documents the additional services some
service members perform. The review should also consider a way
to properly document participation in such actions,
particularly since they are being pulled from their regular
units for these missions. The review should consider whether a
service or skill identifier to identify these individuals, who
have previously served and may be called upon again to serve in
future deployments, is appropriate. The review should also
consider whether the current chain of command construct allows
these individuals sufficient oversight to be able to seek
proper recognition for their service. The review should also
take into consideration the differences that may need to be
addressed between those within the active component and those
within the Reserve Component who are activated and subsequently
demobilized.
In addition, the committee believes that there should be a
systematic training program for these individuals prior to
their deployment that takes into account the unique mission for
which they have volunteered. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit the results of the review, and
any recommendations, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2010.
Report on Medal of Honor Award Process
The committee is concerned with the minimal amount of Medal
of Honors awarded for acts of gallantry during Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, especially the
lack of living recipients. The committee believes it is
important to have living Medal of Honor recipients from current
conflicts to inspire our nation, while honoring those men and
women who have dedicated themselves to the defense of our
country. The committee recognizes that the military services
are manned with an all-volunteer professional force that is
more skilled, and that members of the armed forces are
executing heroic acts on a daily basis in combat. The committee
is concerned that since heroic acts are occurring on a routine
basis, commanders may have unintentionally raised the
subjective criteria for recommending the Medal of Honor, and
the Department of Defense is incorporating informal standards
with unnecessary action and requirements when considering the
recommendations for the Medal of Honor. The committee
recognizes that the criteria in statute has not changed and
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the secretaries of the military services, to review the
current trends in awarding the Medal of Honor to identify
whether there is an inadvertent subjective bias amongst
commanders that has contributed to the low numbers of awards of
the Medal of Honor. In addition, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to survey military leaders, both officers
and non-commissioned officers, to the lowest level of command
to determine if there is a trend of downgrading awards taking
place for medals related to acts of valor and gallantry. The
committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report
his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2010.
Restricted Reporting Requirements for Sexual Assault Victims
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
currently affords a victim of sexual assault the option of
confidential reporting of the assault to specified individuals
and provides the victim access to medical care, counseling and
victim advocacy, without initiating an investigation. The
committee is concerned that information about a sexual assault
that is disclosed to a commander or law enforcement from a
source other than the victim or individuals covered under
confidential reporting may result in an investigation,
regardless of the victim's desire for confidentiality.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
develop a procedure to provide a victim of sexual assault the
option for confidential reporting if the information about a
sexual assault is disclosed to a commander or law enforcement
from a source other than the victim or individual covered under
confidential reporting.
Social Networking in Recruiting
The committee notes that the armed services have been slow
to embrace the use of social networking and job search internet
sites to support recruiting operations. America's youth are
using social networking systems though the internet at ever
increasing rates and many Americans are now receiving most of
their information from internet sources. The armed services
must not ignore the potential that resides in these systems and
fall behind private sector competitors. The committee believes
that such sites and other support services available on the
internet are powerful tools to increase awareness of military
career opportunities among America's youth. The committee urges
the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military
departments to explore the opportunities to use these sites to
support recruiting and to empower the recruiter workforce to
use social networking and other internet capabilities to
enhance their recruiting efforts.
Stars and Stripes Newspaper
The committee values the contributions that Stars and
Stripes newspapers make to the morale and welfare of service
members and their families serving in overseas duty locations.
The Stars and Stripes newspaper is an important ingredient in
all overseas military communities that people rely on and trust
as an independent source of news. The Stars and Stripes mission
is particularly important as a source of news for deployed
service members serving in combat zones. The committee
recognizes that the Stars and Stripes organization must embrace
change to accommodate the new ways to deliver information that
technology will create, but the committee believes that the
Stars and Stripes mission will remain as valid in the future as
it is today. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
fully fund the Stars and Stripes organization to allow it to
continue its community and battlefield role and to keep pace
with technological advances and to preserve and protect its
status as an independent news organization representing the
best traditions of American free press.
The Awarding of the Purple Heart for Traumatic Brain Injuries
The committee understands there are provisions in law and
policy to award the Purple Heart to members of the armed forces
who sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of enemy
action. Although the services have awarded the Purple Heart for
these injuries, the committee is concerned there are
inconsistencies in the procedures for the determination of the
award in the theater of operations. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the policies and
procedures for determining eligibility and awarding of the
Purple Heart to service members who sustain traumatic brain
injury due to enemy action. The committee directs the Secretary
to report his findings and recommendations to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31, 2010.
Virtual Army Experience
The committee commends the Army for investing in new
technological approaches to increase awareness and knowledge of
the military among recruitment-age youth. The Army Experience
Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and its transportable
counterpart, the Virtual Army Experience, are examples of
technological projects that hold great potential to reshape
recruiting techniques and conduct recruiting operations on a
more cost effective basis. The committee believes this type of
investment is essential if the Army intends to keep pace with
societal changes regarding the subjects that capture the
attention of young people and methods young people use to
gather information and socially interact. In the case of the
Army Experience Center and the Virtual Army Experience, the
Army should be commended for using game technology and other
high-tech systems to reach out to and communicate with
America's youth. The committee understands that during periods
when recruiting is relatively easy, investment in experimental
programs draws increased scrutiny. The committee urges the Army
to continue to use these tools and to invest in other related
projects to maximize their immediate value, and learn more
about how the Army may further adapt technology to harness the
power of the information age to support the recruiting mission.
Wounded Warriors and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
The committee is aware that the services are actively
seeking retired wounded warriors, who express an interest and
are qualified to become instructors at Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (JROTC) units. The Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the services, to establish at least 3,700 JROTC units by
September 30, 2020. Given the expansion, the committee urges
the services to continue to expand their efforts to recruit
retired wounded warriors to serve in these units. These
individuals have proven themselves in service to our nation,
and would be exemplary examples of selfless service and mentors
to the thousands of young high school students who participate
in JROTC, their classmates, teachers, administrators and other
community influencers.
The committee understands that challenges may exist given
the unique circumstances of retired wounded warriors seeking
such positions. These medically retired wounded warriors may be
at a disadvantage in competing for these positions, especially
as the current economic downturn has had an adverse impact on
local school budgets across the country. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the service secretaries, to review the current utilization
of retired wounded warriors as JROTC instructors to determine
if there are barriers unique to their service that need to be
addressed, whether through change in policy or legislation. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees the results of the review,
including recommendations for legislative change, by April 1,
2010.
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program Improvements
The committee recognizes the challenges for Reserve
Component members of an operational reserve fully engaged in a
prolonged conflict. To assist the Department of Defense with
some of these challenges, section 582 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)
required the Secretary of Defense to establish the Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program to provide National Guard and
Reserve members and their families with sufficient information,
services, resources and outreach throughout the deployment
cycle. The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the
Department and the progress the program has made to date
including resourcing the program as part of the base budget
beginning in fiscal year 2010. As the Department continues to
improve the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, the committee
recommends that the Secretary of Defense ensure the
reintegration program office captures best practices from the
Department of Defense Mental Health Task Force and the
Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative and incorporates them into
the 30-60-90 day events of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program. The committee also recommends that the Secretary
explore the feasibility of incorporating the best practices as
determined by various states' pilot programs into the Yellow
Ribbon program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to include a description of additions or changes to the program
as a portion of the annual reporting requirement in section 582
of Public Law 110-181.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Personnel Policy Generally
Section 501--Extension of Temporary Increase in Maximum Number of Days'
Leave Members May Accumulate and Carryover
This section would extend the period during which service
members may accumulate 75, in lieu of 60, days of leave at the
end of a fiscal year from December 31, 2010, to December 31,
2012.
Section 502--Rank Requirement for Officer Serving as Chief of the Navy
Dental Corps to Correspond to Army and Air Force Requirements
This section would require an increase in the rank of the
Chief of the Navy Dental Corps, from the rank of O-7, rear
admiral (lower half) to the rank of O-8, rear admiral (upper
half), similar to the corresponding rank of the Navy chiefs in
the Unites States Army and the United States Air Force.
Section 503--Computation of Retirement Eligibility for Enlisted Members
of the Navy Who Complete the Seaman to Admiral (STA-21) Officer
Candidate Program
This section would exclude the active duty service after
January 1, 2011, for service members pursuing a baccalaureate-
level degree under the Seaman to Admiral program of the Navy
from computed as years of officer service required to qualify
for retirement. This section would authorize the service in the
Seaman to Admiral program to be counted for computing active
duty service for all other purposes.
Subtitle B--Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements
Section 511--Revisions to Annual Reporting Requirement on Joint Officer
Management
This section would amend section 667 of title 10, United
States Code, to align reporting requirements with the new joint
programs and policies developed and implemented by the
Department of Defense that were authorized by section 516 of
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The new policy establishes the
minimum requirements for all Joint Qualified Officers to
include education and tour lengths. Additionally, Joint
Qualified Officers filling level 3 (critical positions on the
joint duty assignment list), would require a waiver if not
filled by Joint Qualified Officer. Joint Professional Military
Education reporting requirements would be amended to align with
expanded Joint Professional Military Education Level II
opportunities and Joint Professional Military Education Level
II credit would no longer be authorized until completion of
Joint Professional Military Credit Level I.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Section 521--Medical Examination Required before Separation of Members
Diagnosed with or Asserting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic
Brain Injury
This section would bar the secretary concerned from
authorizing the involuntary separation or an other than
honorable separation of a service member who has been deployed
overseas in support of a contingency operation and is diagnosed
as experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic
brain injury, or is asserting the influence of such a
condition, until after the service member is provided a medical
exam conducted by an appropriate medical practitioner. The
secretary would review the medical exam to determine if the
behavior of the member upon which the involuntary or other than
honorable separation was based was influenced by a post-
traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury condition
and would determine the appropriate separation course of
action. This section would require the discharge review boards
operated by the secretaries of the military departments to
include a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or
psychiatrist and, when authorized by the former service member,
to provide a Member of Congress with information on decisions
and supporting rationale when considering cases involving
deployment related post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic
brain injury. This section would also require discharge review
boards to render a final decision within six months of receipt
when considering cases involving deployment related post-
traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury or other
personal health care issues offered as supporting rationale or
as justification for priority consideration.
Section 522--Evaluation of Test of Utility of Test Preparation Guides
and Education Programs in Improving Qualifications of Recruits for the
Armed Forces
This section would clarify that evaluation of job
performance required to complete the test of the utility of
using test preparation guides to improve the qualification test
scores of new recruits authorized in section 546 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364) may be accomplished by using data derived
from existing sources.
Section 523--Inclusion of Email Address on Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214)
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
modify the DD Form 214, Certificate or Release or Discharge
from Active Duty, to permit a service member to include an
email address on the form.
Subtitle D--Education and Training
Section 531--Appointment of Persons Enrolled in Advanced Course of the
Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps at Military Junior Colleges as
Cadets in Army Reserve or Army National Guard of the United States
This section would increase, from 17 to 22, the number of
cadets at each of the Military Colleges who may receive
financial assistance under the early commissioning program.
Section 532--Increase in Number of Private Sector Civilians Authorized
for Admission to the National Defense University
This section would authorize the change in the number of
private sector civilians authorized admission to the
professional military education program at the National Defense
University from 10 to 20.
Section 533--Appointments to Military Service Academies from
Nominations Made by Delegate from the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
This section would increase, from one to two, the number of
appointments to each of the military service academies that can
be made as a result of nominations made by the Delegate to
Congress from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Section 534--Pilot Program to Establish and Evaluate Language Training
Centers for Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian Employees of the
Department of Defense
This section would establish a pilot program to create
foundational critical and strategic language and regional area
expertise for members of the armed forces, including Reserve
Component members, Reserve Officers' Training Corps candidates,
and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The pilot
program would begin on October 1, 2010, and terminate on
September 30, 2015. The pilot should seek to expand access to
critical and strategic languages to as many military personnel
as possible. The Secretary of Defense would also be required to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees with an
assessment of the effectiveness of the programs to create
critical and strategic language and regional area expertise in
support of the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap.
Section 535--Use of the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance Program to Increase Number of Health Professionals
with Skills to Assist in Providing Mental Health Care
This section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to include, within the health professions
scholarship and financial assistance program, a portion of the
total number of scholarships for the purpose of assisting
students to pursue a degree at the masters and doctoral level
in social work, clinical psychology, psychiatry, or other
disciplines that contribute to the mental health care programs
within the military departments. This section would also
increase the total number of scholarships under the health
professions scholarship and financial assistance program by 300
to accommodate such students.
Section 536--Establishment of Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps
Units for Students in Grades above Sixth Grade
This section would amend section 2031 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the establishment of Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) units at public and private
secondary educational institutions that permit enrollment of
students in the Corps who are in a grade above the sixth grade.
Any unit established under this section would meet similar
requirements of the JROTC program. The service secretary would
also establish a program under this authority to conduct a
review of the program, and report the impacts, if any, the
program may have on the operations of JROTC in secondary
educational institutions.
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education
Section 551--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational
Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees
This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to
local educational agencies that have military dependent
students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in
average daily attendance during a year. This section would also
provide $15.0 million for assistance to local educational
agencies that experience significant increases and decreases in
the average daily attendance of military dependent students due
to the military force structure changes, the relocation of
military forces from one base to another, and from Base
Closures and Realignments. The committee recommendation
continues its effort to ensure that local school districts with
significant concentration of military students continue to
receive the support necessary to provide for military families
and their dependents.
Section 552--Determination of Number of Weighted Student Units for
Local Educational Agencies for Receipt of Basic Support Payments under
Impact Aid
This section would change the number of weighted student
units, from 6,500 to 5,000, when determining basic support
payments under Impact Aid.
Section 553--Permanent Authority for Enrollment in Defense Dependents'
Education System of Dependents of Foreign Military Members Assigned to
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe
This section would amend the Defense Dependents' Education
Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 923a) to provide permanent authority for
the Secretary of Defense to enroll on a space-required,
tuition-free basis, a limited number of dependents of foreign
military members assigned to the Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers, Europe (SHAPE), to the Department of Defense
dependents' education system in Mons, Belgium. This section
would also require the Secretary to make this determination
with the advice and assistance of the European Combatant
Commander.
Subtitle F--Missing or Deceased Persons
Section 561--Additional Requirements for Accounting for Members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees Listed as
Missing in Conflicts Occurring before Enactment of New System for
Accounting for Missing Persons
This section would amend section 1509 of title 10, United
States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to implement
a comprehensive, coordinated, integrated, and fully resourced
program to account for missing persons from all conflicts
beginning with World War II. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to take appropriate measures with
respect to resources to increase the annual number for which
missing persons are accounted to 200 by fiscal year 2015, and
to 350 by fiscal year 2020. This section would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a personnel file for each
unaccounted person.
Section 562--Clarification of Guidelines Regarding Return of Remains
and Media Access at Ceremonies for the Dignified Transfer of Remains at
Dover Air Force Base
This section would codify the Department of Defense policy
on media access at ceremonies for the dignified transfer of
remains from a theater of combat operations to Dover Air Force
Base, in Dover, Delaware. This section would take effect one
year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards
Section 571--Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans Who
Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to award the Vietnam Service Medal to veterans as a
substitute for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal that had
been awarded for participation in the operation to rescue the
SS Mayaguez during the period May 12 through May 15, 1975.
Section 572--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to
Anthony T. Koho'ohanohano for Acts of Valor during the Korean War
This section would authorize the President to award the
Medal of Honor to Anthony T. Koho'ohanohano, who served in the
United States Army during the Korean War. This section would
also waive the statutory time limitation under section 3744 of
title 10, United States Code.
Section 573--Authorization and Request for Award of Distinguished-
Service Cross to Jack T. Stewart for Acts of Valor during the Vietnam
War
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
award the Distinguished-Service Cross to Jack T. Stewart, who
served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War. This
section would also waive the statutory time limitation under
section 3744 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 574--Authorization and Request for Award of Distinguished-
Service Cross to William T. Miles, Jr., for Acts of Valor during the
Korean War
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
award the Distinguished-Service Cross to William T. Miles, Jr.,
who served in the United States Army during the Korean War.
This section would also waive the statutory time limitation
under section 3744 of title 10, United States Code.
Subtitle H--Military Families
Section 581--Pilot Program to Secure Internships for Military Spouses
with Federal Agencies
This section would establish an internship pilot program
for certain military spouses to obtain employment with other
federal agencies or departments that would lead to career
portability and advancement. It would also require a report on
the effectiveness of the program following the completion of
the pilot program, and a recommendation from the Secretary of
Defense on the need to extend, modify, or terminate the
program.
Section 582--Report on Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to
Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families
This section would require the Comptroller General to
review and assess the progress of the Department of Defense in
implementing the recommendations contained in the report
entitled, ``Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but Further
Management Action Needed'' (GAO-06-540), and to submit a report
containing the results of the review and assessment to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Section 583--Modification of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Regarding
Termination or Suspension of Service Contracts and Effect of Violation
of Interest Rate Limitation
This section would amend section 305a of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 535a) to increase the types of
services a service member being deployed for more than 90 days
can terminate upon receiving orders without paying termination
and other fees. In addition to cellular telephone service, the
amendment includes telephone exchange service, multichannel
video programming service, internet access services, water,
electricity, oil, gas, or other utilities.
Section 584--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who
Are Members of the Armed Forces Deployed in Support of a Contingency
Operation
This section would amend title 2 of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 535a) by preventing a court
from permanently altering a custody order while a service
member is deployed, unless evidence shows a temporary order is
in the best interest of the child. It also requires the pre-
deployment order to be reinstated when a service member returns
from deployment, unless evidence shows reinstatement is not in
the best interest of the child, and prohibits courts from using
deployment or the possibility of deployment against a service
member when determining the best interest of a child.
Section 585--Definitions in Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Related to Active Duty Servicemembers, and Related Matters
This section would amend sections 2611 and 2612 of title
29, United States Code, the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, to expand coverage of the exigency leave to members of
the active duty. The section would modify the definition of a
covered active duty service member, and expand coverage of such
members to include a veteran who is undergoing medical
treatment, recuperation and therapy for a serious injury or
illness at any time during a period of five years preceding the
date upon which the veteran receives treatment. This section
would take effect on the date of enactment, and would direct
the Secretary of Labor to issue final conforming regulations to
implement the section, not later than 120 days.
Subtitle I--Other Matters
Section 591--Navy Grants to Naval Sea Cadet Corps
This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy to make
grants, subject to the availability of funds, to the Naval Sea
Cadet Corps, a federally chartered corporation under chapter
1541 of title 36, United States Code.
Section 592--Improved Response and Investigation of Allegations of
Sexual Assault Involving Members of the Armed Forces
The committee is concerned with the incidence of sexual
assault in the military, and wants to ensure that the
Department of Defense is taking all possible actions to prevent
sexual assault from occurring, as well as fully investigating
and prosecuting all sexual assaults.
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide to the congressional defense
committees, a report on the capacity of each military services'
infrastructure for the investigation and adjudication of
allegations of sexual assault, to determine if there are any
barriers which negatively affect the ability of the services to
facilitate the investigation and adjudication of these cases to
the full extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and submit to the congressional defense committees, a
sexual assault prevention program. Further, this section would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional
defense committees, a report describing sexual assault forensic
examinations in combat zones, to include the following: the
current availability of sexual assault forensic examinations in
combat zones; the existence of any barriers to providing sexual
assault forensic examinations at all echelons of care in combat
zones; and the need for any legislative actions required to
improve the availability of sexual assault forensic
examinations in combat zones.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, a
report describing the implementation of section 701 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-324), which authorized coverage of sexual
assault forensic examinations under the TRICARE program. This
section would also require that sexual assault statistics
collected by the Department of Defense, that are a part of the
annual report to Congress, include whether a military
protective order was issued that involved either the victim or
perpetrator of cases of sexual assault, that was reported as an
unrestricted report. Further, this section would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that when a military protective
order is issued, the service member protected by that order is
informed that he or she has a right to request a base transfer
from the command.
Section 593--Modification of Matching Fund Requirements under National
Guard Youth Challenge Program
This section would reduce the matching fund requirement for
states participating in the National Guard Youth Challenge
Program from 75 percent of the costs, to 60 percent of the
costs of the program beginning October 1, 2009.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to believe that successful
recruiting and retention in a wartime environment directly
depends on the close oversight of compensation and benefit
programs to ensure that they remain robust, flexible, and
effective. Accordingly, the committee recommends an across-the-
board pay raise of 3.4 percent, one-half of one percent above
pay raise levels in the private sector as measured by the
Employment Cost Index (ECI). This would be the 11th consecutive
year that the pay raise would exceed the ECI level and would
result in an average cumulative pay increase of 57 percent over
the last 11 years.
The committee recognizes that some previously adopted
compensation policies, bonuses, and special pays require
modification to ensure they remain current and effective. The
committee recommends a number of such adjustments, including a
number of refinements to the initiative to reform special and
incentive pays adopted in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The committee believes that more needs to be done to
benefit military families. For example, the committee includes
provisions that would authorize a study of housing standards to
ensure that service members and their families receive an
appropriate level of housing allowance, an additional privately
owned vehicle to be shipped to non-foreign overseas locations
to assist families with transportation needs, and new limits to
protect the welfare of families when required to repay
compensation overpayments incurred through administrative
error.
The committee notes that the benefits provided to wounded
warriors and their loved ones needs to be updated. The
committee recommends two provisions to improve travel and
transportation benefits for family members, other persons
designated by the service member, and non-medical attendants.
The committee also recommends a provision to pay an allowance
to service members with a catastrophic combat-related injury or
illness in order to assist the member in acquiring aid and
attendance services.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Exchange Dividend Payments to the Puerto Rico National Guard
The committee is aware that the Army morale, welfare, and
recreation (MWR) central fund is holding over $50.0 million in
Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) dividend payments
that are the property of the Puerto Rico National Guard (PRNG).
The committee believes that the funds should be transferred to
the control of the PRNG to be used to provide for the welfare
of PRNG service members and their families. Accordingly, the
committee urges the adjutant general of the PRNG and MWR
managers within the Army and the Office of Secretary of Defense
to resolve any uncertainty about the process for distributing
the funds, and to transfer the full amount to the control of
the PRNG.
Review of Policy and Cost Considerations by Which National Guard
Military Technicians are Treated for Overtime Work
The committee is aware of the challenges with section
709(h) of title 32, United States Code, which prohibits Army
and Air Force National Guard military technicians from
receiving overtime pay but grants compensatory time off for
overtime work performed. The committee recognized that the law
concerning National Guard military technician overtime has
remained essentially unchanged since the enactment of the
National Guard Technicians Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-486), and
required a review of this policy as part of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public
Law 106-398). In response, the Department stated its position
that the overtime ban for National Guard technicians should
remain unchanged. The committee notes, however, that much has
changed since 2001, with many National Guard technicians facing
increased workloads due to increased operational support
demands, while also being deployed themselves in support of
ongoing military operations abroad.
In order to fully evaluate the extent to which National
Guard military technicians are compensated for their overtime
hours, the committee believes that a more comprehensive review
of this policy is needed. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to conduct a new review of the policy and cost
considerations by which National Guard military technicians are
treated for overtime work The review shall also contain the
following: (1) data on the overtime work performed by National
Guard military technicians during fiscal years 2002 through
2009, for which technicians are ineligible for overtime
compensation in accordance with section 709(h) of title 32,
United States Code; (2) indicate the average and annual amount
of compensatory time off earned by National Guard military
technicians and the average amount of that compensatory time
actually used by the technicians; and (3) indicate the number
of overtime hours performed by National Guard military
technicians and the estimated cost of providing overtime pay in
lieu of compensatory time for the performance of overtime work.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report his
findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by May
1, 2010.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2010 Increase in Military Basic Pay
This section would increase basic pay for members of the
uniform services by 3.4 percent effective January 1, 2010. This
raise would continue to fulfill Congress's commitment to keep
pay raises for the uniformed services ahead of private sector
pay raises. Accordingly, the gap between pay increases for the
uniformed services and private sector employees during fiscal
year 2010 would be reduced from approximately 2.9 percent to
2.4 percent.
Section 602--Special Monthly Compensation Allowance for Members with
Combat-Related Catastrophic Injuries or Illnesses Pending Their
Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to
pay a special monthly compensation to a service member with a
combat-related catastrophic injury or illness. The service
member would be entitled to the compensation after being
certified by a physician that the service member requires aid
and attendance services to perform personal functions required
in everyday living. The secretary concerned may pay the service
member an amount that may not exceed the aid and attendance
allowance authorized by section 1114(r) of title 38, United
States Code, and in determining the amount shall consider aid
and attendance service being provided by the government. The
compensation would terminate the first month following a 90 day
period beginning on the date of separation or retirement of the
member, the first month beginning after the death of the
member, or the first month beginning after the date on which
the member is determined to be no longer afflicted by a
catastrophic injury or illness, whichever is earlier.
Section 603--Stabilization of Pay and Allowances for Senior Enlisted
Members and Warrant Officers Appointed as Officers and Officers
Reappointed in a Lower Grade
This section would authorize a member of the armed forces
who accepts an appointment or reappointment as an officer
without a break in service to retain the pay and allowances to
which the member was entitled in the previous grade if it is
more than the pay and allowances to which the member is
entitled in the grade to which he is appointed or reappointed.
Section 604--Report on Housing Standards Used to Determine Basic
Allowance for Housing
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review the housing standards that are used to calculate the
monthly rates of basic allowance for housing and to report his
findings and recommendations with associated cost estimates by
July 1, 2010. The review would determine if the housing
standards meet societal needs and expectations of American
families, provide for an appropriate quality of life for
military families, and recognize the prestige associated with
promotion to higher military grades.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the Selected
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or
enlistment bonus, 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 bonus for persons with prior
service, and income replacement payments until December 31,
2010.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Health Care Professionals
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the
Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay
for Selected Reserve health care 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
until December 31, 2010.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2010.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37
Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would extend the authority for the general
bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus
authority for officers, the special bonus and incentive pay
authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay
and bonus authorities, the special health professions incentive
pay and bonus authorities, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay
or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus,
and the retention bonus for members with critical military
skills or assigned to high priority units until December 31,
2010.
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pay
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for
active members, 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 until December 31, 2010.
Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Referral Bonuses
This section would extend the authority for the health
professions referral bonus and the Army referral bonus until
December 31, 2010.
Section 617--Technical Corrections and Conforming Amendments to
Reconcile Conflicting Amendments Regarding Continued Payment of Bonuses
and Similar Benefits for Certain Members
This section would make technical and conforming amendments
in regard to provisions concerning the payment of bonuses that
were included in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) and
the Hubbard Act (Public Law 110-317).
Section 618--Proration of Certain Special and Incentive Pays to Reflect
Time During Which a Member Satisfies Eligibility Requirements for the
Special or Incentive Pay
This section would clarify that the monthly payment of
hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, hazardous duty pay,
assignment pay, and special duty pay may be prorated to reflect
the actual time the service members performed qualifying
service during the month. This section would also clarify that
reserve members may be paid a skill incentive bonus in the same
manner as such a bonus is paid to active duty members and that
the monthly payment of the bonus may be prorated to reflect the
actual time served in a critical skill.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 631--Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of Members on
Change of Permanent Station to or from Nonforeign Areas Outside the
Continental United States
This section would authorize members with at least one
family member eligible to drive to ship two privately owned
vehicles during permanent change of station moves to nonforeign
duty locations located outside the continental United States.
Nonforeign duty locations outside the continental United States
include Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other
territories and possessions.
Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Designated
Individuals of Wounded, Ill, or Injured Members for Duration of
Inpatient Treatment
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to
allow service members to designate three persons, to include
persons that are not family members, that may be authorized
travel and transportation benefits to visit a wounded, injured,
and ill service member while hospitalized. This section would
also clarify that a service member's designated individuals may
only be granted 3 rounds trips from their homes to the hospital
during any 60 day period and that other service members who are
properly designated may be granted the same travel and
transportation benefits.
Section 633--Authorized Travel and Transportation Allowances for Non-
Medical Attendants for Very Seriously and Seriously Wounded, Ill, or
Injured Members
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to
provide travel and transportation benefits to non-medical
attendants serving very seriously or seriously wounded, ill, or
injured service members when such persons are designated as
non-medical attendants by the service members and medical
authorities agree that the designee is qualified and would
contribute to the health and welfare of the service member.
This section would also authorize travel and transportation
benefits from the homes of the designated non-medical
attendants to the location at which the service members are
receiving treatment and to any other location to which such
service members are subsequently transferred or are required to
temporarily visit to receive further treatment.
Section 634--Increased Weight Allowance for Transportation of Baggage
and Household Effects for Certain Enlisted Members
This section would authorize noncommissioned officers in
the grades of E-5 through E-9 with an increased weight
allowance for shipping household goods during permanent changes
in station.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits
Section 641--Recomputation of Retired Pay and Adjustment of Retired
Grade of Reserve Retirees to Reflect Service after Retirement
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to
recompute the retired pay and adjust the retired grade of non-
regular retirees who have been recalled to an active status in
the Selected Reserve for not less than two years. This section
would authorize the secretary concerned to reduce the two-year
service requirement for a member recalled to serve in the
position of adjutant general or assistant adjutant general
within the National Guard when the member serves at least six
months but fails to complete the two years of service due to
the requirements of the law of the state, commonwealth, or
territory in which the member is serving.
Section 642--Election to Receive Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service
Upon Retirement for Service in an Active Reserve Status Performed After
Attaining Eligibility for Regular Retirement
This section would authorize members of Reserve Components
who served in an active reserve status in the Selected Reserve
for not less than two years after becoming eligible for an
active duty retirement to elect a non-regular retirement for
which they are qualified. This section would authorize the
secretary concerned to reduce the two-year service requirement
for a member recalled to serve in the position of adjutant
general or assistant adjutant general within the National Guard
when the member serves at least six months but fails to
complete the two years of service due to the requirements of
the law of the state, commonwealth, or territory in which the
member is serving. This section would further specify that a
member has attained retirement eligibility after meeting all
qualifying criteria without regard to whether the person
actually retired or received retired or retainer pay.
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Section 651--Additional Exception to Limitation on Use of Appropriated
Funds for Department of Defense Golf Courses
This section would authorize the use of appropriated funds
to purchase and maintain equipment intended to ensure military
golf courses are in compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101).
Section 652--Limitation on Department of Defense Entities Offering
Personal Information Services to Members and Their Dependents
This section would bar the Secretary of Defense from
authorizing a Department of Defense (DOD) entity to provide
personal information services using DOD resources, personnel or
equipment, or compete for contracts to provide such services
when the intent is to charge users to recover cost or to earn
profits. This section would authorize the Secretary to elect to
provide personal information services when users will not be
charged, when a private sector vendor is not available to
provide the services at specific locations, or when the
Secretary of Defense determines that the interests of the user
population would be best served by allowing the government to
provide such services.
Section 653--Report on Impact of Purchasing From Local Distributors All
Alcoholic Beverages for Resale on Military Installations on Guam
This section would require the Comptroller General to
evaluate the implications for nonappropriated fund activities
and alcohol beverage pricing of reimposing the requirement that
all alcoholic beverages intended for resale on military
installations on Guam be purchased from local sources as
provided in section 8073 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-116).
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 661--Limitations on Collection of Overpayments of Pay and
Allowances Erroneously Paid to Members
This section would require the secretary concerned to
reduce the maximum percentage of monthly compensation that may
be involuntarily collected to repay overpayments erroneously
paid to the member from 20 percent to 10 percent. This section
would also require the secretaries concerned to consult with
service members about establishing a repayment plan, delay
collection from wounded warriors for 180 days, and consider
forgiving the debt when the service member relies on social
security benefits or repayment would impose a financial
hardship. This section would also establish a five-year
deadline on collection actions.
Section 662--Army Authority to Provide Additional Recruitment
Incentives
This section would extend from December 31, 2009, to
December 31, 2012, the authority for the Secretary of the Army
to develop and implement recruiting incentive programs that are
unique to the Army. This section would also allow the Secretary
to replace incentive programs within the maximum of four
authorized under the law.
Section 663--Benefits Under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite
Absence Program for Certain Periods Before Implementation of Program
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned,
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, to
provide service members a benefit under the Post-Deployment/
Mobilization Respite Absence (PDMRA) program when the service
member qualified for such a benefit during the period after the
PDMRA program was announced on January 19, 2007, but before the
appropriate secretary concerned implemented the program. This
section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay former
service members up to $200 for each day of administrative
absence for which the former service members are qualified.
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to elect
to provide service members the appropriate number of days of
administrative absence for which the service members are
qualified or to pay the service members up to $200 for each day
of administrative absence for which the service members are
qualified. This section would exclude former service members
from eligibility if the former members were discharged or
released from the armed forces under other than honorable
conditions and would limit the number of days for which a
benefit may be provided to 40 days. This section would also
require the secretaries concerned to conclude awarding benefits
under the authority of the section at the end of a one-year
period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 664--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Compensation,
Retirement, and Other Military Personnel Programs
This section would express the sense of Congress that
service members and their families and military retirees
deserve ongoing recognition and support for their service. The
section would also confirm that Congress will be vigilant in
identifying appropriate direct spending offsets that can be
used to address shortcomings within military personnel programs
that incur mandatory spending obligations.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains concerned about the ability of the
Defense Health Program to support operational requirements,
accessibility, and quality of health care provided to service
members, retirees, and family members. After over seven years
of conflict, the military health system appears to be unable to
keep up with its current demands, as evidenced by a continuing
shift, from the direct care system, to the purchased care
system. The committee is aware of extended closures or
suspensions of clinical departments and graduate medical
education programs at military treatment facilities due to
deploying staff. The committee is concerned with the
Department's ability to retain exceptional military health care
providers in the face of the strains placed upon the system.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for fully
funding the Defense Health Program to help meet the demands
placed on the military health system.
The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense
did not again propose their Sustain the Benefit plan, which
would have achieved most of their cost savings by raising
TRICARE fees and cost shares by such a great amount, that a
significant number of current beneficiaries would choose to
leave the military health system. The committee is also
encouraged that the Secretary of Defense has indicated a
willingness to engage in a dialogue with Congress to develop a
thoughtful and comprehensive strategy to control the growing
cost of health care.
The committee is encouraged that the Department budgeted
for the restoration of military medical positions previously
converted to civilian positions, but never filled. However, the
committee remains concerned that the Department will resume
conversion of military medical and dental positions to civilian
medical and dental positions once the statutory prohibition
expires in 2012, despite indications that such conversions have
had an adverse effect on the military health system.
The committee remains vigilant in its oversight of the
care, rehabilitation, and support provided to our wounded
warriors, and is especially concerned with access to mental
health services. The committee is also concerned with the
health of military family members, to include mental health,
and will likewise provide vigilant oversight to ensure they
receive the health services they need.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Active Duty Dental Care
The committee continues to be concerned about the ability
of the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide timely access to
quality dental care. The committee is aware that the Department
of Defense employs several methods to provide dental care to
active duty service members, including non-DOD dental
providers. The committee is further concerned that active duty
service members receive consistent dental benefits regardless
of the type of dental provider utilized to provide quality care
under DOD dental programs. The committee therefore directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of and prepare a
report on the time it takes active duty service members to
access dental care, and whether or not it is qualitatively
different from care provided prior to October 1, 2008.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of and prepare a report on non-DOD provider
participation in any dental support contract entered into by
the Department of Defense since October 1, 2008, to include
provider participation rates.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit
the reports required above to the congressional defense
committees not later than December 31, 2009.
Arthritis
The committee is aware that 46 million Americans have
arthritis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
recently reported that nearly one in five American adults have
disabilities, and that arthritis remained the most common cause
of disability.
The committee is concerned by growing evidence that
arthritis, especially osteoarthritis, is an increasing problem
for military personnel. Recent studies indicate that U.S.
veterans are more likely to report physician-diagnosed
arthritis than the general population, and that arthritis
represents a significant health problem among veterans. Studies
also show that the stress placed on joints during military
training and military combat operations, account for an
increased prevalence of arthritis in service members and
veterans. The committee is particularly concerned with evidence
that some injuries may be responsible for the early onset of
arthritis, by as much as 10 years.
The committee believes that a proactive approach is
necessary to mitigate the negative impact of arthritis on
military readiness and the quality of life for service members
and their families. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive policy for the
prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and
rehabilitation of arthritis, and to submit a report on this
program to the congressional defense committees within one year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Availability of Proper and Comprehensive Medical Care for Victims of
Sexual Assault
The committee notes the importance of the availability of
proper and comprehensive medical care for victims of sexual
assault. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to Congress on the availability and adequacy
of proper medical care, including mental health care, for
victims of sexual assault in combat zones. The committee
further directs the Secretary of Defense to report on the
availability and adequacy of post-mobilization medical and
mental health care for victims of sexual assault in the Reserve
Components. The Secretary of Defense shall submit the report to
the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days
after the enactment of this Act.
Human Systems Integration
The committee notes the research on injury prevention being
conducted at Naval Special Warfare Group Two. This research has
two goals: to understand the mechanics and mechanisms of common
non-hostile fire injuries; and to develop physical training
regimens that reduce the likelihood of service members
incurring these injuries. The committee notes how quickly this
program has been embraced by special operators who have
incorporated it into their regular training. The committee also
notes that the potential reduction of injuries through physical
training tailored to the tactical tasks required of service
members in combat is not limited to special operations forces.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a comprehensive study to determine what aspects of this
research are ready for inclusion in conventional combat
training and what additional research is needed to tailor the
physical training of service members to the tactical tasks they
are required to perform while deployed. The committee directs
the Secretary to submit a report on the results of the study to
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Internet-Based Interactive Mental Health Technology
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
investigating new technological advancements that can provide
armed forces personnel and their families with interactive
self-help for their behavioral health needs in a manner which
reduces stigma and increases confidentiality. The committee
understands that the Department, in its effort to find the most
efficient and timely means of disseminating health-related
information, is investigating interactive tools, such as
virtual agents, that provide intelligent self-service by
engaging the individual online, discovering their intent, and
delivering the most appropriate and consistent response using
voice, text, and page navigation. The committee encourages the
Department to employ these human emulation technologies, to
expand available mental health services for military personnel
and their families.
Long-Term Tracking for Blast Exposures
The committee is aware that the Army National Guard has a
process for tracking long-term blast exposures among its
troops. This initiative records the exposure to blasts in
service member's personnel records in order to document the
incident in the event of problems associated with traumatic
brain injury or exposure to contaminants. The committee
understands that the database aids in the determination of
eligibility for appropriate treatment, care, and disability
entitlements. Further, the committee believes that the
utilization of a long-term blast exposure tool has the
potential to improve long-term medical treatment for all
service members and facilitate research into traumatic brain
injury and other blast-related health issues. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to work with
secretaries of the military services to establish a database to
track long-term blast exposures.
Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury
The committee is aware of the challenges the Department of
Defense continues to face in providing mental health care to
service members and their families, as well as diagnosing and
treating traumatic brain injury. The committee notes the myriad
recommendations provided by the Department of Defense Task
Force on Mental Health, required by section 723 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163). Further, the committee understands that the Department
has not yet fully implemented the comprehensive mental health
requirements contained in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). The committee
notes the diverse range of evolving concepts and technologies
from the nation's academic, scientific, and public health base
that directly relate to mental health and traumatic brain
injury. The committee therefore recommends that the Department
consider funding multiple projects, to include, but not be
limited to, the following:
(1) A demonstration project conducted at two military
installations, one active and one Reserve Component
demobilization station, to assess the feasibility and
efficacy of providing a face-to-face post-deployment
mental health and traumatic brain injury screening
between a service member and a mental health provider.
(2) A program to address the needs of service members
and their families, to include members of the Reserve
Components, that reside in rural areas, to ensure that
the full spectrum of mental health services is
available.
(3) A program to recruit and train veterans of
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom
as crisis hotline staff for Department of Defense
supported crisis hotlines.
(4) A project that partners with a school of nursing
to use the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction model
used to treat cancer survivors, to help service members
cope with stress and emotional difficulties associated
with disabilities incurred while deployed.
(5) A program conducted by a health and hazards
research center of a major university to reduce
vicarious trauma among military behavioral health
providers.
(6) A program to develop battlefield-related injury
translational research and strategies, to document
effective treatments to improve the long-term
disability and predictive models to identify
individuals at increased risk for long-term disability
from traumatic brain injury and polytrauma, including
physical and emotional trauma.
(7) A program conducted by a rehabilitation institute
of a major university to advance treatment strategies
to address traumatic injuries to military personnel
that result in the loss of, or impact to limbs,
cognition, vision, hearing, and/or motor function.
Military Mental Health Providers
The committee is concerned about the shortage of military
mental health providers. The committee is also aware that the
nation, as a whole, suffers from a serious shortage of mental
health providers. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military
services to develop programs to identify and train current
service members to become licensed mental health providers.
The committee commends the Army for creating its own
masters of social work program, which selects commissioned
officers for a graduate level course of study at the Army
Medical Department Center & School at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
This program, when followed by a preceptor phase at an Army
military treatment facility, allows commissioned officers who
have received a master of social work, to become licensed
social workers. The committee also commends the psychiatric
nurse practitioner program at the Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences at the National Naval Medical Center in
Bethesda, Maryland, which awards a doctor of nursing practice
degree in psychiatric health to military nurses.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to identify
any legal authorities required to develop additional Department
of Defense training programs that lead to licensure as a mental
health provider, and submit a report listing any required legal
authorities to the congressional defense committees within 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Pulse!!
The ``Pulse!!'' platform immerses medical personnel in a
high-fidelity, three-dimensional virtual space that replicates
the actual world in sight and sound by employing cutting-edge
computer game based technologies to present clinical cases in
real time. The learning platform provides an array of
interactive tools to guide learning, as well as technical
capabilities for integrating new advances in technology,
medicine, and education. The committee encourages the Secretary
of the Navy to ensure seamless transition of ``Pulse!!'' and
integration of capabilities into the medical learning
environment. The committee directs the Secretary to submit to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services, within 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, a report detailing: planned funding of ``Pulse!!''
for fiscal years 2010 and 2011; any plans for transitioning
``Pulse!!'' to the Naval Medical Support Command; and any plans
for integrating capabilities into current and future training
requirements.
Reserve Dental Readiness
The committee is aware that the military departments
continue to be challenged in bringing Reserve Component service
members up to the appropriate level of dental readiness prior
to mobilization. The committee recognizes the need for dental
readiness activities to be conducted at the home station, in
order to maximize collective training at mobilization stations
and reduce the delays in deployment. The committee encourages
the military departments to seek innovative approaches to
ensuring dental readiness for Reserve Component members,
including the development of cooperative agreements with
college and university dental programs to provide preventive
care and treatment close to the home station. The committee
also encourages the military departments to examine the
successful model used at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, to
provide dental support to the Reserve Components. Further, the
committee is aware of an innovative Army effort to
systematically address this challenge through the Army Selected
Reserve Dental Readiness System. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report, to the congressional
defense committees, on the status of the Army Selected Reserve
Dental Readiness System within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Trauma Training Technology
The committee notes that there is a 94 percent survival
rate for combat wounded service members who reach an Echelon
III medical facility. The committee understands that two of the
main contributing factors to the remarkable survival rate are
advancements in medical technology used in the field, such as
improved tourniquets, and a larger percentage of medics and
corpsman who have received advanced trauma training before
deployment. The committee is aware that the Department of
Defense uses all currently available methods to conduct trauma
training, to include simulators, live tissue models, and
training rotations in civilian trauma centers. The committee
notes that the Department of Defense is working with private
industry to develop more advanced and realistic training
simulators for trauma training. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to further improve medical training by
leveraging the Department of Defense's science & technology and
research & development organizations, as well as private
industry, to develop additional advanced training simulators
and training aids, to include animal-alternative training, to
offer the most realistic, practical, transferable, and cost-
effective training to all medical personnel.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits
Section 701--Prohibition on Conversion of Military Medical and Dental
Positions to Civilian Medical and Dental Positions
This section would indefinitely extend the prohibition on
conversions of military medical and dental positions to
civilian medical and dental positions by a secretary of a
military department by removing the end date of section 721 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181).
Section 702--Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide chiropractic services and benefits as a permanent part
of the Defense Health Program, including the TRICARE program,
for all active duty service members.
Section 703--Expansion of Survivor Eligibility under TRICARE Dental
Program
This section would expand survivor eligibility under the
TRICARE dental program so that it matches survivor eligibility
under other TRICARE programs.
Section 704--TRICARE Standard Coverage for Certain Members of the
Retired Reserve Who Are Qualified for a Non-Regular Retirement But Are
Not Yet Age 60
This section would extend TRICARE standard coverage for
certain members of the Retired Reserve who are qualified for a
non-regular retirement but are not yet age 60. Members of the
Retired Reserve eligible under this section would be required
to pay 100 percent of the cost of the monthly premium for
TRICARE Standard as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Section 705--Cooperative Health Care Agreements between Military
Installations and Non-Military Health Care Systems
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
establish cooperative health care arrangements and agreements
between military installations and local and regional non-
military health care systems.
Section 706--Health Care for Members of the Reserve Components
This section would extend the eligibility of members of the
Reserve Components who are issued or covered by a delayed-
effective-date active-duty order in support of a contingency
operation for TRICARE coverage under section 1074 of title 10,
United States Code, from 90 days before the date on which the
period of active duty is to commence, to 180 days before that
date.
Section 707--National Casualty Care Research Center
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate a National Casualty Care Research Center at the Army
Medical Research and Material Command. The purpose of the
center would be to establish additional linkages between
military and civilian casualty research. The center would be
required to provide public-private partnership for funding
studies on combat injury, integrate military and civilian
research to improve care, and ensure that data from both the
Joint Theater Trauma Registry and the National Trauma Bank are
used to establish research priorities.
Subtitle B--Reports
Section 711--Report on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Efforts
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in consultation with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to submit a report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on
Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate
itemizing the current treatments of post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), ongoing research, and areas for future
exploration by December 31, 2010.
The committee is concerned that research and treatment
efforts are disjointed and may be duplicative. The committee
encourages the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Department of Defense, and their respective agents, to
collaborate in the area of PTSD prevention and treatment
research in order to focus and improve preventative efforts and
the efficacy of treatment.
Section 712--Report on the Feasibility of TRICARE Prime in Certain
Commonwealths and Territories of the United States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study examining the feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of offering TRICARE Prime in Guam, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas Islands, and to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Section 713--Report on the Health Care Needs of Military Family Members
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prepare a report on the health care needs of military family
members, and to submit a report containing the results to the
congressional defense committees within one year after the date
of enactment of this Act. This section would also require the
Secretary of the Army to establish as a pilot program, a center
focused on the needs of military children and adolescents.
Section 714--Report on Stipends for Members of Reserve Components for
Health Care for Certain Dependents
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the extent to which the Secretary has
exercised the authority provided in section 704 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181).
Section 715--Report on the Required Number of Military Mental Health
Providers
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the
appropriate number of military mental health providers required
to meet the mental health care needs of members of the armed
forces, retired members, and dependents. This section would
also require the Secretary to provide a plan on how the
Department of Defense will achieve the appropriate number of
military mental health providers.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
OVERVIEW
Acquisition reform has been a major area of focus for the
committee this year. On March 18, 2009, the committee organized
a Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform to examine the operation
of the defense acquisition system. The Panel will serve for a
period of six months, with the potential to be extended for up
to an additional six months. In addition to the oversight that
the Panel's activities provide, the committee expects that the
Panel will provide recommendations to the full committee for
further reform of the defense acquisition system for
consideration next year. In addition, on May 12, the committee
reported out H.R. 2101, a bill to promote reform and
independence in the oversight of weapons system acquisition by
the Department of Defense. This legislation was enacted into
law as S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-23) on May 22, 2009.
The committee's recommendations in this title reflect the
fact that significant reform of the acquisition of major weapon
systems has already been enacted this year. However, the
committee notes that major weapon systems acquisition
constitutes only about 20 percent of the annual acquisitions of
the Department of Defense. The committee is continuing its work
on other major areas of acquisition, especially contingency
contracting and service contracting. Recognizing the critical
importance of the acquisition workforce to success in all areas
of acquisition, the committee incorporates in this title
improvements that were requested by the Department of Defense
in the operation of the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund and in the implementation of expedited hiring
authority for acquisition positions. These authorities will
assist the Department in achieving the goals of its hiring
initiative for the acquisition workforce which is discussed in
greater detail in an item of special interest in this section
of the report.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Contingency Contracting
Contingency Contracting Planning, Oversight, and Visibility
The committee continues to be concerned about the level of
planning and oversight for contractor support, particularly in
the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
and believes that continued progress in this area will require
ongoing commitment from the leadership of the Department of
Defense (DOD), including the military services. The committee
notes that the Department of Defense has taken several positive
steps to address issues of contingency contracting, including
signing a Memorandum of Understanding for matters relating to
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Department of
State and the United States Agency for International
Development as mandated in section 861 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181),
identifying the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational
Tracker database to track contractors, deploying Joint Asset
Management and Movement System scanners, establishing the Joint
Contracting Acquisition Support Office and Joint Operational
Contract Support Planners, and establishing the DOD Dependence
on Contractor Support in Contingency Operations Task Force.
However, the committee remains concerned that the military
services have not fully developed and formalized doctrine for
deployed forces to ensure that: the role for contractor support
is appropriately defined; such forces and their commanders are
trained on the integration of contractor support into combat
and contingency operations; and adequate systems exist to
oversee contractors supporting deployed forces. Further, the
Department of Defense has not yet assigned oversight
responsibilities nor developed all of the departmental
directives and policies necessary to an enduring contingency
contracting policy within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the combatant commands, the defense agencies, and the
military departments.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the secretaries of the military departments
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2010
that addresses the development of relevant doctrine and
training; the status, plans, and resources for existing
programs to support contingency contracting and improve
visibility into contractors in theater; and plans for
establishing enduring oversight responsibilities and policies.
The report should also address the results of the study of the
DOD Dependence on Contractor Support in Contingency Operations
Task Force including: information on the rationale for the
study and what was hoped to be achieved; a description of joint
capability areas and uniform joint task lists that are
particularly reliant on contractors, and other shortfalls that
the study identified; an assessment of the broader implications
of the study results for the Department's ability to provide
those capabilities in the decades ahead; and a description of
how the study's recommendations will be implemented.
Serious Corrective Action Measures in Department of Defense Contracts
The committee is aware that in rare cases, contractor
quality controls on Department of Defense contracts could
deteriorate so badly that serious corrective action measures
would be required. In these cases, the Department normally
issues a Level III Corrective Action Request (CAR). The
committee is concerned that the severity of cases involving
Level III CARs could challenge existing measures for corrective
action in the event the Department of Defense is entirely
dependent on a single contractor due to the existence of: a
sole source contracting strategy that cannot be quickly
adjusted; an urgent and unavoidable requirement; or a
challenging environment for contract performance. In such
cases, the Department may be unable, in a timely fashion, to
fully exercise its right to sanction the contractor, which
could allow potentially life-threatening issues of deficient
contractor performance to continue for a significant period of
time. Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to carry out
an assessment of the sufficiency of mechanisms currently in
place to respond to contractor deficiencies that result in
Level III or higher CARs on the kinds of contracts identified
above, including possible enhancements to such mechanisms, and
directs the Under Secretary to provide a report on the findings
of the assessment to the congressional defense committees by
October 1, 2009.
Third-Party Certification of Private Security Contractors
The committee recognizes that third-party certification is
common in government procurements. For example, third-party
generated standards have been adopted as a requirement in many
contracts, such as the International Organization for
Standardization certification, American Bureau of Shipbuilding
certification, or radio frequency standards established by the
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers. Similar
requirements have also been targeted to individuals or key
employees of a potential contractor, such as license
requirements for engineers, training standards for canine
handlers, or unexploded ordnance technicians. The committee
notes that such standards have yielded benefits for both the
Department of Defense and industry, in terms of consistency,
clarity in requirements, and affordability.
The committee believes that a third-party or industry
generated set of standards for private security contractors may
create similar results for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
assess the feasibility of requiring that an independent, third-
party certification body certify a private security contractor
has met appropriate operational and business practice
standards, consistent with applicable defense regulations and
legal precedent. Such a certification could attest that a
contractor possesses and utilizes approved hiring, screening,
training, and reporting practices, in addition to compliance
with tax law, ethics, and auditing programs. As part of the
Secretary's assessment, the committee encourages the Secretary
to consider the extent to which independent, third-party
certification of private contractors would increase or decrease
the end cost to the taxpayer for such contracts. The Secretary
of Defense is further directed to submit a report containing
the findings of the assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services of the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2010.
War Zone Contractor Communications Safety
The Department of Defense (DOD) increasingly must work with
multi-national partners and interact with local populations in
a variety of regions. While the Department traditionally relied
on its language professionals to ensure that it had the
regional proficiencies it needed, it has recognized that
deployed combat forces also must have the ability to understand
and communicate with native populations, local officials, and
coalition partners. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, the military services, and combatant
commands are responsible for the development, training, and use
of foreign language capabilities among civilian and military
personnel. The committee notes that similar attention should be
paid to contractors supporting the military forces. Currently,
in the Central Command area of responsibility, there is almost
a one-to-one ratio between military personnel and contractor
personnel, many of whom are third-country or host-country
nationals working as private security guards. The ability to
communicate with military forces with whom they are stationed
or with the local community is an essential security protection
measure.
The committee is aware that contracts awarded for security
guards in the region require contractor personnel to have an
ability to speak English at a level sufficient to give and
receive situational reports. However, recent contract audits
have questioned the language proficiency of many of the third-
country nationals. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report on contractor language
proficiency requirements for those working as private security
contractors to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act. The report should include: a
description of the policy requirements, including contract
clauses, for contractor language proficiency; the type of
language training provided to contractor personnel, including
ongoing refresher courses; and the mechanisms used by DOD
contract oversight personnel to assess whether the contractors
have complied with the proficiency requirements for their
employees.
Other Matters
Acquisition Workforce
The acquisition workforce is at the heart of the Department
of Defense (DOD) acquisition system. Ensuring that the
acquisition workforce is adequately staffed, skilled, and
trained and improving the workforce's quality and performance
are as important as improvements to acquisition processes and
structures. Congress formally established the acquisition
workforce as a profession, and set education, training, and
experience standards in the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act, which was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510).
The committee has been concerned, however, that since then, the
Department's civilian acquisition workforce may have been
downsized too much, particularly since many recent acquisition
problems have been attributed to inadequate oversight, poor
decision making, and faulty implementation of acquisition laws
and regulations.
Congress has enacted several initiatives as part of the
annual national defense authorization acts aimed at addressing
those concerns and giving the Department the necessary tools to
hire, retain, and train acquisition professionals, including
the creation of an acquisition workforce development fund,
authorization of direct hire authority for acquisition
positions, and establishment of exceptions to Department
personnel caps to ensure performance of certain functions by
government employees, both civilian and military. In addition,
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) requires the Department to
establish policies for career paths for military personnel in
the acquisition field. Opportunities to advance to general and
flag officer positions have been limited in the past,
discouraging talented active duty personnel from seeking a
career in the acquisition field. The committee notes that the
Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in
Expeditionary Operations, in its 2007 report, found that the
contracting failures in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan could be attributed in part to the lack
of general officers with contracting experience in the Army.
The committee expects that a commitment to properly developing
members of the armed forces in the acquisition field should
help attract the highest quality candidates for these
positions.
The committee commends the Department's initiative to
increase the size of the in-house acquisition workforce,
proposing to hire 9,000 new government personnel and convert
11,000 contractor positions to DOD civilian personnel
positions. The committee encourages the Department to consider
whether additional civilian personnel or training programs may
be needed based on the completion of its own competency
modeling effort, as well as the results of its insourcing
analysis. The committee also recommends that the Department
look not only at the existing gaps in its workforce, but take a
pro-active approach in determining what capabilities may need
to be developed to ensure that the Department has a high-
performing acquisition workforce that is ready to meet the
demands of today's complex national security environment and
that is adaptable enough to respond to future needs.
In addition to, and, as important as, the Department's
initiative to increase the overall size of the government
acquisition workforce, the committee urges the Department to
undertake a focused campaign deliberately designed to instill
an enterprise-wide mindset that properly recognizes the
critical mission the acquisition workforce performs.
Industrial Security
The committee notes that section 845 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) codified the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to
protect classified information disclosed to contractors of the
Department of Defense. Section 845 also required the Secretary
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2009, on measures to improve industrial security. The
committee notes that the Secretary submitted the required
report on time, and that the report provided a concise and well
thought-out presentation of measures being taken, and potential
measures to be taken, to improve industrial security. The
report revealed that the Department is currently updating its
industrial security policy as it pertains to foreign ownership,
control or influence. The committee looks forward to issuance
of the new policy. The committee urges the Secretary to
aggressively pursue additional measures to improve industrial
security as described in the section of the report relating to
the Secretary's recommendations. Additionally, the committee
looks forward to receiving the Secretary's first biennial
report on the Department's industrial security expenditures and
activities by September 1, 2009. The committee endorses the
Secretary's decision to increase staffing in the Defense
Security Service (DSS) and to increase DSS's capability in the
area of industrial security, particularly in analyzing the
impact of new financial arrangements on the Department's
ability to establish the existence of foreign ownership,
control, or influence (FOCI) on defense contractors. The
committee expects that the Secretary will place a high priority
on addressing weaknesses in cyber security and on improvements
in the detection of FOCI in discussions of revisions to
interagency guidance on industrial security.
Report on Small Business Concerns with Defense Policy Review Initiative
Acquisition Strategy
The committee is aware of the complexities of the
acquisition strategy associated with the realignment of
military forces on Guam and concerns raised about the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command use of Multiple Award
Construction Contracts (MACCs) as the primary vehicle for
design and construction of facilities on Guam. The committee
notes that requests for proposals for performance under the
MACCs will require prospective contractors to meet certain
bonding, workforce healthcare, workforce housing, and material
management requirements. Although the committee acknowledges
the importance of these requirements, the committee is
concerned that this contracting mechanism may make it difficult
for small business concerns, particularly local small
businesses, to submit responsive proposals.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by
February 1, 2010, on the small business goals associated with
the realignment of military forces on Guam and how such goals
will be attained. Additionally, the report shall address the
extent to which the Navy considered small businesses' abilities
to meet the bonding requirements of task orders associated with
MACCs on Guam and the ability of program management support
contractors to bid on such task orders.
Service Contracting
The Department of Defense (DOD) now spends more of its
budget on the procurement of services than products. Within the
United States and at U.S. military installations overseas,
contractors provide basic base support operations (such as food
and housing), logistical support, equipment maintenance,
medical care, and administrative support as well as the
development and support of complex information technology
systems. The committee notes that the wide variety of types of
services provided, along with the range of different
contracting vehicles for the procurement of services, leads to
challenges in describing standard requirements, establishing
measurable and performance-based outcomes, and overseeing
contractor performance. Congress has enacted several
initiatives as part of the annual national defense
authorization acts aimed at providing improved management and
oversight of the acquisition of services by the Department and
the military services.
The committee remains concerned, however, that the
Department has not adequately focused on how it contracts for
services. As the Government Accountability Office has stated in
numerous reports, the Department lacks a strategic approach to
managing services and needs to develop methods to assess risk
when acquiring services. Without such an approach, the
Department is at risk of being unable to identify and correct
poor contractor performance in a timely manner and is at risk
of paying contractors more than the value of the services they
performed.
The committee's Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform is
examining the problem of ensuring the Department improves its
procurement processes for services overall, including
performance assessments, evaluation of risks, management
structure for award and oversight, and use of appropriate
contracts. In addition, the committee recommends legislation,
elsewhere in this title, that would require the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to provide
for an independent assessment of improvements necessary for the
procurement and oversight of services. The committee also
expects that the inventory of service contracts required by
section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) will provide the
Department with a valuable tool for identifying its existing
service contracts, considering which functions should be
brought back in house for performance by DOD civilian
personnel, and determining the appropriate total workforce mix
of military, civilian, and contractor personnel.
Service Contractor Inventory
Section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires an annual
inventory of the Department of Defense's contracts for
services. The committee understands that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has been
tasked with the responsibility for developing this service
contracting inventory. The committee notes, however, that the
inventory mandated by section 807 is intended to be of a much
broader scope than simply capturing data from the Federal
Procurement Data System. The committee encourages the Under
Secretary to also consider the data requirements needed by the
personnel, manpower, cost assessment and program evaluation,
and comptroller communities in order to ensure that the
inventory may be used to facilitate the military services'
ability to conduct total workforce planning that is fully
integrated into the programming and budget processes, and to
fulfill the Secretary of Defense's plans to reduce the number
of service support contractors and replace them with full-time
government employees.
While the committee recognizes that development of a
comprehensive inventory takes time, the committee is concerned
because almost two years after enactment of section 807, no
information has been provided and no methodology has been
developed to conduct the inventory, except by the Department of
the Army which began its effort as early as 2002. The committee
is aware that the Department of the Navy and Department of the
Air Force intend to provide a prototype inventory by the third
quarter of the current fiscal year. From initial reports of
what these inventories will cover, the committee is concerned
that the prototypes will provide only sampling projections and
not the robust and qualitative information required by section
807. The committee notes that the Department of the Army
inventory captures data not only on contracting organizations,
but the components administering the contract as well as the
funding source for the contract and the number of full time
contractor equivalent employees. The committee recommends that
the Army methodology be used by the other military departments.
Alternatively, should the military departments develop their
own methodology, they should provide the same level of detail
and completeness as that provided by the Army in order to
ensure accurate comparisons of the inventories.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report describing the methodology and data sources selected by
the military departments to gather and analyze the information
to complete the required annual inventory, an explanation, if
the Army methodology is not used, of the rationale for
developing a different method, and a timeframe for submission
of a complete inventory by each of the military departments.
Such report shall be provided to the congressional defense
committees by September 1, 2009. In addition, the Secretary is
directed to submit a copy of the report on the data collection
methodology to the Comptroller General concurrent with
submission to the defense committees. The committee directs the
Comptroller General to provide an assessment of the methodology
to the congressional defense committees within 60 days after
receiving the Secretary's report. Since this report is intended
to assist the review of the inventories, the committee stresses
that it should not delay the scheduled provision of the initial
inventories by the military departments.
Strategic Materials
Section 843 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
established the Strategic Materials Protection Board within the
Department of Defense to: 1) determine the need to provide a
long-term domestic supply of materials designated as critical
to national security; 2) analyze the risk associated with each
material designated as critical to national security and the
effect on national defense that the non-availability of such
material from a domestic source would have; and 3) recommend a
strategy to the President to ensure the domestic availability
of materials designated as critical to national security.
The committee is concerned that the December 2008 report of
the Department of Defense's Strategic Materials Protection
Board falls short of these objectives, particularly by revising
the definition of the term ``strategic material critical to
national security'' in a way which undermines the Board's
purpose. Under the revised definition, a material would be
deemed critical to national security only if: the Department
dominates the market for the material; the Department actively
shapes the strategic direction of the market; and there is a
significant and unacceptable risk of supply disruption. This
definition limits the purview of the Board to only those
materials for which the determinations the Board is tasked to
make are presupposed in the definition of the materials
themselves. Furthermore, such a definition fails to include a
range of materials that Congress has designated as critical to
national security and, as such, has provided significant
protection or domestic preference in DOD policy and in statute.
For example, Congress has determined that reliance on foreign
sources of supply for materials such as titanium, specialty
steel, and high performance magnets, poses a heightened risk.
The Board's narrowing of the definition of materials critical
to national security renders the Board unable to provide
perspective on the adequacy, suitability, or effectiveness of
those policies. Moreover, it limits the ability of the Board to
consider any course of action, however minor, in relation to a
material until the point at which potential damage to national
security is imminent and severe. It also creates the perverse
situation that a material could be critical to every element of
the industrial base upon which the Department depends, but not
considered critical to the Department itself if the material is
also used significantly in commercial items. As an indication
of the inadequacy of this definition for the Board's
functioning, the Board currently identifies only one material
as meeting the definition for consideration as a strategic
material critical to national security. The committee does not
find this conclusion to be plausible and expects that the Board
will swiftly revisit this definition to ensure that it is able
to identify gaps in our domestic defense supply chain and
provide the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress
with information, analysis, and advice on strategic materials
which are critical to the operations of the Department of
Defense.
The committee also notes that the Department has yet to
finalize its proposed rule implementing recent legislative
changes relating to the procurement of specialty metals. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying H.R. 5658 the
committee expressed concern about several issues in the
proposed rule including the determination of when an item is a
commercial off the shelf (COTS) item, and the definition of the
term ``produced.'' These concerns remain valid for the pending
proposed rule. In particular, the proposed rule provides that
an item should be considered to be COTS if accepted in an
unmodified form at the next higher contracting tier. The
committee notes that it is reasonable for the contracting tier
purchasing the item to make the determination at the time of
such purchase that it is COTS, but also notes that a COTS item
which is subsequently modified at a higher tier may, depending
on the nature of the modification, no longer qualify as a COTS
item. In fact, the statutory definition of COTS in section
431(c) of title 41, United States Code, is restricted to items
offered to the government without modification. The committee
also notes that two illustrative examples given in the proposed
rule relating to modification of COTS items appear to deal with
fasteners, which are exempted from the COTS exception in many
circumstances. The committee is concerned that a recent General
Services Administration rule reiterates this flawed definition
of a COTS item from the proposed rule.
The committee is also concerned that the proposed rule
provides an unprecedented definition of the term ``produced,''
which would treat imported metals that are subjected to late-
stage processing operations, such as heat treatment, as
specialty metals produced in the United States. The committee
notes that in most cases, the metal being treated through these
processes would qualify as a specialty metal pursuant to title
10, United States Code, prior to receiving the treatment. Thus,
the committee believes this definition is inconsistent with the
law. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review the changes
suggested in the proposed rule to ensure that they are
compliant with both the law and with congressional intent, and
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2009,
explaining how the committee's concerns were addressed.
Use of Non-Traditional Defense Contractors for Information Technology
Programs
The committee notes that the top six contractors of the
Department of Defense, in terms of revenue, continue to be the
primary recipients of contracts for the integration of
information technology systems and major automated information
systems. While these contractors may provide best value to the
warfighter in many instances, the committee also recognizes
that much of the innovation in information technology is led by
non-traditional defense contractors. Therefore, as the
Secretary of Defense implements the requirements of section 202
of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (Public Law 111-23)
with regard to ensuring competition throughout the lifecycle of
a defense acquisition program, the committee directs the
Secretary to consider mechanisms to offer greater opportunities
for non-traditional defense contractors on large information
technology efforts or major automated information systems. The
Secretary is further directed to report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by October 1, 2009, regarding the feasibility of setting an
aggressive goal for the award of contracts to such businesses
for information technology efforts during fiscal year 2010,
such as the award of 75 percent of the total value of such
contracts to non-traditional systems integrators. This report
should also detail any significant barriers impeding the
ability of non-traditional defense contractors from competing
on major information technology programs.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Section 801--Enhanced Authority to Acquire Products and Services
Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
limit competition or provide a preference to sources in one or
more countries along a major supply route to the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. The authority would be available upon
a determination by the Secretary that the product or service
being acquired was being used only by personnel that ship
goods, or provide support for shipping goods, for use in
operations in Afghanistan; that the Secretary determined that
use of the authority would either: reduce overall U.S.
transportation costs and risks in shipping goods to
Afghanistan; encourage countries along a major route of supply
to Afghanistan to expand that supply route; or help develop
more robust and enduring routes of supply to Afghanistan; and
that the use of the authority would not adversely affect
operations in Afghanistan or the United States industrial base.
This section would define a country along a major route of
supply to Afghanistan as including Georgia, the Kyrgyz
Republic, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of
Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of
Kazakhstan, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of
Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan. This section would terminate the
authority 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report by April 1, 2010, on the use of this authority,
including: (1) the number of determinations made by the
Secretary of Defense; (2) a description of the products and
services acquired under this authority; (3) the extent to which
the use of the authority conforms to the objectives of this
section; (4) the list of countries providing products or
services; and (5) any recommended modifications to the
authority.
Section 802--Assessment of Improvements in Service Contracting
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to commission a study
by a federally funded research and development center on the
Department of Defense's oversight of service contracting.
Matters to be covered in the study include: the quality of
guidance relating to service contracting; best practices in the
process of setting requirements and developing statements of
work; the development of effective performance metrics; an
assessment of the management structure for service contracting;
the effectiveness of peer reviews; the quality and sufficiency
of the acquisition workforce for service contracting; and such
other matters as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics deems appropriate for
inclusion in the study. This section would require the Under
Secretary to submit a report containing the findings and
recommendations of the study, along with the Under Secretary's
comments, to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2010.
Section 803--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for Procurement of
Contract Services and Related Clarifying Technical Amendments
This section would codify section 806 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) by adding a new section at the end of chapter 9 of title
10, United States Code. This section would also add a
requirement to include contractor employee data based on the
service contract inventory required by section 807 of Public
Law 110-181 in the annual budget justification documents.
Furthermore, this section would amend the review and planning
requirements process in section 807 of Public Law 110-181 to
require an approval process related to conversion of functions
based on the inventory. The committee notes that the amendments
made by this section should assist the Department of Defense in
its planning, programming, and budgeting for service contracts.
Section 804--Demonstration Authority for Alternative Acquisition
Process for Defense Information Technology Programs
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the
authority to designate up to 10 information technology (IT)
programs annually to be included in a pilot demonstration of an
alternative acquisition process for rapidly acquiring
information technology capabilities. The programs selected for
this demonstration would include a mix that represents a cross
section of functional domains. No more than two of these 10
designated programs would be major automated information
systems.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181) required the Defense Science Board (DSB)
to carry out a review of Department of Defense (DOD) policies
and procedures for the acquisition of information technology
for the Secretary of Defense. The DSB Task Force on Department
of Defense Policies and Procedures for the Acquisition of
Information Technology, released March 2009, found the current
process for acquisition of IT ineffective, stating: ``The
conventional DOD acquisition process is too long and too
cumbersome for the needs of the many systems that require
continuous changes and upgrades.'' The DSB called for a unique
acquisition process for IT, and went so far as to offer a
preliminary draft for such a process. The committee perceives
that while this is a unique parallel process, it appears to be
developed in such a way as to be interoperable with the
existing conventional process, allowing programs to pass back
and forth seamlessly.
The committee is encouraged by these findings, and believes
the Secretary of Defense should use the DSB Task Force on
Department of Defense Policies and Procedures for the
Acquisition of Information Technology as the basis for the
procedures required to be developed by this provision.
Section 805--Limitation on Performance of Product Support Integrator
Functions
This section would amend chapter 141 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section that would require that
when the Department of Defense (DOD) enters into contractor
sustainment arrangements for the purchase of logistics support
for a major system, the product support integration function
would be performed by a member of the armed forces or an
employee of the Department of Defense, beginning after
September 30, 2010. This section would not require a member of
the armed forces or an employee of the Department of Defense to
perform the product support integrator function on subsystems
or components of a major system.
The committee understands that the product support
integrator function is an entity performing as a formally bound
agent charged with integrating all sources of support, public
and private, defined within the scope of the sustainment
agreements, to achieve the documented performance metrics and
outcomes or sustainment and logistics requirements. The
committee expects this section would allow the Department of
Defense to:
(1) Improve competition for subsystems and
components;
(2) Manage support contracts through competitive
procedures;
(3) Avoid administrative costs charged by a product
support integrator; and
(4) Leverage both industry and DOD Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence to achieve
competition, performance, and cost savings.
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Section 811--Revision of Defense Supplement Relating to Payment of
Costs Prior to Definitization
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to revise the
Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to
ensure that, when a clause relating to the payment of costs
prior to definitization is included in a contract of the
Department of Defense, such clause should apply to such
contract regardless of the contract type and should also apply
to all contract actions pursuant to such contract regardless of
the type of the contract action.
Section 812--Revisions to Definitions Relating to Contracts in Iraq and
Afghanistan
This section would amend section 864 and section 1248 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181) to clarify and streamline reporting of
information relating to contracts in the Government of the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The
revisions would: clarify that reporting requirements relating
to contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan also apply to grants and
cooperative agreements; increase the threshold for the duration
of a contract above which reporting is required from 14 days to
30 days; and align the threshold for requiring contractors to
report their employment of Iraqi nationals with the simplified
acquisition threshold. These changes would improve the
availability and quality of information provided to Congress
under both sections.
Section 813--Amendment to Notification Requirements for Awards of
Single Source Task or Delivery Orders
This provision would amend the notification requirements
for awards of any single source task or delivery orders
exceeding $100.0 million to ensure proper notification to the
congressional defense committees, and the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence in the case of intelligence programs,
of intent to proceed with such a transaction under the
exceptions outlined in section 843 of the conference report (H.
Rept. 110-477) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
Section 814--Clarification of Uniform Suspension and Debarment
Requirement
This section would amend section 2455 of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) to
clarify that regulations regarding suspension and debarment
procedures required by section 2455 should apply to
subcontracts at any tier.
Section 815--Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified Acquisition
Procedures for Certain Commercial Items
This section would amend section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to extend the authority to use
simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items that are
less than $5.5 million in value for two additional years, until
January 1, 2012.
Section 816--Revision to Definitions of Major Defense Acquisition
Program and Major Automated Information System
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
designate a program that qualifies as both a major defense
acquisition program and a major automated information system as
one or the other. This change will focus legislative
requirements on appropriate acquisition programs: chapter 144
of title 10 on major defense acquisition programs that develop
custom weapons systems hardware, and chapter 144A of title 10
on major automated information systems that develop major
software-intensive systems using commercial hardware. This
authority will also simplify oversight and streamline
associated reporting requirements.
Section 817--Small Arms Production Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2473 of title 10, United
States Code, which provides the definition of the small arms
production industrial base. This section would expand and
broaden the definition of the small arms production industrial
base to include all domestically-based United States small arms
manufacturers and to also include pistols.
Section 818--Publication of Justification for Bundling of Contracts of
the Department of Defense
This section would require that contracting officers of the
Department of Defense make public the justification currently
required in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 30 days before
issuing a solicitation which would result in bundling contracts
of the Department, with certain limited exceptions.
Section 819--Contract Authority for Advanced Component Development or
Prototype Units
This section would provide temporary authority to award a
contract option for a ``bridge'' between the end of the science
and technology portion of a contract awarded under a Federal
Acquisition Regulation Broad Agency Announcement and the
competitive award of a contract under a new acquisition for
advanced component development or prototyping. The authority
would be limited, in the case of a contract option awarded for
prototyping, to the minimum number of prototype items necessary
to allow for the timely competitive solicitation and award of a
follow-on development or production contract for such items. In
the case of a contract option awarded for advanced component
development, the authority would be limited to a term of not
more than 12 months. Each military department would be
authorized to exercise such a contract option not more than
four times per year. The Secretary of Defense would be
authorized to approve up to four total additional options a
year for projects supported by defense agencies. The authority
would expire on September 30, 2014. This section would also
require the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the use of such authority by March 1,
2014, describing the use of the authority to date, the extent
to which the authority has increased competition and improved
technology transition, and any recommendations the Secretary
may have about the modification or extension of such authority.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 821--Enhanced Expedited Hiring Authority for Defense
Acquisition Workforce Positions
This section would amend section 1705(h) of title 10,
United States Code, to add the term ``critical need'' as a
basis for using the expedited hiring authority allowed under
section 1705, and deletes the word ``highly'' to ensure full
application of the expedited hiring authority from entry
through expert levels. This section would improve the ability
of the Secretary of Defense to increase the size of the
Department of Defense acquisition workforce. The committee
notes that the Department, in its fiscal year 2010 budget
request, has indicated that it will increase the size of the
defense acquisition workforce by converting 11,000 contractors
and hiring an additional 9,000 government acquisition
professionals through 2015, beginning with 4,080 in 2010. The
committee believes that the focus on the acquisition workforce
is particularly critical, since the acquisition workforce is at
the heart of the Department's acquisition system.
Section 822--Acquisition Workforce Development Fund Amendments
This section would modify section 852 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to clarify the availability of funds from the defense
acquisition workforce development fund. This section would
allow payments to members of the armed forces or to civilian
personnel who were not members of the acquisition workforce as
of the date of enactment of section 852 of Public Law 110-181
for the purpose of hiring such persons into the acquisition
workforce. This section would further modify section 852 of
Public Law 110-181 to provide that the Secretary of Defense may
suspend or reduce the requirement to collect funds from the
military departments and defense agencies whenever funds are
actually requested, authorized, and appropriated for the
defense acquisition development fund that would exceed the
minimum deposit that would otherwise have been collected and
deposited to the fund. The President's budget request for
fiscal year 2010 includes $100.0 million for this fund. The
committee notes, however, that this is less than what is
estimated to be credited to the fund. The Department of Defense
intends to credit $700.0 million in fiscal year 2009 to the
fund, with $230.0 million allocated for fiscal year 2009
efforts and $470.0 million for continuing hiring, training, and
retention efforts in fiscal year 2010.
The committee notes that over the period from fiscal year
2008 through fiscal year 2009, total funding for the defense
acquisition development workforce fund, at a minimum, will
equal $1.8 billion based on set percentages of the amount of
funds the military departments and defense agencies spend on
certain service contracts. This funding mechanism has had the
effect of forcing immediate funding for recruitment, retention,
education, and training initiatives that the Department had not
otherwise programmed. The committee recognizes that the fund
represents a ``jump start'' to the acquisition workforce hiring
and training initiative recently announced by the Secretary of
Defense.
Section 823--Reports to Congress on Full Deployment Decisions for Major
Automated Information System Programs
This section would amend the reporting requirement in
section 2445 of title 10, United States Code, by replacing
references to ``initial operational capability'' and ``full
operational capability'' with the term ``full deployment
decision'' in order to bring terminology more in line with
updated acquisition regulations. For major automated
information systems, the final acquisition decision is referred
to as the full deployment decision (FDD). FDD is a more
meaningful metric for software intensive programs than initial
operational capability (IOC) and full operational capability
(FOC) because the user community vice the acquisition community
defines and controls IOC and FOC.
Section 824--Requirement for Secretary of Defense to Deny Award and
Incentive Fees to Companies Found to Jeopardize Health or Safety of
Government Personnel
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prohibit the payment of award and incentive fees to defense
contractors who are determined through a criminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding, to be responsible for causing the
death or serious bodily injury of any civilian or military
personnel of the government through gross negligence or
reckless disregard for safety. This section would apply to both
prime contractors and subcontractors. The prohibition would
apply to contractors after a criminal conviction, a civil
proceeding, or an administrative proceeding resulting in a
finding of fault and payment of a fine, a penalty,
reimbursement, restitution, or damages. The Secretary of
Defense would be authorized to waive the prohibition on the
basis of national security and would be required to notify the
congressional defense committees of the waiver. This section
would require the Secretary of Defense to issue implementing
regulations within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, and the prohibition would apply to contracts awarded 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act. This section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to determine
whether the defense contractor should be barred from
contracting with the Department of Defense.
Section 825--Authorization for Actions to Correct the Industrial
Resource Shortfall for High-Purity Beryllium Metal in Amounts Not in
Excess of $85,000,000
This section would increase the threshold for the
Department of Defense program undertaken pursuant to section
303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-774)
to address the industrial resources shortfall for high-purity
beryllium metal from $50.0 million to $85.0 million.
Section 826--Review of Post-Employment Restrictions Applicable to the
Department of Defense
This section would require the Panel on Contracting
Integrity to review policies relating to post-employment
restrictions on former Department of Defense (DOD) personnel to
determine whether such policies adequately protect the public
interest without unreasonably limiting future employment
options for these personnel. The review would consider the
extent to which post-employment restrictions: (1) protect the
public interest by preventing personal conflicts of interest
and preventing former Department of Defense officials from
exercising undue or inappropriate influence; (2) require
disclosure of personnel accepting employment with defense
contractors; (3) use appropriate thresholds; (4) are clear and
have been explained to DOD personnel; (5) appropriately address
personnel performing duties in acquisition-related activities
that are not covered by current procurement integrity
restrictions; (6) ensure that the Department has access to
world-class talent; and (7) ensure that service in the
Department remains an attractive career option. This section
would require that the review be completed in one year and
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 30 days of completion.
This section would also require the National Academy of Public
Administration to assess the review and provide its analysis to
the Secretary of Defense and to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 210
days of receiving the review from the Secretary of Defense.
Section 827--Requirement to Buy Military Decorations, Ribbons, Badges,
Medals, Insignia, and Other Uniform Accouterments Produced in the
United States
This section would require military exchanges and other
nonappropriated fund activities to purchase decorations,
ribbons, badges, medals, insignia, and other uniform
accouterments that are manufactured in the United States using
competitive procedures. This section would bar the agencies
within the services that certify quality and specifications of
products from issuing certificates of authority for the
manufacture and sale for any such uniform item unless the items
are from domestic material manufactured in the United States.
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the
requirements of the provision when a satisfactory quality and
sufficient quantity of an item produced in the United States
cannot be procured at reasonable cost. This section would also
amend the Berry Amendment, section 2533a of title 10, United
States Code, to add military decorations, ribbons, badges,
medals, insignia, and other uniform accouterments to the list
of items that may only be procured with appropriated funds when
the items are grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the
United States.
Section 828--Findings and Report on the Usage of Rare Earth Materials
in the Defense Supply Chain
This section would make findings regarding the availability
of rare earth materials, the importance of an uninterrupted
supply of strategic materials critical to national security,
the criticality of rare earth materials and thorium to numerous
defense technologies, and the need to identify the strategic
value placed on such materials by foreign nations. This section
would require a report by the Comptroller General, to be
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1, 2010,
on the usage or rare earth materials in the supply chain of the
Department of Defense. The Comptroller General shall consider
strategic acquisitions of rare earth mines and mineral rights
by foreign governments; the worldwide availability of rare
earth materials and projected availability of these materials
for the export market, including the current and potential
domestic sources; and a determination regarding defense systems
that are dependent on rare earth materials supplied by foreign
sources.
Section 829--Furniture Standards
This section would require that all Department of Defense
(DOD) purchases of furniture, made with DOD funds, including
design-build contracts, comply with quality standards
established in the General Services Administration program and
by the Department of Defense.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Biometrics-Enabled Intelligence Analysis
The committee applauds the Department of Defense (DOD) for
its utilization of tactical biometrics collection leading to
numerous arrests and detentions during Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee is concerned,
however, that poor coordination and inconsistent funding
contribute to a significant shortfall of operational and
strategic analysis, potentially opening an intelligence gap.
The committee notes threats to U.S. national security,
particularly violent extremist organizations, originate from
all corners of the globe. Operational and strategic analysis
serves to connect the dots across the geographic commands.
The committee notes DOD Directive 8521.01E, dated February
21, 2008 entitled ``Department of Defense Biometrics'' requires
the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to develop implementing
instructions to direct the applications of intelligence
processing and analysis of all-source biometrics-enabled
intelligence (BEI) products for tactical, operational, and
strategic customers. Furthermore, the committee understands
that the Defense Intelligence Agency is responsible for
ensuring the appropriate DOD intelligence components develop
collection and analysis capabilities that incorporate BEI
contextual information. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to utilize these directives and ensure the Defense
Intelligence Agency develop an operational and strategic
analysis framework for BEI. The framework should include a BEI
training curriculum and a concept of operations for BEI being
incorporated into the geographic combatant commands, the
Special Operations Command, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air
Force, and the Coast Guard.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to
submit a report on DIA's progress in executing its directives
and implementing a training curriculum for operational and
strategic analysis across the geographic commands to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, House Committee on Armed Services,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence within 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
The committee is aware that a large portion of funds
requested for BEI related efforts reside in funding for
Overseas Contingency Operations. The committee notes that the
use of BEI will increasingly play a vital role in supporting
global pursuit operations. The committee urges the Department
to include long-term funding for BEI in the base budget.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive
Consequence Management Forces
The committee notes that Congress, the Commission on the
National Guard and the Reserves, the Government Accountability
Office, and others have previously expressed concern about the
capacity of the Department of Defense to respond to domestic
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield
explosive (CBRNE) incidents. The committee also notes that, in
response to these concerns, the Department increased its
priority for establishing dedicated CBRNE Consequence
Management Response Forces (CCMRF), planned the phased
activation of three CCMRF between calendar years 2008 and 2010,
and assigned the first of those forces to U.S. Northern Command
as of October 1, 2008.
The committee is aware that in or around April 2009, the
Secretary of Defense decided that the CCMRF forces will no
longer be assigned to U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)
effective October 1, 2009, but instead will only be allocated
to NORTHCOM. The committee is concerned that the recent change
in assignment of CCMRF could weaken the Department's future
preparedness to respond to domestic CBRNE incidents. The
committee understands that in organizing the second and third
CBRNE forces, the Department is relying heavily on National
Guard and Reserve units and will need to consider the
appropriate command relationships with respect to U.S. Northern
Command.
The committee notes that section 944 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to
congressional defense committees a report that describes the
progress made by the Department of Defense in addressing
concerns related to U.S. Northern Command identified in
Comptroller General reports GAO-08-251 and GAO-08-252 and
provides a detailed description of the plans and progress made
to establish forces assigned to the domestic CBRNE consequence
management mission. This report was due in April 2009; the
committee notes that it has not received the required report
and encourages the Secretary to submit it expeditiously.
Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs
Section 902 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
established within the Office of the Secretary of Defense the
Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (Director of
Operational Energy). This position was established, in part,
due to concern with the operational risks associated with
delivering supplies to the battlefield and awareness of
operational benefits that could be realized by reducing
logistics demands. The committee is aware that fuel is a
significant fraction of the supplies needed for battle. In
2001, the Defense Science Board issued a finding that fuel
logistics represent 70 percent of the tonnage that the Army
ships into battle. In 2008, the Defense Science Board and
Government Accountability Office found that the Department
still lacked the oversight structure, strategies, policies, and
metrics necessary to manage its energy risks properly.
Meanwhile, the energy demand for operations in the Republic of
Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan grew from 9 to 16
gallons per soldier per day from 2005 to 2007, a further
illustration of the need to manage operational fuel
consumption.
The committee believes that the Director will serve as an
important advocate for process improvements (such as
implementation of the fully burdened cost of fuel and energy
efficiency key performance parameter as required by section 332
of Public Law 110-417) and technological advances (such as
innovative renewable and alternative energy technologies) that
will enhance military capability and reduce logistics and
support requirements for military operations.
The committee is pleased that the Secretary of Defense
expressed support for filling the Director of Operational
Energy position in testimony before the Senate Committee on
Armed Services on January 27, 2009. The committee believes that
because of the shifting military posture in United States
Central Command area of responsibility, this is a critical time
to have the leadership in place in the Department to address
operational energy. The committee encourages the Secretary to
communicate to the President the need to expeditiously nominate
a Director of Operational Energy. The committee looks forward
to working with the Director in the future.
Financial Crisis
The committee is concerned about the likely national
security consequences of the global financial crisis, that it
exacerbates an already growing set of political and economic
uncertainties and aggravates negative tendencies ever present
in global politics. In the 2009 Annual Threat Assessment, the
intelligence community makes the global financial crisis its
top priority and believes it is the ``lens or prism'' through
which all security challenges must be viewed. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to take the national
security implications of the global financial crisis into
account in all types of processes including: combatant
commanders' engagements with partner nations; war game
scenarios; and coordination with service schools to integrate a
focus on economic crises on national security.
The committee remains concerned about the stability of the
world financial system, including the potential for recurrence
of financial crises, and encourages the Department to convene
with members of academia and industry to examine how systemic
problems and vulnerabilities in the global economy affect
national security.
Implementation of Strategy for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Counterproliferation
The committee has closely reviewed the 2002 National
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and the 2006
National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction as they apply to counterproliferation from both
strategic and programmatic perspectives. The committee found
that although the 2002 and 2006 strategies outline a
sophisticated construct including three ``pillars''
(counterproliferation, nonproliferation, and consequence
management), four cross-cutting enabling functions, six guiding
principles, a strategic framework of three elements, four
military strategic objectives, three strategic enablers, and
eight military missions, agencies have not leveraged this
strategic construct. For example, the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency has organized its programs into six ``campaigns'' that
differ from any of the aforementioned strategic elements.
Additionally, the committee observed that those organizations
with ``counterproliferation'' in their titles, such as the
National Counterproliferation Center and the
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee, do not adhere to
a single definition of ``counterproliferation'' and often
consider some or all aspects of nonproliferation and
consequence management to be within their purview.
The committee believes the efforts, initiatives, and
interagency coordination for programs associated with
counterproliferation have been improving over the past several
years. However, given the lack of definitional clarity
regarding counterproliferation and the seemingly divergent
interpretations, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to assess interagency counterproliferation efforts in general
and Department of Defense counterproliferation activities in
particular, including an assessment of the working definitions
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and counterproliferation.
The study should include:
(1) An assessment of the efficacy of the existing
strategies applicable to the combating WMD mission as
applied to counterproliferation;
(2) An assessment of the extent to which the
Department has developed comprehensive plans to conduct
counterproliferation activities, including at the
unified combatant command and military service levels,
and to what extent these plans are integrated across
mission areas;
(3) A review of programs and funding for
counterproliferation programs and the extent to which
such programs support Department plans and strategies;
(4) Any observations or recommendations regarding
whether clarification is needed in the strategic
framework for combating weapons of mass destruction to
enhance the ability of various agencies to utilize a
common lexicon; and
(5) Suggestions for reconciliation or clarification
of the strategic lexicon, if a need for such is
perceived.
The Comptroller General should submit the report to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 1, 2010.
Interagency Coordination
The National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 80-253)
created the National Security Council system to better
integrate the government's diverse departmental expertise and
capabilities. The committee believes that the national security
system has not structurally kept pace with the rapidly changing
global security environment, and that the existing structure
needs to be strengthened. Toward that end, section 1049 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) required a study of the national security
interagency system by an independent, non-profit, non-partisan
organization which became known as the Project on National
Security Reform (PNSR). The committee received the PNSR report
on November 26, 2008, and held a hearing on March 12, 2009, to
discuss the report's recommendations.
The committee believes many of the PNSR's recommendations
have merit and wishes to call the Administration's particular
attention to those recommendations that suggest ways in which
to:
(1) Provide an overarching interagency concept of
operations; and
(2) Create a cadre of civilians that are truly
``national security'' professionals.
Along those lines, the committee is encouraged by evidence
of a National Security Professional Development (NSPD) program
and the existence of an NSPD Integration Office, but believes
the program needs more visibility and support. The committee
believes NSPD should be a priority for all agencies engaged in
national security matters.
Organizing for Cyber Operations
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
continues to assess the utility of a sub-unified Cyber Command
under United States Strategic Command. The committee believes
that there are still a number of issues that must be resolved
before such an organization can be created. For example, a
thorough cost-benefit analysis comparing the proposed
reorganization to the current joint functional component
command has not been fully developed. The committee encourages
the Department to conduct a rigorous business-case analysis of
all alternatives before selecting a final option.
The committee is encouraged by service efforts to increase
the stature and efficiency of their cyber operations
organizations. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps in particular
have created mature organizations for conducting the full range
of cyber operations. The committee believes the establishment
of the 24th Air Force is an important step in bringing the Air
Force into better alignment with the other services, and
creating a true cadre of cyber warriors.
Special Operations Command Strategic Communications
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee expresses concerns
about the inability of the Department of Defense and its
partners to effectively counter the propaganda of violent
extremist groups abroad. The committee believes that to prevail
in an information-centric fight, the Department of Defense and
its partners must develop and employ innovative strategies that
dominate the information spectrum both in terms of the network
and the message. Therefore, the committee urges the Commander,
Special Operations Command, to develop and demonstrate
innovative strategic services in support of both national and
theater-level special operations forces. The committee urges
the Commander to utilize to the fullest extent the unique
interagency authorities available to the Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC) and incorporate guidance and
direction from the Director, Center for Special Operations
(CSO), in relation to interagency matters and concerns. The
committee encourages the Commander to develop and demonstrate
innovative techniques and capabilities, with respect to
relevant linguistic and cultural expertise, and increase both
guidance and response linkages between strategic communications
and operations. The committee further encourages the Commander
to utilize personnel who possess requisite expertise and
generational perspective.
Special Operations Forces Overhead Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Support
The committee recognizes the ongoing efforts of the Task
Force on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
conducted under the auspices and direction of the Secretary of
Defense, yet remains concerned about the inadequate level of
(ISR) resources provided in support of theater special
operations forces (SOF) relative to that provided in support of
national SOF. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees with
a plan to address this ISR imbalance and to give particular
attention to the geographical areas identified in the
classified annex accompanying this report. The committee
directs the Secretary to provide the plan with the submission
of the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
Temporary Reconfiguration of USAFCENT/9th Air Force Headquarters
The committee understands that to satisfy certain exigent
demands in U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility, the
Air Force intends to temporarily reconfigure the command
structure of Headquarters U.S. Air Forces Central (USAFCENT)/
9th Air Force. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has
testified that operational control of USAFCENT elements will be
provisionally decoupled from the control of support functions
provided by 9th Air Force. USAFCENT will be commanded by an Air
Force lieutenant general to be forward deployed with a staff of
fewer than 50 personnel to Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. The 9th
Air Force will be commanded by an Air Force major general
stationed at Shaw Air Force Base.
The committee expects that the Air Force will maintain a
permanent rear headquarters capacity for the USAFCENT commander
and USAFCENT staff at Shaw Air Force Base, and the Air Force
will return to a command structure that consolidates the duties
and responsibilities of the USAFCENT commander with those of
the commander of the 9th Air Force as expeditiously as
conditions in Southwest Asia will permit. The committee also
expects that the Air Force will act in close coordination with
the Army, and that each service will act in full compliance
with the Base Closure and Realignment recommendations of 2005,
while the temporary command reconfiguration plan is
implemented. Finally, the committee directs the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force apprise the committee of the Air Force's near
and long-term command restructuring plans with respect to
USAFCENT/9th Air Force in greater detail within 180 days.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Section 901--Role of Commander of Special Operations Command Regarding
Personnel Management Policy and Plans Affecting Special Operations
Forces
This section would modify section 167 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the secretaries of the military
services to coordinate certain personnel management policy and
plans affecting special operations personnel with the commander
of Special Operations Command. The intent of the legislation is
to establish a means by which the service secretaries and the
commander, Special Operations Command, can consult with each
other to manage and mitigate concerns across the entire special
operations community. This section does not convey to the
commander, Special Operations Command, authority to veto or
stop decisions by the service secretaries in carrying out their
personnel management responsibilities under title 10, United
States Code.
Section 902--Special Operations Activities
This section would revise the statute governing special
operations activities to accurately reflect current mission
requirements of Special Operations Command.
Section 903--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps
This section would designate the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the
title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine
Corps. This section would formally recognize the responsibility
of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy
and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as an equal
partner with the Navy.
Section 904--Authority to Allow Private Sector Civilians to Receive
Instruction at Defense Cyber Investigations Training Academy of the
Defense Cyber Crime Center
This section would permit up to 200 eligible private sector
employees per year to receive instruction at the Defense Cyber
Investigations Training Academy operating under the direction
of the Defense Cyber Crime Center. This section would also
allow the Defense Cyber Crime Center to charge private sector
employees enrolled under this section tuition at a rate that is
at least equal to the rate charged for employees of the United
States.
The committee is increasingly concerned by the extent of
cyber attacks against and data exfiltration from Department of
Defense civilian contractors. The committee feels the
Department should be more actively involved in supporting the
protection and defense of these contractor networks. To the
extent possible, the Department should leverage acquisition and
contracting regulations to promote positive behavior from the
contractor community. The Department should also leverage its
extensive training infrastructure to promote good practices,
exchange information and standardize processes across the
Department, including networks within the defense industrial
contractor base that provide vital support to departmental
missions.
Section 905--Organizational Structure of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the TRICARE Management
Activity
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
organizational structure of Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity. The
committee is aware that the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense has a unique organizational structure within the
Department of Defense, with the only complete and total
integration of the staff of an assistant secretary (Health
Affairs) and a field operating activity (TRICARE Management
Activity). The committee must understand if the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the
TRICARE Management Activity, as currently organized, are able
to appropriately perform the discrete functions of policy
formulation, policy and program execution, and program
oversight.
Section 906--Requirement for Director of Operational Energy Plans and
Programs to Report Directly to Secretary of Defense
This section would amend section 139b of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the Director of Operational Energy
Plans and Programs should report directly to the Secretary of
Defense.
Section 907--Increased Flexibility for Combatant Commander Initiative
Fund
This section would amend section 166a(e)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to increase the authority to purchase items
from $10.0 million to $20.0 million. It would also increase the
unit cost threshold of those items. It would also require
coordination with the Secretary of State when the fund is used
for humanitarian or civic assistance purposes.
Section 908--Repeal of Requirement for a Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Technology Security Policy within the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by
repealing section 134b, relating to the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Technology Security Policy within the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. This section would
also require notification to Congress 30 days prior to a
significant change in the reporting structure for the Defense
Technology Security Administration (DTSA). The committee
understands that the Under Secretary for Policy is committed to
retaining DTSA within the Office of the Under Secretary and
expects that the authority provided in this section would allow
the Under Secretary to adopt an organizational structure that
provides appropriate levels of management attention to issues
of technology security policy.
Section 909--Recommendations to Congress by Members of Joint Chiefs of
Staff
This section would require members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to provide advice to Congress upon request.
Subtitle B--Space Activities
Section 911--Submission and Review of Space Science and Technology
Strategy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
annually submit a space science and technology strategy on the
date that the President submits the budget to Congress. It
would also require the strategy to address the process for
transitioning space science and technology programs to new or
existing space acquisition programs. Finally, it would require
the Comptroller General to review and assess the first version
of the strategy submitted pursuant to this section.
Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) required the Secretary of
Defense to develop and implement a space science and technology
strategy, and to review and, as appropriate, revise the
strategy annually. The provision was designed to increase
coordination among space science and technology activities of
the Department. It also required a one-time review of the
strategy by the General Accounting Office (GAO).
The GAO review, submitted on January 28, 2005, found that
while the strategy provided a foundation for enhancing
coordination among space science and technology efforts, it
``lacks details in key areas needed to achieve its goals.''
Unfortunately, the Department has not updated this strategy on
an annual basis in response to the stated concerns.
Section 912--Converting the Space Surveillance Network Pilot Program to
a Permanent Program
This section would convert the space surveillance network
pilot program to a permanent program. This section would make
permanent the authority of the Secretary of Defense, originally
authorized in section 821 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), to
share space surveillance data with state governments,
governments of political subdivisions of states, United States
commercial entities, governments of foreign countries, and
foreign commercial entities.
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters
Section 921--Plan to Address Foreign Ballistic Missile Intelligence
Analysis
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to
conduct an assessment of foreign ballistic missile intelligence
analysis gaps and shortfalls, and prepare a plan to ensure that
the appropriate intelligence centers have sufficient analytical
capabilities to address such gaps and shortfalls. The committee
is aware of certain intelligence gaps and shortfalls in foreign
ballistic missile activities, in particular emerging longer-
range ballistic missile activities, as noted by the Missile
Defense Agency.
This section would also require a report by February 28,
2010, on the results of the assessment, the plan to ensure
sufficient analytical capabilities, and a description of the
resources required to implement such plan.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 931--Joint Program Office for Cyber Operations Capabilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a Joint Program Office for Cyber Operations
Capabilities to assist the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics in improving the
development of specific leap-ahead capabilities, including
manpower development, tactics, and technologies, for the
services, defense agencies, and combatant commands.
Section 932--Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
Transition Council
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
(DIMHRS) Transition Council to provide advice to the Secretary
of Defense and the service secretaries on implementing the
DIMHRS core configuration and potentially service-funded
extension capabilities.
DIMHRS, as an information technology system for enterprise
human resource management, recently incurred a Nunn-McCurdy
breach requiring a major restructuring of the system. The
critical program change certification identified the need for a
program governance structure to ensure proper management
oversight. The establishment of the DIMHRS Transition Council
would increase oversight to ensure that the investments made to
date would successfully transition to the services, and ensure
that future capabilities developed around the DIMHRS core
configuration are interoperable and meet the needs of the
services.
Section 933--Department of Defense School of Nursing Revisions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a Department of Defense School of Nursing. The
committee is aware of the growing shortage of military medical
personnel and believes that Department of Defense schools that
produce military health professionals, such as the recently
established Army school of social work, will have a significant
positive impact on the shortage.
The committee also encourages the Secretary to find ways to
incentivize non-Nurse Corps personnel, such as medics and
corpsmen, to obtain a Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing,
perhaps following the model of the Department of Defense's
Physician Assistant program. The committee further recommends
that the Secretary examine the feasibility and desirability of
entering into long-term contractual relationships with civilian
schools of nursing to provide a minimum number of training
slots for military nursing students.
Section 934--Report on Special Operations Command Organization,
Manning, and Management
This section would require the Commander, Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) to submit a report, by March 15,
2010, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services on the Commander's efforts to
provide increased special operations capability through
organization, manning, and management of special operations
forces (SOF).
The committee supports SOCOM's recent efforts in this area
to include: the establishment of the interagency task force at
the Center for Special Operations; the establishment of the
Cultural Engagement Group (CEG) at Special Operations Command,
U.S. Central Command (SOCCENT); the incorporation of
supplemental funding into the current and future baseline
budget requests as a means of better managing requirements,
programmatic stability, and multiple-year sustainment; the
appointment of a SOCOM science and technology (S&T) advisor to
promote low-cost innovative solutions, streamlined acquisition
processes, and improved interface with the Department's larger
S&T enterprise; and the application of full range of
authorities inherent to the SOCOM acquisition executive,
authorities clarified in section 810 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The committee urges the Commander to continue these
initiatives and pursue further efforts with the dual objective
of achieving efficiencies at SOCOM headquarters and providing
the highest level of special operations capability to the
geographical combatant commanders and national command
authority. To better understand the extent to which SOCOM is
already interacting with interagency partners, the Commander of
SOCOM should include in this reporting requirement a review of
formal exchange programs, liaison, and other interagency
assignments of SOF personnel, especially as those exchange
activities support counterterrorism and counterinsurgency
matters.
The committee is encouraged with the establishment and
success of the CEG at SOCCENT and believes it might serve as a
model for improving unconventional warfare support at each of
the geographical commands. The committee is aware that SOF
forward deployed in the SOCCENT area of operations have
benefited greatly from CEG support. The committee also notes
the Office of the Secretary of Defense made reference to this
approach in its report entitled, ``Full Spectrum Analysis of
Irregular Warfare,'' provided in response to the committee
report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The analysis notes the
potential benefits of, and recommends further examination for,
empowering theater special operations commands (TSOC), such as
SOCCENT, as a means for sustaining command and control of, and
support to, deployed SOF.
This section would require the Commander to submit the
report, in a classified supplemental report, if necessary, by
March 15, 2010.
Section 935--Study on the Recruitment, Retention and Career Progression
of Uniformed and Civilian Military Cyber Operations Personnel
This section would require the Department of Defense to
produce a study on the recruitment, retention, and career
progression of uniformed and civilian military cyber operations
personnel.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $1.06 billion for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $135.8
million, for operational tempo, which is contained within the
operating budgets of the military services. The budget is
organized in fiscal year 2010 to address four broad national
priorities: (1) international support; (2) domestic support;
(3) intelligence and technology; and (4) demand reduction.
The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
2010 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows
(in millions of U.S. dollars):
FY10 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request....... $1,059.0
International Support................................. $537.5
Domestic Support...................................... $212.5
Intelligence Technology and Other Demand Reduction.... $169.8
Demand Reduction...................................... $139.2
Recommended Decrease:
International Support--USEUCOM.................... -$5.6
International Support............................. -$32.0
Recommended Increase:
International Support--USNORTHCOM/USSOUTHCOM...... $5.6
International Support--USCENTCOM CN TRAINING...... $24.0
FY10 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Recommendation $1,051.0
Items of Special Interest
Budget requests
The budget request contained nearly $1.1 billion for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, including all
counter-narcotics resources in the Department of Defense with
the exception of those resources in the operating budget for
the military services and those resources which are
appropriated or requested in emergency budgets. The committee
notes that, in the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the
Administration proposed to fund the counter-narcotics
activities to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the rest
of Central Asia through the regular budget request process,
instead of using separate Overseas Contingency Operations
budget requests, as had become the pattern in previous years.
The committee welcomes this development and notes that the
fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations request for
$324.6 million, which was submitted as part of the regular
budget process, is fully funded in title XV of this Act.
Department of Defense efforts to combat drug-related cartel activity
along the United States border with Mexico
The committee notes that over the past year, narcotics-
related activity has increased in the northern United Mexican
States to the point that in April 2008, the Mexican government
deployed three Army brigades to the city of Juarez to quell
cartel crime and violence. The committee is aware that,
concurrently, many U.S. border-states have realized an increase
in narcotics-related violence, and states across the country
have felt the impact of increasingly powerful narco-trafficking
cartels. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing on the efforts of the Department of Defense
(DOD) to combat cartel activity to the House Committee on Armed
Services by August 1, 2009. The briefing may be classified and
should include a review of DOD coordination with other U.S.
agencies and with the Mexican government.
International support
The budget request contained $537.5 million for
international support. The committee understands the importance
of international support and notes that this request for
international support will result in increased operational
support for all four military services. This support includes:
detection and monitoring platforms and assets; command and
control support; and the training, equipment, and supplies
intended for other nations that are key to the U.S. national
drug strategy and defense security cooperation goals.
The committee recommends fully funding the proposed
international support with a number of changes. The
Administration proposes increasing the counter-narcotics
operational support of the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) by
more than 134 percent in fiscal year 2010 from fiscal year 2009
enacted levels. Although USEUCOM provided invaluable counter-
narcotics support to the U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) while
the latter was being established, USEUCOM no longer has
responsibility over that geographic area. Further, the
Administration's cursory explanation for more than doubling
this account year-on-year is insufficient. As a result, given
the counter-narcotics needs elsewhere in the world, the
committee recommends decreasing the budget for USEUCOM counter-
narcotics operational support from $9.95 million to $4.35
million, which still represents a two percent increase from
last year. The committee is prepared to entertain a
reprogramming request from the Department of Defense should
USEUCOM present a detailed justification for additional
resources.
As part of a comprehensive effort of the United States to
assist the United Mexican States, the committee intends to
address the influx of illicit narcotics into the United States
from Mexico which entered the latter country from its southern
border with the Republic of Guatemala and Belize. The committee
recommends increasing the accounts for U.S. Northern Command
(USNORTHCOM) and U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) by $5.6
million to improve the coordination of counter-narcotic efforts
between Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize along their shared
borders.
The Department of Defense estimates that approximately 80
percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States enters
Mexico through its southern border. Guatemala and Belize have
become major transshipment hubs of cocaine, with the majority
of illicit drugs originating in South America. The Department
of Defense estimates that nearly 90 percent of cocaine entering
Guatemala is subsequently shipped into Mexico, most of this
amount arriving by overland transport. The Department of
Defense finds that the profits from the sale of this cocaine
perpetuate the drug-related violence in Mexico and the United
States.
To address the influx of illicit narcotics into Mexico
through its southern border by facilitating the coordination
and interdiction efforts in the tri-border area, the committee
increases the counter-drug accounts for USNORTHCOM and
USSOUTHCOM by $5.6 million. Specifically, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense, working through the
commanders of USNORTHCOM and USSOUTHCOM, to assist Mexico and
its two southern Central American neighbors by: strengthening
their respective governmental presence in remote areas;
improving full spectrum domain awareness and reaction
capability; and encouraging nations to cooperate and respond in
a regional nature. Specifically, the committee recommends that
the Secretary of Defense: upgrade fixed Belizean border
checkpoints west of San Ignacio and at Corozal; upgrade fixed
sites in Guatemala along the Guatemalan/Mexican border; train
Belizean security forces in the best practices of border
security, night interdiction operations, and jungle and
riverine operations; and properly equip the Belizean security
forces for these missions.
The second major change within international support, which
the committee recommends, regards the transfer of Mi-17s to the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Although the committee supports
the President's commitment to assist the government of Pakistan
in its fight against insurgents and terrorists, including
through the use by the armed forces of Pakistan of existing
U.S. stocks of Mi-17s, the committee is concerned that the
transfer of such equipment to Pakistan may substantially
decrease the training capabilities of the Department of Defense
to combat the narcotics trade in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. As a result, the committee expects the Secretary
of Defense to procure, at a cost of $16.0 million, two factory-
rebuilt Mi-17 helicopters and upgrade their cockpits to make
them night-vision capable as well as compatible for operations
involving the member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization serving in Afghanistan. The committee recommends
decreasing international support by $16 million to account for
this purchase.
The committee recommends an additional $16.0 million is
recommended to be allocated from international support in the
following manner: (1) $8.0 million to remain within
international support for the purchase of one factory-rebuilt
Mi-17 helicopter with upgraded cockpit; and (2) $8.0 million
from international support to be transferred to Operation and
Maintenance, Army, for the purchase of one factory-rebuilt Mi-
17 helicopter with upgraded cockpit. Both of these helicopters
are meant to fulfill the requirement that was created by the
transfer of two Mi-17 helicopters from Ft. Bliss, Texas, where
they were part of a training program for counter-drug
activities by Afghan security forces.
Obligating 1033/1004 CN funds for Baluchistan, Pakistan
The committee notes with concern that, according to the
Department of State and as determined by the President, the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a major transit country for
illicit opiates and other narcotics that are trafficked from
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to markets around the
globe. According to Pakistan's Anti-Narcotics Force, over one-
third of illicit opiates that are exported from Afghanistan
pass through Pakistan. A significant percentage of these
narcotics transit through the porous borders of Baluchistan,
Pakistan, and exit either through the Islamic Republic of Iran
or Pakistan's Makran Coast to regional and international
markets. Further, the Department of States' 2009 International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report notes that most Afghan drug
trafficking organizations concentrate their operational cells
in remote areas of Baluchistan.
The committee further notes that increased military
operations in southern Afghanistan should also result in
greater emphasis on narcotics trafficking along the Baluchistan
border given the narcotics-insurgency nexus.
The committee is concerned that the Department has not
adequately planned for or allocated its counter-narcotics
resources appropriately to address this trafficking threat and
build the capacity of the government of Pakistan to interdict
the movement of narcotics through Baluchistan's border area
with Afghanistan. The committee notes that the Department's
counter-narcotics funding is primarily expended on efforts in
the Makran Coast and toward the Security Development Plan. This
includes counter-narcotics funding used to train and equip the
Frontier Corps in the Northwest Frontier Province for counter-
terrorism/counter-insurgency missions. Accordingly, the
committee welcomes the Department's recently expressed
intention to increase its available counter-narcotics resources
to address the trafficking threat in Baluchistan.
The committee remains generally supportive of the
Department of Defense's counter-narcotics efforts in U.S.
Central Command's area of responsibility. In the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), the committee required the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report on a comprehensive counter-narcotics
strategy for South and Central Asia. The committee looks
forward to reviewing the report upon submission in June 2009.
As such, the committee encourages the Department to keep the
committee informed of its counter-narcotics efforts in
Baluchistan.
Other Activities
Analysis of the Strategic Communications Workforce
The committee encourages the development of strategic
communications capability within the Department of Defense as a
soft-power complement to traditional hard-power tools. The
committee has explored policy, management, and organizational
impediments to wider adoption of strategic communications
capability, but is becoming increasingly concerned that human
capital planning in this area is insufficient compared to the
needs. The committee notes that the Department has a large and
diverse pool of people with talents, experience, and skills
that can contribute to strategic communications from which to
draw. The committee is concerned that, since the
disestablishment of the office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, the
Department lacks an effective management structure for
providing the necessary leadership to guide the growth of
needed capabilities in this area.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report on the assessment of the Department's
strategic communications workforce to the congressional defense
committees within 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act. The report should include the following elements:
(1) An assessment of the critical skills and core
competencies needed for strategic communications;
(2) A comparison of the skills and competencies
identified in (1) to the actual civilian and military
workforce within the Department;
(3) Identification of critical gaps that are filled
by contractors;
(4) An assessment of the adequacy of top-level
guidance related both to the policy, organization, and
management of strategic communications and recruiting
for strategic communications disciplines;
(5) An assessment of the existing management
structure for providing policy, guidance and leadership
for human capital planning and workforce development in
this area; and
(6) An assessment of the adequacy of interagency
mechanisms for recruiting and detailing personnel.
Assessment of Defense Information Technology Systems for Financial
Management
The committee is concerned about the continued lack of
progress in implementing sound information technology (IT)
systems for financial management. After nearly 15 years,
Department of Defense (DOD) systems for financial and contract
management and business system modernization remain on the
Government Accountability Office's high-risk list. As long as
the Department lacks an effective financial management system,
the level of transparency required to receive a clean audit
opinion will remain non-existent. By increasing financial
transparency and moving towards a clean audit opinion, the
Department will free additional resources that might be
invested into other priorities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to have an
outside company or other entity conduct an independent analysis
of DOD financial IT systems and submit the findings to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act. This assessment should determine
if there are overlaps in capabilities currently in development,
and how well these programs are able to adhere to cost and
schedule. This assessment should include service programs, as
well as any programs being developed by the defense agencies.
Government Accountability Office Review of Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance Capabilities
The committee notes that ongoing operations in the Republic
of Iraq and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have produced an
increasing demand from operational commanders for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In
response, the Department of Defense has rapidly increased
procurement of ISR collection assets, including a wide variety
of unmanned and manned aerial systems. The committee has
expressed its concern over the proliferation of ISR programs in
the Department, without an apparent force-sizing construct or
ability to measure the value each ISR component system provides
to the ISR collection objective. Further, the committee is
concerned as to whether the Department is maximizing the use of
the information and data collected throughout the entire
intelligence cycle, including data processing, exploitation,
and dissemination (PED) activities, in order to fully meet the
tactical and theater intelligence needs of operational military
forces. If there is imbalance between ISR collection and PED
activities, there is a potential problem of operational forces
continuing to request more collection platforms because of a
failure of the operational forces to receive the necessary
feedback from ISR collection efforts. In November 2007, the
committee requested that the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) conduct a review of the ability of the Department to
properly process, exploit, and disseminate the information it
receives from ISR systems. To fully carry out this request, GAO
must understand the roles and capabilities of all of the
elements of the intelligence community within the Department to
process, exploit, and disseminate ISR data and information in
support of the needs of warfighters. It has, however, come to
the committee's attention that the National Security Agency has
not been responsive in providing GAO access to the information
and personnel required to conduct this work. The committee
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to immediately
provide GAO with access to the information and personnel it
requires to effectively perform its responsibilities on behalf
of Congress. In addition, the committee requests that GAO
provide it with an update within 30 days regarding the status
of this matter, so that the committee can consider whether
additional actions may be required.
Information Programs
The committee is concerned with the clarity and agility of
existing policies through which the Department of Defense and
its partners execute internet-based strategic communications.
The committee believes that online strategic communications are
essential tools for the Department to effectively counter the
propaganda of violent extremist groups abroad. Many of these
groups operate exclusively in this arena and execute online
media operations that greatly outnumber, outpace, and
outperform United States government initiatives. In many cases,
our inability to develop and execute such operations in near
real-time ultimately cedes the initiative to our adversaries.
Such a phenomenon not only renders subsequent factual messages
useless, it endangers our troops abroad by mischaracterizing
the positive impact and stability they have cultivated with
regional inhabitants.
The committee perceives an overly cautious approach in the
Department of Defense and its partners' military messaging
operations partially as a result of misinterpretation of the
United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948
(Public Law 80-402). The committee's understanding is that
Public Law 80-402 was created to apply exclusively to the
Department of State. The committee's concern is that over the
past sixty years, applicability of this law has affected the
development of Department of Defense policy. The committee is
aware of legal interpretations from the Department of Defense
that reflect this commonly accepted view.
The committee does not believe that Public Law 80-402
should constrain the Department of Defense and its partners'
strategic communication and messaging efforts abroad and
encourages the Department to conduct a legal review of the
applicability of Public Law 80-402 and its intersection with
Department of Defense policy guiding online media operations.
The committee believes this effort is essential in clarifying
any confusion or misinterpretation that may inhibit more
aggressive strategic communications against our adversaries
abroad, and ensure all elements of national power are utilized
in executing this essential mission.
Institute for Analysis
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and
the Open Source Center established the Institute for Analysis
(IfA) in 2004. The purpose of the IfA is to conduct analysis
and training programs that use industry best practices, open
source assets, and cost-effective techniques to produce
innovative methodologies and intelligence gains that can be
applied to a range of national security challenges. The
methodologies being developed by IfA have been valuable in
improving capabilities supporting media analysis to counter
violent extremist messages, as well as understanding the
psychology and group formation of hacker communities. The
committee believes that the efforts of the IfA are a valuable
contribution to the development of innovative new tradecraft
for assessing and understanding emerging irregular threats. The
committee encourages the Department to expand the IfA to
provide support to a wider range of consumers within the
Department, the intelligence community, and the broader
community of interagency partners.
Interagency Responsibility for Detection, Monitoring and Information
Sharing in the Maritime Domain
The committee is increasingly concerned with the
complicated lines of coordination between interagency
organizations in order to persistently detect, monitor and cue
responses to deal with irregular threats from the maritime
domain including piracy, proliferation, illicit trafficking,
and terrorism. The committee notes the success of the Joint
Interagency Task Forces (JIATFs) in developing an effective
organization for the execution of interagency counterdrug
operations. The committee notes that the scope of irregular
threats to the United States in the maritime domain has
increased since the creation of the JIATFs. The committee is
concerned that current interagency mechanisms may not be
effectively leveraging the JIATF model to ensure that
detection, monitoring, early warning, and cuing for the full
range of threats in the maritime domain does not lead to
exploited jurisdictional seams, redundancy and inefficiency in
acquisition and mission, and lack of information-sharing.
Accordingly, the committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Navy and
other interagency partners, submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on interagency
responsibilities for maritime threat detection, monitoring and
information-sharing within 90 days of the date of enactment of
this Act.
Joint Cargo Aircraft Force Structure Requirements and Basing Plan
The committee is aware that the 2009 Quadrennial Roles and
Missions Review (QRMR), dated January 2009, determined that
``service responsibilities for intra-theater airlift operations
are appropriately aligned, and the option that provided the
most value to the joint force was to assign the C-27J to both
the Air Force and Army.'' The committee is also aware of the
analysis and multitude of studies completed to develop the
requirements for the program. These studies supported the
minimum requirement of 78 aircraft and were developed through
the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System,
validated through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and
supported by the Defense Acquisition Board. The committee notes
that the March 2009 report of Institute for Defense Analysis
(IDA) on alternatives for the proper size and mix of fixed-wing
intra-theater airlift assets identifies an airlift mix
including 91 C-27Js as particularly cost-effective for the
sustained, numerous, geographically separated, non-major combat
operations anticipated by the Department of Defense's (DOD's)
planning scenarios, including those in the on-going Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee is
not aware of any studies or analysis that would support a lower
C-27J procurement objective. However, on May 7, 2009, the
Department of Defense announced that the Army and Air Force
have agreed to assign the C-27J airlift mission solely to the
Department of the Air Force with an initial procurement
objective of 38 aircraft but final C-27J force structure yet to
be determined.
The committee is concerned the Department of Defense has
not adequately explained the rationale, nor fully examined the
operational impacts, of transferring and consolidating the
direct support airlift mission with the Department of the Air
Force. The committee recalls the unfortunate history of a
similar transfer of the C-7 Caribou's direct support mission
from the Department of the Army to the Department of the Air
Force during the Vietnam War and notes that this transfer
resulted in reduced support for Department of the Army
personnel causing critical missions to remain unfulfilled and
endangering lives of troops conducting combat operations. The
committee expects that the Department of the Army and
Department of the Air Force leadership will execute a detailed
agreement concerning the Department of the Army's direct
support requirements to be met by the Department of the Air
Force, including agreed-upon metrics to determine whether these
requirements are being achieved.
Furthermore, the committee: believes that the composition
of Air Force aviation force structure should include an
appropriate number and mix of Air National Guard flying
missions; notes that the Air Force has announced that six
states including Maryland, Ohio, Connecticut, Mississippi,
North Dakota, and Michigan would be assigned C-27J aircraft;
and encourages the Air Force to consider those six states in
its assignment of C-27J flying missions. The committee also
notes that the Department of the Army had previously announced
that it would assign C-27Js to the following locations: Quonset
Point, Rhode Island; Standiford Field, Kentucky; Robins Air
Force Base, Georgia; Cecil Field, Florida; Austin-Bergstrom
International Airport, Texas; Will Rogers Army National Guard
Base, Oklahoma; Springfield Airport, Missouri; Grissom Army
Reserve Base, Indiana; March Air Reserve Base, California;
Portland Army National Guard Base, Oregon; Fairchild Air Force
Base, Washington; and four aircraft to be shared between Bryant
Army Air Field, Alaska, and Guam. The committee encourages the
Department of the Air Force to consider these locations in its
assignment of C-27J flying missions.
The committee believes that National Guard missions for all
locations planned for assignment of C-27Js should be preserved
with either the assignment of a C-27J or a new mission
identified by either the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of
the Air Force. The committee also believes in making every
effort to retain the expertise and experience that had been
developed in the Army, that the services should consider the
transition of these individuals. The committee urges the
Department of the Army and Air Force to develop a plan of
action that will allow Army air crew personnel to either
transfer to the Air National Guard to support the C-27Js, or
develop a joint staffing model that will allow these
individuals to maintain their status in the Army National
Guard, and be able to participate in support of this new Air
Force mission.
The committee further notes that airlift is a core
Department of the Air Force mission, and that the Air Force
Materiel Command, including its depots and personnel, currently
manage and execute acquisition, sustainment, maintenance and
modernization programs for the C-5, C-17 and C-130 aircraft.
The committee believes that the Department of the Air Force
should fulfill a similar role for the C-27J, and expects that
as additional C-27Js are acquired, the Department of the Air
Force will seek to acquire technical data rights and an agreed
plan for the Air Force to efficiently manage and provide
lifecycle, cost effective maintenance, modernization and
sustainment for the C-27J in its core depot capability.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army
and Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2010, that
identifies the new force structure requirements and basing plan
for the C-27J. The report should also identify future missions
and a way forward that will allow for the retention of these
highly skilled personnel for any base previously announced to
be assigned the C-27J mission, if it is determined that the C-
27J will not be assigned as previously announced.
Military Aircraft Industrial Base
The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of the
United States military aircraft industrial base, particularly
for fixed-wing aircraft in both unclassified and classified
programs of the Department of Defense (DOD), given the trend
toward consolidation and the continued challenges faced by
established prime contractors and suppliers to remain
competitive, innovative and be cost-efficient.
Furthermore, the committee reiterates the sense of Congress
expressed in section 8162 of the Department of Defense and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-117), that the United States must ensure, among
other things, that more than one aircraft company can design,
engineer, produce and support military aircraft in the future.
Section 8162 also required a study of the military aircraft
industrial base, which was completed by a federally funded
research and development center, on behalf of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense in 2003. This report concluded that there
might not be sufficient military aircraft design and
development work to sustain an engineering and technical
workforce to support future system concepts. The report also
suggested that starting or stopping a single program might have
major effects on industry.
In addition, the concerns of the committee were underscored
by the Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress,
submitted by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Industrial Policy (DUSD(IP)) in March, 2009. The report of the
DUSD(IP) stated that ``The reduction in RDT&E [Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation] funding does not bode well for
companies without long term production programs.'' The report
identified certain contractors' business segments, at both the
prime and lower-tier level, that were in danger of closing or
being subject to further consolidation, and stated that ``These
suppliers will be forced to either exit the business or find
new non-DOD programs for their products.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to commission a study and report by a federally funded research
and development center to update the analysis conducted during
the 2003 study, particularly in light of DOD programmatic
decisions made in the last seven years and the recent DUSD(IP)
assessment. The study and report should also include a
classified annex that provides an assessment of the military
aircraft industrial base capacity and capability to remain
competitive and sufficiently staffed to support DOD classified
activities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit the report to the congressional defense committees
within six months after the date of enactment of this Act.
Report of the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review
The committee anticipates the delivery of the report of the
2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in early 2010 as required
by section 118 of title 10, United States Code. The committee
notes that while that section contains specific requirements
for the conduct of the QDR, the QDR itself is largely an
internal process for the Department of Defense under the
direction of the Secretary of Defense. Congress, however, is
the primary consumer of the output of that process, the report
of the QDR, which is why the reporting requirements are
described in such detail in law. The committee considers that
report to be an important input to the development of defense
policy positions as Congress makes budget related decisions,
evaluates legislative proposals from the Department of Defense,
and generally fulfills its oversight role consistent with the
requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
The committee has been disappointed with the last several
QDR reports and notes that modification made to the reporting
requirement by section 1031 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
reflects some of those concerns. Additionally, the committee
highlights the further modification to the reporting
requirement made by section 951 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)
regarding the effects of climate change.
The committee understands that the QDR process is robust
and far-reaching, and the Department of Defense uses it for
additional purposes besides producing the required report. The
committee encourages those activities. Nevertheless, the
committee believes that the reporting requirements in the
statute are clear and straightforward and urges the Department
of Defense to organize the report of the 2009 QDR to mirror
those requirements as closely as possible. When certain
elements are not present or not easily discernable in the
report, there is a risk that the process through which Congress
determines national security priorities will be sub-optimized.
To the extent that the Secretary of Defense may wish to
communicate additional findings and policy positions beyond
what is required in the report, the committee urges the
Secretary to do so in such a way that it does not detract from
the report's required focus. Some of that additional material
may best be suited for the report of the Quadrennial Roles and
Missions review, as required by section 941 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), which the committee regards as a subordinate document to
the report of the QDR, or as a separate stand alone document
published separately.
Report on Military Public Diplomacy Activities
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
carries out a number of engagement activities with foreign
partners that might be construed as military public diplomacy.
While the Department of State is responsible for public
diplomacy for the United States, many of the activities the
Department of Defense uses to promote better understanding and
build capacity with foreign partners have a similar effect. For
example, the Department of Defense helped to fund the Iraqi
Virtual Science Library, which provides free, full-text access
to thousands of scientific journals from major publishers as
well as a large collection of online educational materials.
There are also a number of activities to promote exchanges
between scientific institutions as well as military personnel
exchanges with professional military educational
establishments. These activities represent an analogy to the
kinds of Fulbright scholarships, American Corners, and book
translation programs offered by the Department of State's
public diplomacy program. Other activities, such as the
deployment of hospital ships, or the use of military medical
personnel to carry out medical, dental, and veterinary
operations, have no analogue elsewhere within the government.
However, it is not clear to the committee that there is a
good accounting for all of these activities within the
Department of Defense. Furthermore, the committee is concerned
that the disestablishment of the office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy has left
the Department of Defense without the necessary management
structure to coordinate and guide effectively the myriad
activities that comprise military public diplomacy. In order to
craft an effective engagement strategy, the Department of
Defense should understand all of the instruments at its
disposal. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the planning for, and execution of, military
public diplomacy to the congressional defense committees within
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The report
should include the following:
(1) A taxonomy for understanding the scope of
military public diplomacy activities;
(2) A description of all of the activities in the
Department of Defense, services and defense agencies
that might fall within the scope of military public
diplomacy;
(3) Metrics for measuring the effectiveness or return
on investment of these activities;
(4) A description of the current management
structures for coordinating and overseeing military
public diplomacy activities, including any changes
needed to increase that structures effectiveness;
(5) An analysis of how these activities are
coordinated with regional theater security cooperation
plans; and
(6) An assessment of the feasibility or efficacy of
establishing an exchange program between the
Departments of State and Defense for informational and
public diplomacy programs.
Study of the Effective Use of Aerial Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Systems in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan
For the past several years, the committee has actively
urged and supported the Department's efforts to field
additional aerial intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) systems to the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. These assets have proven to be
invaluable in supporting a number of missions for contingency
operations. The committee is encouraged by the Secretary of
Defense's recent establishment of a task force to quickly field
much needed aerial and other ISR systems in both theaters.
The Secretary has often referred to the Army's Task Force
(TF) Observe, Detect, Identify, Neutralize (ODIN) as a model
for successful implementation of a dedicated ISR system to
achieve a specific purpose. The committee understands that
providing an entire system of ISR assets, such as TF ODIN to
ground force commanders for their tasking control, and for a
specified amount of time, can be an effective use of these
systems. The committee is also aware that it is necessary to
share limited strategic ISR assets such as limited Predator
unmanned aerial vehicles, across the theater of operations. In
the near-term, it is likely that the number of fielded ISR
systems will be insufficient to meet all the commanders'
requirements in theater. The committee believes that
understanding the relative effectiveness and trade-offs of
massing a system of several ISR platforms, and providing this
system or even a single platform, to local commanders versus
spreading centrally controlled platforms across the theater of
operations, is critical for making the best use of limited
assets.
The committee therefore directs the Director of the
Operations Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct
a study of the effectiveness of aerial ISR systems in the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with
particular emphasis on the allocation and tasking of these
systems, and the relative benefits and trade-offs of providing
control of a dedicated system or platform to ground force
commanders versus centrally controlling individual assets
across the theater of operations. The Director should also
consider how factors such as base locations for aerial ISR
platforms, the unique attributes of manned and unmanned aerial
systems, real-time information and data sharing, and the
assignment of dedicated reaction teams contribute to overall
effectiveness. The study should address all ground force
commanders' needs for aerial ISR, including but not limited to:
operational support; force protection over-watch; counter-
insurgency missions; high-value individual targeting; and
counter-improvised explosive device missions. The study should
also consider lessons learned from the extensive use of aerial
ISR systems in the Republic of Iraq and how these lessons may
be applied to more effectively use ISR systems in Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. In addition to an assessment of the
current use of aerial ISR systems, the Director should make
recommendations on how to more effectively use the systems to
achieve the combatant commanders' goals. The committee directs
the Director to report the findings of this study to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Undersea and Off-Shore Critical Infrastructure
The committee has become increasingly concerned about the
security and resiliency of undersea and off-shore critical
infrastructure assets, such as undersea telecommunication
cables. Events in recent years indicate the vulnerability of
many of these systems to natural and man-made mishaps. However,
it is unclear to the committee whom would be responsible for
protecting these assets, or for providing for their resilience
in the face of deliberate attacks, environmental disruption, or
other failures. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense must work closely with the Department of Homeland
Security, other civilian agencies, and private sector
infrastructure providers to ensure that appropriate protection
and response plans, policies, and strategies are in place, but
the committee remains uncertain as to the extent of the current
coordination and interaction between those varied
organizations. Accordingly, the committee requests that the
Department, in consultation with interagency and private sector
interests, brief the committee on its efforts to protect these
infrastructure assets within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make
transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year
2010 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the
total amount transferred under this authority to $5.0 billion.
This section would also require prompt notification to Congress
of each transfer made.
This section would introduce a new exemption to the general
transfer authority. Any funds required to be transferred from
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide in support of the
Defense Health Program Information Technology system as
described in section 1403 of this report, would not be subject
to the $5.0 billion limitation. The committee would provide
relief to the Department to facilitate the realignment of funds
in support of a higher level of leadership oversight.
Section 1002--Incorporation of Funding Decisions into Law
This section would authorize, by law, amounts specified in
the committee report wherever a funding table lists a dollar
amount for a project, program, or activity to be carried out to
the same extent as if included in the text of the Act, subject
to the availability of the appropriation.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug and Counter-Terrorism Activities
Section 1011--One-year Extension of Department of Defense Counter-drug
Authorities and Requirements
This section would extend, by one year, the reporting
requirement on expenditures to support foreign counter-drug
activities under section 1022(a) of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public
Law 106-398), as most recently amended by section 1021 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
This section would also extend, by one year, the unified
counter-drug and counter-terrorism campaign in the Republic of
Colombia under section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), as most recently amended by section 1023 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417).
This section would further extend, by one year, the support
for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments
under section 1033(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently
amended by section 1024(a) of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
Section 1012--Joint Task Forces Support to Law Enforcement Agencies
Conducting Counter-Terrorism Activities
This section would extend, by one year, the support by
joint task forces under section 1022(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as
most recently amended by section 1022 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417). The current authority provides that a joint task
force of the Department of Defense, which is providing support
to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-drug activities,
may also provide, subject to all applicable laws and
regulations, these law enforcement agencies with support for
their counter-terrorism activities.
Section 1013--Border Coordination Centers in Afghanistan and Pakistan
This section would prohibit the use of drug interdiction
and counter-drug funds of the Department of Defense for the
construction, expansion, repair, or operation and maintenance
of any existing or proposed border coordination center. This
section would not limit the availability of other authorities
or sources of funding for these costs.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
construct or have under construction a border coordination
center in Regional Command-South in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan or in Baluchistan, the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, before beginning construction on a third border
coordination center in Regional Command-East. This section does
not restrict the funding for the construction of a border
coordination center in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas
or the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan until a border
coordination center is constructed or is under construction in
Regional Command-South or in Baluchistan.
This section would provide a definition for border
coordination centers, such that the definition would include
border coordination centers like the ones in Khyber and Lwara,
Afghanistan.
After extensive committee investigation, including two
delegations to visit the border coordination center at the
Torkham Gate in the Khyber Pass, the committee found that the
intended primary purpose of the border coordination centers, as
had been repeatedly articulated by officials of the previous
administration, did not correlate with the center's current
mission. Instead of coordinating counter-narcotics activities
of the governments of the Afghanistan and Pakistan with those
of the member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
and the International Security Assistance Force, the border
coordination center was, in the main, a venue to begin easing
historical tensions between the security forces of these
Islamic republics. Although facilitating better communication
between these governments has merit, the source of the funding
stream did not match this purpose. This section intends to
correct this misalignment while continuing to support the
ultimate objectives, intended and real, of the border
coordination centers.
Section 1014--Comptroller General Report on Effectiveness of
Accountability Measures for Assistance from Counter-Narcotics Central
Transfer Account
This section would require the Comptroller General to
present a report to the appropriate defense committees within
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, which would:
describe the performance evaluation system of the Department of
Defense for measuring the effectiveness of the Department of
Defense's counter-drug activities; assess the ability of this
system to measure such activities effectively; and recommend
improvements to such a system.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1021--Operational Procedures for Experimental Military
Prototypes
This section would direct the senior military officer of
each military service, in consultation with the senior
acquisition executive of each military department, to develop
and prescribe guidance for the conduct of test and evaluation
efforts of experimental military prototypes. This guidance
would allow for the testing of equipment or systems that have
been modified from their original condition for the purpose of
developing new technology or improving system capability. A
report detailing the development of the required guidance would
be submitted by the Secretary of each military department
within 12 months of the date of enactment of this Act.
Additionally, this section would authorize the Secretary of
the Navy to transfer to Piasecki Aircraft Corporation of
Essington, Pennsylvania, all rights, title, and interest to
Navy aircraft N40VT (Bureau Number 163283). The conveyance
would be directed to be at no cost to the government, and
liability to the United States for operations of the aircraft
would cease upon conveyance. Additionally, this section would
provide that the United States have rights to the vectored
thrust ducted propeller technology under development with the
aircraft. This section would provide that, should the United
States desire to acquire the technology under development, the
acquisition costs would be reduced by the amount of value of
aircraft N40VT on the date of transfer.
Section 1022--Temporary Reduction in Minimum Number of Operational
Aircraft Carriers
This section would, notwithstanding the requirement
contained in section 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code,
allow for only 10 aircraft carriers in the combat forces of the
Navy during the period between the deactivation of the USS
Enterprise (CVN 65) in fiscal year 2013 and the commissioning
of USS Ford (CVN 79) in fiscal year 2015. Additionally, this
section would require in fiscal year 2012, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the commanders of
the combatant commands, to conduct an analysis of risk
associated with the temporary reduction in aircraft carrier
force levels. The report of the analysis would be forwarded by
the Secretary of Defense to Congress with the budget request
for fiscal year 2013.
Section 1023--Limitation on Use of Funds for the Transfer or Release of
Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
transferring or releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the
United States until 120 days after the date that the President
submits to the congressional defense committees a plan that:
identifies the risk that these detainees may pose to the
national security of the United States; proposes risk
mitigation measures; proposes what the final disposition of
these detainees should be; and summarizes the results of the
required consultations with the chief executives of the 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the territories and
possessions of the United States.
Section 1024--Charter for the National Reconnaissance Office
This section would require the Director of National
Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense to jointly submit a
revised charter for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to
the congressional intelligence committees and congressional
defense committees within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
This section would require that the revised charter must
include the organizational and governance structure of the NRO;
the provision of NRO participation in the development and
generation of requirements and acquisition; the scope of the
capabilities of the NRO; and the roles and responsibilities of
the NRO and the relationship of the NRO to other organizations.
Subtitle D--Studies and Reports
Section 1031--Report of Statutory Compliance of the Report on the 2009
Quadrennial Defense Review
This section would require that within 90 days after the
Secretary of Defense releases the report of the 2009
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Comptroller General would
be required to issue a report on the degree to which the report
of the QDR complies with the requirement in 10 USC 118(d), as
amended.
If the Comptroller General determines that the report of
the QDR has deviated significantly from the statutory
requirement, the Secretary of Defense would be required to
issue a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services addressing those areas
within 30 days after the Government Accountability Office
releases its report.
Section 1032--Report on the Force Structure Findings of the 2009
Quadrennial Defense Review
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report concurrently with the report on the 2009
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) containing the analyses used
to determine and support the findings on force structure in the
QDR.
The committee expects that the analyses submitted will
include details on all elements of the force structure
discussed in the QDR report, and particularly the following:
(1) A description of the factors that informed
decisions regarding the fighter force structure for the
Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, including: the
assumed threat capabilities to include fighter force
capabilities as well as air defense capabilities; the
modeling simulations and analysis used to determine
fighter force structure for the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps; the extent to which unmanned aerial
vehicle inventories compensate for manned fighter
aircraft inventory; and the quantifiable operational
risks associated with the planned fighter fleets, based
on requirements of combatant commanders, and measures
planned to address those risks;
(2) A description of the factors that informed
decisions regarding strategic and tactical airlift
force structure, including: the modeling, simulations,
and analyses used to determine the number and type of
airlift aircraft necessary to meet the national defense
strategy; the number and type of airlift aircraft
necessary to meet the national defense strategy; the
changes made, and supporting rationale for the changes
made, to the airlift force structure from that proposed
in Mobility Capabilities Study 2005 (MCS-05), including
numbers of airlift aircraft necessary to meet
additional demands for increased Army and Marine Corps
personnel, airlift necessary to transport the Army's
future combat systems, and the use of airlift aircraft
in intra-theater airlift missions; the force sizing
constructs used, including peak demand as measured in
millions of ton-miles per day and force structure
necessary to meet peak demand including the number of
C-17s, C-5s, C-130s, C-27s, and civil reserve air
fleet; and the operational risks associated with the
planned strategic and tactical airlift aircraft fleet,
based on requirements of combatant commanders, and
measures planned to address those risks;
(3) A description of the factors that informed
decisions regarding aerial refueling aircraft force
structure, including: the modeling, simulations, and
analyses used to determine the number and type of
aerial refueling aircraft necessary to meet the
national defense strategy; the force sizing constructs
used including peak demand; the number and type of
aerial refueling aircraft necessary to meet the
national security objective; the changes made, and
supporting rationale for the changes made, to the
aerial refueling aircraft force structure from that
proposed in MCS-05; and the operational risks
associated with the planned aerial refueling aircraft
fleet, based on requirements of combatant commanders,
and measures planned to address those risks;
(4) A description of the factors that informed
decisions regarding bomber force structure, including:
the modeling, simulations, and analyses used to
determine the number and type of bomber aircraft
necessary to meet the national defense strategy; the
force sizing constructs used including peak demand; the
number and type of bomber aircraft necessary to meet
the national defense strategy; and the operational
risks associated with the planned bomber aircraft
fleet, based on requirements of combatant commanders,
and measures planned to address those risks; and
(5) A description of the factors that informed
decisions regarding the Navy battle force, including:
assumptions regarding threat capabilities; the
modeling, simulation, and analysis used to determine
the number and type of battle force vessels necessary
to meet the national defense strategy; the force sizing
construct including contingency operations; the
analysis used to determine the deployed operations
required for the battle force fleet during peacetime;
the limitations on meeting combatant commander
priorities with the proposed battle force structure,
including an analysis of risk of not meeting all
priority requirements; and the deployed operations
envisioned for the battle force fleet and the
geographic areas left uncovered by continuous deployed
operations of battle force vessels.
Section 1033--Sense of Congress and Amendment Relating to the
Quadrennial Defense Review
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Quadrennial Defense Review should not be budget constrained and
also stipulates that the existence of an ongoing Quadrennial
Defense Review does not exempt the President or Department of
Defense from submitting the budget materials as required by
law.
Section 1034--Strategic Review of Basing Plans for United States
European Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report, concurrently, with the report on the 2009
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) required by section 118 of
title 10, United States Code, that would describe the plan for
basing forces in Europe. The report would be required to be
submitted to the congressional defense committees, the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs. This section would also require that the
Secretary of Defense notify Congress at least 30 days prior to
permanently relocating a unit stationed outside the United
States.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense will
complete a Global Force Posture review that will contribute to
the QDR report. The committee recommends that the elements
required in the report under this section should be given
primary consideration as the Department completes its Global
Force Posture review. The committee believes that decisions on
global force presence, particularly in Europe, should not be
determined by fiscal considerations alone.
Section 1035--National Defense Panel
This section would create a 12 member bipartisan,
independent panel to review the National Defense Strategy, the
National Military Strategy, the Secretary of Defense's Terms of
Reference, and any other materials providing the basis for, or
substantial inputs to, the work of the Department of Defense on
the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and conduct an
assessment of the assumptions, strategy, findings, costs, and
risks of the report of the 2009 QDR. It would further require
the panel to provide its recommendations and findings to
Congress and the Secretary of Defense in at least two interim
reports and in a final report due by February 15, 2011.
Section 1036--Report Required on Notification of Detainees of Rights of
Miranda v. Arizona
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees, within 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, a report that would
describe numerous possible impacts of the reading of rights
under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) on the
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan of U.S.
Forces Afghanistan.
Section 1037--Annual Report on the Electronic Warfare Strategy of the
Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Joint Staff and military departments, to
provide the congressional defense committees an annual report
on the Department's electronic warfare strategy and associated
acquisition programs and projects.
Section 1038--Studies to Analyze Alternative Models for Acquisition and
Funding of Technologies Supporting Network-centric Operations
This section would require concurrent studies by an
independent federally funded research and development center
and the Joint Staff to analyze alternative models and recommend
changes to the present Service-based approach for acquisition
and funding of interconnected systems for network-centric
operations.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 1041--Prohibition Relating to Propaganda
This section would amend chapter 134 of title 10, United
States Code, by inserting a new section prohibiting the
obligation or expenditure of funds made available to the
Department of Defense for publicity or propaganda purposes
within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized
by law. The committee intends for the definition of the term
``publicity or propaganda'' to include materials such as
editorials or other articles prepared by an agency or its
contractors at the behest of the agency and circulated as the
ostensible position of parties outside the agency.
Section 1042--Extension of Certain Authority for Making Rewards for
Combating Terrorism
This section would extend the authority for the Secretary
of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person providing
information or nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government
personnel or government personnel of allied forces
participating in a combined operation with armed forces through
FY 2010.
The authority to offer and make rewards by acting through
government personnel of allied forces is currently in use in
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Commander, United States
Central Command, is supportive and expects to expand this
method of offering and making rewards. The authority was not
implemented until fiscal year 2009 and requires more time to
mature and develop based on adjusted national and theater
strategies.
This section would provide authority only; there is no
associated funding or appropriation line. The Department of
Defense would be requested to confirm that the implementation
procedures established by the previous Deputy Secretary of
Defense on August 19, 2008, are still valid.
Section 1043--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.
Section 1044--Repeal of Pilot Program on Commercial Fee-for-Service Air
Refueling Support for the Air Force
This section would repeal section 1081 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), which directed the Department of the Air Force to
undertake a pilot program to assess the feasibility and
advisability of utilizing commercial fee-for-service air
refueling aircraft for Air Force operations. The committee is
aware that the Air Force has conducted initial analysis to
develop the program structure for the pilot program, based on
two diverse options, and has received feedback from potential
providers in the aviation industry. However, based on its
review of data gathered to date, the committee is concerned
that the pilot program will be a costly alternative with little
operational benefit and is not in the best interest of the Air
Force.
Section 1045--Extension of Sunset for Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States
This section would amend section 1062 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as amended, to extend the date by which activities of the
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States must cease. This section would further require the
commission to submit a follow-on report to complement the final
report submitted on May 6, 2009.
The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of
the United States, established by section 1062 of Public Law
110-181, delivered to the President and Congress an interim
report on December 1, 2008, and a final report on May 6, 2009.
With the exception of a single issue in the final report, both
reports reflected the consensus of the 12 commissioners. The
ability of the commission to speak with one voice enables it to
fulfill its role in fostering and framing a national-level
discussion of strategic national security issues.
A follow-on report by the commission will be a valuable
contribution to policymakers, especially in light of the
critical military issues that will be addressed by the Nuclear
Posture Review and the Quadrennial Defense Review. The
committee values the work of the commission, and will work with
the President to address the findings and recommendations of
the commission.
Section 1046--Authorization of Appropriations for Payments to
Portuguese Nationals Employed by the Department of Defense
This section would authorize payments for salary increases
based on wage survey data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Such
Portuguese nationals employed by the Department of Defense for
payments may be paid only if: (1) the wage survey methodology
described in the United States-Portugal Agreement on
Cooperation and Defense, signed at Lisbon on June 1, 1995, is
eliminated; and (2) these agreements and any implementing
regulations are revised to provide that all obligations of the
United States regarding annual pay increases are subject to
U.S. appropriation law governing the funding available for such
pay increases.
Section 1047--Combat Air Forces Restructuring
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from retiring additional legacy fighter aircraft, announced in
the Combat Air Forces restructuring plan on May 18, 2009, until
the Secretary submits a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. This
section would require the report to include: a detailed plan
describing how the Secretary will fill the force structure and
capability gaps resulting from the retirement actions; a
description of the follow-on missions for each affected base,
along with an explanation of the criteria used for selecting
the affected bases and the particular fighters chosen for
retirement; the plan of action for reassignment of the
individual Air Force active, Reserve, and National Guard
personnel affected by the potential aircraft retirements; and
an estimation of the cost avoidance and how the funds would be
invested during the Future Years Defense Program should the
restructuring plan move forward. With the exception of the 5
fighters originally slated for retirement, this section would
prohibit additional legacy fighters from being retired until 90
days after the Secretary submits his report. In addition, no
Air Force personnel affected by the restructuring plan would be
reassigned until the report is submitted.
The committee is concerned about Air Force plans to
accelerate the retirement of 249 legacy fighter aircraft in
fiscal year 2010, in addition to the five fighter aircraft
previously scheduled for retirement. The additional aircraft
scheduled for retirement are 112 F-15s, 134 F-15s and 3 A-10s.
The committee notes that such actions could lead to serious
gaps in force structure and capability since these actions are
being taken while replacement aircraft are still being tested
and are not yet available for fielding. Additionally, the
committee is concerned that the Air Force has not identified,
for all of the affected bases, the follow-on missions that will
serve to fill force structure and capability gaps.
The committee has identified $143.7 million in unjustified
program growth in the Air Force operation and maintenance
administrative budget, specifically service-wide technical
support, service-wide administration, and service-wide other
activities. Additionally, the committee has identified $200.9
million in unexecutable peacetime operations due to deployments
in the Air Force operating forces, air operations budget
activity. The committee recommends that these funds totaling
$344.6 be used for the continued operation and maintenance of
the 249 legacy fighters that were slated for retirement during
fiscal year 2010 until such time as the reporting requirement
above is met. In addition, the committee recommends that $10.5
million of funds for aircraft procurement be available for
obligations for modifications necessary to sustain the 249
fighter aircraft.
Section 1048--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable Ellen O.
Tauscher
This section would enumerate the accomplishments and honor
the leadership of Representative Ellen O. Tauscher during her
career on the House Committee on Armed Services and in the
House of Representatives, and would express the sincere and
humble gratitude of Congress and the nation.
Section 1049--Sense of Congress Concerning the Disposition of Submarine
NR-1
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
submarine NR-1 was a unique and significant part of the history
of the submarine force and that as much of the vessel as
practicable should be preserved for historical and educational
purposes.
The section would also express that the Secretary of the
Navy should make available for transfer to the Submarine Museum
in Groton, Connecticut unique on-board components and clearly
recognizable and distinctive portions of the ship's hull.
Section 1050--Compliance with Requirement for Plan on the Disposition
of Detainees at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would require the President to comply with
section 1023 of this Act, Limitation on Use of Funds for the
Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Section 1051--Sense of Congress Regarding Carrier Air Wing Force
Structure
This section would make certain findings regarding the
Department of the Navy strike fighter force structure and
express the sense of Congress that in addition to the
requirement in section 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code,
for the United States naval combat forces to include not less
than 11 operational aircraft carriers, such forces should also
include not less than 10 carrier air wings, that are comprised
of not less than 44 strike fighter aircraft. This section would
express the further sense of Congress that the Secretary of the
Navy should take all appropriate actions necessary to make
resources available in order to meet this objective.
Section 1052--Sense of Congress on Department of Defense Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness; Plan
This section would make several findings regarding the
seriousness of the inability of the Department of Defense to
achieve a clean audit opinion on its financial statements. This
section would also express the sense of Congress that it is no
longer excusable to allow poor business systems, a deficiency
of resource allocation, or a lack of commitment from the
Department's senior leadership, to foster waste or non-
accountability for financial management. This section would
express further the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Defense, through the Chief Management Officer, should make
compliance with financial management and audit readiness
standards a top priority. Finally, this section would require
the Secretary, in the next update of the biennial Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan, to outline a plan to
achieve a full, unqualified audit of the Department by
September 30, 2013, four years in advance of the Department's
current plan. The Secretary would also be required to identify
a mechanism to conduct and publish audits of the military
intelligence programs and agencies, in a classified manner.
Section 1053--Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism
This section makes numerous findings related to American
victims of torture and kidnapping by the former regime in the
Islamic Republic of Iraq and states that it is a sense of
Congress that the claims of these individuals should be
resolved.
Section 1054--Repeal of Certain Laws Pertaining to the Joint Committee
for the Review of Counterproliferation Programs of the United States
This section would repeal section 1605 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160), section 1503 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) and subsequent
amendments to these sections, thereby canceling the
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) and
associated reporting requirements. The Department of Defense
asserts that the CPRC report is resource intensive and ``has
been overtaken by events.'' In particular, a new office, the
Office of the United States Coordinator for Prevention of
Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, is
being established pursuant to the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53) within
the National Security Council. The committee believes that this
new office will effectively assume, among other
responsibilities, the coordinating function previously assigned
to the CPRC.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Civilian Expeditionary Workforce
The committee acknowledges the recently signed Department
of Defense (DOD) Directive 1404.10 entitled ``DOD Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce'' and notes that the Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce should not duplicate efforts within
civilian agencies and urges the Department of Defense to remain
committed to collaborating with the Department of State and the
United States Agency for International Development in
stabilization and reconstruction operations.
National Security Personnel System
The National Security Personnel System (NSPS), included in
title XI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), established a new Department of
Defense (DOD) personnel management system. The intent of NSPS
is to provide the Secretary of Defense with flexibility for
hiring, firing, and promoting DOD employees. Under NSPS,
employee pay is tied to mission accomplishment and performance,
and employees are assigned to broad pay bands based on job
functions. Responding to concerns over negative employee
perceptions, and employee apprehension over the fairness of the
performance ratings, and potential adverse impact on diversity,
Congress enacted several changes to NSPS in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181). The modifications included exempting wage grade employees
from the system and restoring collective bargaining and merit
systems protections.
Despite the modifications, concerns remain regarding the
system and its overall impact on DOD employees. The committee
is encouraged that the President has directed the Department to
undertake a comprehensive review of NSPS, and recently
established an independent task force to provide an assessment
and recommendations of the Department's personnel management
system. This review is consistent with the committee's request
that the Department suspend conversion of current DOD employees
to NSPS, until the Administration and Congress can properly
address the future of the system. The committee is concerned,
however, that the Department is continuing to bring new
employees into NSPS, and is reclassifying Wage Grade and
General Schedule (GS) positions as NSPS.
While the committee expects a thorough review of the DOD
personnel management system to be conducted, there are specific
areas that the committee would recommend for consideration,
such as the suitability of having DOD civilian employees
covered by separate personnel systems: NSPS, GS, and Wage
Grade. The review should also address potential initiatives to
reform and improve federal hiring practices, which was one of
the principal rationales for enactment of NSPS. Furthermore,
the review should also examine the pay and performance
management flexibilities within the existing GS system,
especially the flexibilities and incentives provided by the
Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (Public Law 101-509),
the adequacy of training for managers within the GS system, and
the potential development of career paths for DOD employees.
Furthermore, the committee notes that a review of the
Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) should
be undertaken before that system moves forward. The committee
has expressed its objection to the continued implementation of
this unique intelligence personnel management system, which
essentially establishes another defense personnel system. As
with NSPS, the committee stresses that implementation of DCIPS
should be suspended as well.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Authority to Employ Individuals Completing the National
Security Education Program
This section would amend section 1902 of title 50, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense and other
agencies and organizations with national security
responsibilities the authority to appoint those individuals who
have successfully completed the requirements of the National
Security Education Program (NSEP) to a position in the excepted
service. There is no current direct-hire authority with which
to appoint these graduates into excepted service positions
within the Department of Defense or other agencies with
national security positions. This presents a difficulty because
these graduates are required by the NSEP to enter into a
service agreement before receipt of a scholarship, fellowship
or grant.
Section 1102--Authority for Employment by Department of Defense of
Individuals Who Have Successfully Completed the Requirements of the
Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense
Scholarship Program
This section would amend subsection 2192a(d) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize direct-hire authority of
graduates of the Science, Mathematics, and Research for
Transformation (SMART) Defense Scholarship Program. The SMART
program provides the Department of Defense with a pool of
highly qualified, highly educated individuals that are capable
of filling mission-critical and hard-to-fill scientific and
technical positions. However, the current hiring authority set
forth in subsection 2192a(d) is not adequate because it does
not allow the Secretary of Defense to directly appoint
individuals who have successfully completed the requirements of
the SMART program to the excepted service. Graduates currently
must competitively apply for vacant positions within the
Department. This presents a difficulty because these
individuals are required by the SMART program to sign a service
agreement that obligates them to employment within the
Department for a specified period of time.
Section 1103--Authority for the Employment of Individuals Who Have
Successfully Completed the Department of Defense Information Assurance
Scholarship Program
This section would amend subsection (b) of section 2200a of
title 10, United States Code, to authorize direct hire
authority of graduates of the Information Assurance Scholarship
(IAS) program. The IAS program provides the Department of
Defense with a pool of individuals who possess key information
assurance and cyber security information technology skills.
However, the current statute does not allow the Secretary of
Defense to directly appoint individuals who have successfully
completed the IAS program to the excepted service. Graduates
currently must competitively apply for vacant positions within
the Department. This presents a difficulty because these
individuals are required by the program to sign a service
agreement that obligates their employment within the Department
for a specified period of time.
Section 1104--Additional Personnel Authorities for the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
This section would amend section 1229(h) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 101-
181) to provide additional personnel authorities to the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR)
similar to those provided to the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction. The legislation would expedite the
standard hiring process for civilian personnel positions by
permitting the SIGAR to use the same employment authorities
currently granted to heads of other temporary organizations.
Employees hired under this new authority could serve until the
termination of the SIGAR office.
Section 1105--One Year Extension of Authority to Waive Annual
Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal
Civilian Employees Working Overseas
This section would extend, for one additional year, the
authority of the head of a federal agency to waive the
limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a
civilian employee who performs certain work in an overseas
location that falls under the responsibility of the U.S.
Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the
responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military
operation, or responding to an emergency declared by the
President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate of salary
payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3,
United States Code.
Section 1106--Extension of Certain Benefits to Federal Civilian
Employees on Official Duty in Pakistan
This section would extend to Department of Defense (DOD)
civilians working in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the same
benefits that are currently provided to civilians deployed in
the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
This section would ensure parity for DOD civilians who could be
assigned to perform stability, security, transition and
reconstruction type duties in Pakistan.
Section 1107--Authority to Expand Scope of Provisions Relating to
Unreduced Compensation for Certain Reemployed Annuitants
This section would direct the President to develop
regulations relating to the reemployment of annuitants. Such
regulations should consider existing provisions such as
subsection 1106(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), which allows former
federal employees seeking reemployment with the Department of
Defense to retain their annuities. These individuals have
tremendous practical and operational experience, and their
reemployment will help the Department sustain a high-quality
workforce. As a result of its extensive oversight work on
improving the quality of instruction provided at professional
military education institutions and the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service Training Academy, the committee finds
that this authority may be particularly useful in the hiring of
civilian professors under the authorities granted by section
1595 of title 10, United States Code, as well as former federal
law enforcement officers at the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service Training Academy.
Section 1108--Requirement for Department of Defense Strategic Workforce
Plans
This section would codify the requirement for the Secretary
of Defense to submit an annual plan to shape and improve the
civilian workforce of the Department of Defense. This section
also would consolidate three separate requirements for elements
of the plan into a new statutory requirement at a new section
115b of title 10, United States Code. The committee recognizes
that, to meaningfully implement this section, requirements
determination, planning, programming, and budgeting must be an
integral part of the development of the plan. Therefore, this
section would place overall responsibility for developing and
implementing the strategic workforce plan with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
The committee notes that the plan should support, and be
integrated with, the Department's efforts to achieve the
appropriate balance in its total workforce, recognizing the
distinct value of each component of the plan (military,
civilian employee and contractor). For example: the military
provides an expeditionary capability with specialized training
in combat, combat support, and combat service support
capabilities; civilian employees provide needed oversight and
direction, continuity of operations, and specialized enduring
skills that do not require expeditionary, combat, or combat-
related competencies; and contractors provide specialized
skills and surge capabilities that do not require the command
and control or transparency to the public required by military
and civilian employees. Improved requirements determination and
planning will facilitate determining who is most appropriate to
perform that requirement.
Finally, the committee encourages the Department to consult
with federal employee union representatives when developing any
aspect of this workforce plan that would alter the conditions
of employment of any federal employee. The committee notes that
requests for management flexibilities should be driven by real
requirements, not to simply maximize managerial discretion.
Section 1109--Adjustments to Limitations on Personnel and Requirement
for Annual Manpower Reporting
This section would amend section 1111 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to eliminate any personnel limitations on:
Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition personnel hired
pursuant to section 1705 of title 10, United States Code; DOD
personnel hired pursuant to a shortage category designation by
the Secretary of Defense or the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management; or DOD personnel hired to fill workforce
gaps as identified by the Secretary of Defense in his annual
strategic workforce plan submitted to Congress. This section
would also eliminate such personnel limitations to accommodate
increases in workload to perform work that is either inherently
governmental, or must be performed by DOD civilian employees or
members of the armed forces because of the critical nature of
the work or the necessity to maintain sufficient organic
expertise and technical capability.
This section also would consolidate and modify the reports
required under section 901 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and
section 1111 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
The consolidated report would be included within the annual
defense manpower report required under section 115a of title
10, United States Code. This section would clarify that the
consolidated report should provide programmed workforce data
for military and civilian personnel appropriate to the overall
DOD budget material. The report should include data, on the
replacement of contractor personnel performing inherently
governmental or exempt functions with military or DOD civilian
personnel, and a plan for continued review of such contractor
personnel for possible conversion to military or civilian
performance in accordance with section 2463 of title 10, United
States Code.
Section 1110--Modification to the Department of Defense Laboratory
Personnel Authority
This section would extend the authorities of section 342(b)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337) to establish a demonstration personnel
management system at additional defense laboratories, and
designate these laboratories as science and technology
reinvention laboratories. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to convert the employees at the listed
laboratories into a personnel demonstration program consistent
with section 342(b) of Public Law 103-337. The committee does
not intend for such conversion to adversely affect any employee
with respect to pay or any other term or condition of
employment, and shall be consistent with any collective
bargaining agreements. Furthermore, this section would extend
the exclusion from conversion to the National Security
Personnel System of the personnel demonstration laboratories
listed in section 9902(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code,
until October 1, 2014.
Section 1111--Pilot Program for the Temporary Exchange of Information
Technology Personnel
This section would provide the authority for the Secretary
of Defense to enter into agreements with private sector
organizations to arrange for the temporary assignment of
Department of Defense (DOD) information technology (IT)
professionals to the private sector, or for private sector IT
professionals to be assigned to DOD organizations. This
authority is limited to 10 individuals at any given time, and
would not allow for any further exchanges after September 30,
2013. This section would supersede the authority provided by
section 1109 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
In a report to Congress titled, Benefits of Assigning
Information Technology Private Sector Employees to the
Department of Defense, dated June 2008, the Department of
Defense found that ``this type of public/private sector
dialogue and the sharing of best practices has great potential
in enhancing Defense transformation.'' The Department also
found that such exchanges play an important role in reducing
``skill gaps in mission critical occupations'' by accelerated
learning of industry best practices through direct
interactions.
The committee also recognizes that the Department has
produced a credible governance structure and underlying
directives to ensure that there are no potential conflicts of
interest with the private sector employees eligible for
exchange in DOD organizations.
Section 1112--Provisions Relating to the National Security Personnel
System
This section would freeze implementation of the National
Security Personnel System (NSPS), by prohibiting the transition
or hiring of any new employees into the system, as of the date
of the mark up of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010. It would also require the Secretary of
Defense to transition employees back to the civilian
compensation system in effect as of September 30, 2007, within
one year of enactment. If the Secretary of Defense determines
that NSPS should not be terminated with respect to covered
employees, he is required to submit to the President and
Congress, within six months of enactment, a written report with
the Secretary's views and his reasons for his determination.
The section would also amend section 9902 of title 5, United
States Codes, to restore to 100 percent, the payment of the
annual nation-wide adjustment to employees who are rated above
unacceptable.
Section 1113--Provisions Relating to the Defense Civilian Intelligence
Personnel System
This section would freeze implementation of the Defense
Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS), by prohibiting
the transition or hiring of any new employees into the system,
as of the date of the mark up of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. It would also require
the Secretary of Defense to transition employees back to the
civilian compensation system in effect as of September 30,
2007, within one year of enactment. The section to require
return to the previous compensation system does not apply to
members of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service,
or an individual in an Intelligence Senior level position under
section 1607 of title 10, chapter 83. If the Secretary of
Defense, in conjunction with the Director of Office of
Personnel Management, determines that the DCIPS pay system
should not be terminated with respect to covered employees, he
is required to submit to the President and Congress within six
months of enactment a written report with the Secretary's views
and his reasons for that determination.
Section 1114--Sense of Congress on Pay Parity for Federal Employees
Service at Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
pay schedules and rates for employees serving at the Joint Base
McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst should be the same, and that the Office
of Personnel Management should develop regulations ensuring pay
parity among civilian employees employed by different military
services at joint bases.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues its focus on operations in the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, while
also responding to current events and emerging needs in the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. These efforts are addressed to a
great extent in this title. The committee has continued to act
to ensure that the Department of Defense has the authority it
needs to prosecute the nation's wars, while simultaneously
making sure that those war efforts are subjected to thorough
oversight. In this title the committee also continues to
address the need to build partner capacity.
The committee has long sought to bring a greater focus to
the war in Afghanistan and therefore has welcomed the current
Administration's renewed effort in that theater. The
Administration has announced a new strategy in Afghanistan, and
the committee has attempted to bring the necessary oversight to
this vital theater, requiring the Administration to conduct
regular assessments of the effort in that war and to develop
ways of measuring success. Relatively recent efforts in
Afghanistan have also garnered the committee's attention, for
example the decision to set up the Afghan Public Protection
Program, and the committee has acted to better understand this
effort and how it will fit in the overall war plan. In a
variety of ways, the committee has made clear its belief that:
the war in Afghanistan should be fully resourced; that the
Afghan National Security Forces should be substantially
increased in size and improved in quality; and U.S. efforts
should be better coordinated both within the military, and
between the Department of Defense and civilian agencies.
United States efforts in Iraq have begun to shift from a
focus on active combat to a greater focus on training and
equipping the Iraqi Security Forces while beginning the
drawdown and redeployment out of Iraq consistent with the
policy of the current Administration and the agreement
negotiated by the previous Administration with the Republic of
Iraq. The committee has correspondingly shifted its oversight
efforts to include a greater focus on that redeployment. At the
same time, the committee has authorized a continuation of
tools, like the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP),
that remain required. The committee has also acted to ensure
that the Department of Defense has a well-developed plan for
the disposition of U.S. military equipment that is currently in
Iraq.
Finally, the committee has brought an increased level of
attention to Pakistan. In the past, Pakistan has largely been
seen in the context of the war in Afghanistan. While the
committee has continued to view the two countries as almost
inextricably linked, the committee has also focused on Pakistan
as a matter of great importance in its own right, and not
merely a subordinate element of the war in Afghanistan.
Similarly, the committee has required the Administration to
regularly assess efforts and success in Pakistan. The committee
has authorized new tools for the Department of Defense, like
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, and continued to work to
improve older tools, such as Coalition Support Funds, that have
been a major element in the effort to eliminate al Qa'ida and
the Taliban in Pakistan.
Our nation has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for over
seven years. The actions taken by the committee in this title
will allow for the better prosecution and improved oversight of
those wars, while also assisting Pakistan and working towards
the elimination of al Qa'ida and the Taliban.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Building Partnership Capacity
The committee notes that the Administration submitted
several legislative proposals designed to create additional
authorities to build the capacity of foreign military general
purpose forces and special operations forces specifically for
deployment to ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee considers
these proposals to be excellent examples of a cooperative
interagency effort, and commends the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State for their leadership in these matters.
However, while the committee strongly approves of the purpose
for which these proposals were drafted, the committee believes
existing security cooperation authorities are sufficient to
meet this requirement. In particular, the committee notes that
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorizes the Secretary
of Defense to build the capacity of foreign military forces
``to participate in or support military and stability
operations in which the United States Armed Forces are a
participant'' and would consider proposals to use that existing
authority for the purposes for which these other legislative
provisions were drafted.
Donated Helicopters for the Afghan National Army
The committee notes that helicopters are essential to
building the operational airlift capacity for the Afghan Air
Corps and improving the operational effectiveness of the Afghan
National Army. The committee welcomes the Department of
Defense's decision to purchase 12 Mi-17 aircraft in fiscal year
2010. In addition to those helicopters purchased by the United
States, the committee welcomes our allies' commitment to donate
helicopters to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as part of
their contributions to train and equip the Afghan National
Army. However, the committee notes that, should additional
helicopters be donated in the future, such helicopters may
require upgrades to comply with North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) compatible configuration airframe overhauls
to meet airworthiness standards for United States military
personnel who provide training and assist once in operations
with the Afghan National Army. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to continue to work with our allies to
ensure that donated helicopters are upgraded as necessary to
meet the relevant standards.
Employment for Resettled Iraqis
In section 1235 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
Congress gave the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State the authority to jointly establish and operate a
temporary program to offer employment as translators,
interpreters, or cultural awareness instructors to citizens of
the Republic of Iraq who received a special immigrant visa
issued pursuant to section 1059 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).
The committee notes that no such temporary program has yet been
established.
The committee believes that the Iraqi recipients of the
special immigrant visas possess skills, particularly fluency in
Arabic and knowledge of the people and culture of Iraq, which
could be useful while the United States is involved in Iraq.
Further, the committee notes that many of the recipients of the
special immigrant visas worked on behalf of the mission of the
coalition forces for years and often at great risk to
themselves or their families, and that many Iraqi citizens who
worked for or with coalition forces have been threatened or
killed in Iraq.
The committee therefore urges the Secretary of Defense to
work with the Secretary of State to start the temporary program
established in section 1235 of Public Law 110-417 as quickly as
possible.
Increased Authority for Support of Special Operations to Combat
Terrorism
The committee supports efforts of the Department of Defense
to combat terrorism and remains supportive of the authority
provided by section 1208(c) of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), as amended, and commonly referenced as the ``1208
Program.''
The committee is encouraged with the progress, including
reporting protocols, established in pursuit of this authority
and urges the Secretary of Defense to maintain the current
level of openness, transparency, and consultation on all
related activities. Despite experiencing a period of poor
execution during fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the managers of
the 1208 Program have since experienced numerous examples of
success and the committee notes with appreciation the greater
detail included in the annual submission of activities. The
committee further applauds the constant consultation provided
by Special Operations Command (SOCOM) with respect to these
activities, and support for congressional delegations traveling
to investigate the execution of these initiatives in the field.
The committee is aware that the SOCOM Commander seeks
additional program flexibility and stability with respect to
the 1208 authority and remains supportive. The committee notes
that the 1208 Program is an authorization to utilize funds
available, as opposed to a separate appropriation, and believes
that such a distinction offers an additional amount of
oversight review and discipline. Prior to recommending a
specific operation under 1208, the SOCOM Commander must
prioritize between operations and maintenance requirements at
SOCOM and those that might be best executed by, with, and
through foreign irregular forces, groups, or individuals. The
committee believes such a process of prioritization is
beneficial.
The committee, however, remains concerned about the 1208
Program in at least two specific respects. First, the committee
remains concerned about any attempts to expand 1208 initiatives
into a ``train and equip'' program managed out of SOCOM. The
committee fundamentally believes that major train and equip
efforts are best maintained elsewhere in the Department of
Defense and only after close collaboration between the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.
The committee is also concerned about the past and
potential use of private contractors to execute the 1208
program. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary to
submit a report summarizing both U.S. and foreign contractor
support on these activities and an explanation of the
circumstances of each to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2009.
The summation should include an explanation about the amount
and type of contract award, the name of the award recipient,
and details about the nature of both the solicitation and
selection process. Furthermore, the committee directs the
Secretary to modify subsequent annual 1208 summations to
include information on all future contractor involvement by
operation and as appropriate. The committee also directs the
Secretary to include information on the intent to use
contractor support when notifying the congressional defense
committees of an approval of a new operation.
Finally, to provide maximum management flexibility of the
1208 Program, the committee recommends an increase in the
annual authorization from $35.0 million to $50.0 million. The
committee believes that the additional authority would relieve
the threat of funding constraints during planning discussions
about potential 1208 operations.
Increasing the Size of the Afghan National Security Forces and
Accelerating the Growth of These Forces
On March 27, 2009, the President announced that he was
sending 4,000 additional U.S. forces to the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan to train and equip Afghan security forces. The
President also stated that the emphasis of the U.S. mission in
that country was shifting to training and increasing the size
of the Afghan security forces so that those forces can
eventually take the lead in securing Afghanistan and allow U.S.
troops to be redeployed. The President further endorsed the
decision to accelerate the growth of the Afghan National Army
(ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) to 134,000 and 82,000
respectively by 2011. Finally, the President noted that further
increases might be necessary, and the target for the ANP was in
fact recently increased by almost 5,000 personnel.
The committee supports efforts to accelerate the growth of
the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to achieve these
targets as well as the ongoing effort to provide for the reform
of the ANP. These efforts are vitally important to the ability
to ultimately provide for the internal and external security of
Afghanistan and should be viewed as an element of a population-
based counterinsurgency strategy. However, the committee is
concerned that the current target level of about 221,000
security forces is not only inadequate to take over the current
fight and provide population security from the Taliban, al
Qa'ida, other extremist groups, insurgents, warlords, narcotics
traffickers, and other anti-government elements, it is likely
to be insufficient for the external defense of Afghanistan and
to provide basic law enforcement functions internally. U.S.
Government officials, ministers of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and outside experts have all
proposed different estimates of the levels of security forces
necessary to secure Afghanistan in the future. The only element
in common to all these estimated is that the proposed levels
are substantially higher than current targets--ranging from
around 400,000 for both the ANA and ANP to over 350,000 for
just the ANA. The committee does not intend to offer its own
judgment of what level of ANSF will ultimately be required, but
the committee is certain that the current targets are not
enough to allow the Afghans to fully take the lead in the
ongoing conflict and to allow for the responsible redeployment
of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
While the committee approves of efforts to increase the
rate of growth of the ANSF, it is concerned that there are
significant challenges in accelerating the growth of Afghan
security forces. The committee notes that the President has
called for an increase in the rate of training to allow the ANA
to grow by about 50,000 and the ANP to grow by about 10,000
over two years. While the situations in the Republic of Iraq
and Afghanistan are not directly comparable, the committee
notes that between the beginning of 2006 and the end of 2008,
Multi National Security and Transition Command--Iraq trained
about 140,000 Iraqi Ministry of the Interior police personnel
and about 150,000 personnel in forces of the Iraqi Ministry of
Defense.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
undertake a serious and urgent review to determine what
sustainable levels of ANSF are required for the future to
provide security in Afghanistan and to allow the redeployment
of U.S. troops. As part of this review, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider what steps can
be taken to accelerate training of ANSF personnel to allow the
Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police to achieve the
size and quality necessary to provide security in Afghanistan
and allow for the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Coordination
Center
The committee supports the Department of Defense's
initiative to create and strengthen a common special operations
structure within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The committee notes that the NATO Special Operations
Coordination Center (NSCC), created at NATO's summit in Riga,
Latvia, in 2006, has now achieved full operational capability
and has shown considerable promise since its inception,
supporting the first-ever International Security Assistance
Force-Special Operations Forces (ISAF-SOF) command in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. As a result, the committee
urges the Department of Defense, working with the Department of
State, to take further steps to institutionalize the NSCC
within NATO.
Accordingly, and with recognition of the primary role
played by the Department of Defense in launching and supporting
the Center, the committee recommends $30.0 million, an increase
of $10.0 million for the operation of the NSCC. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee recommends $20.0 million for military
construction associated with the Center. The committee
encourages increased efforts to: improve coordination and
cooperation between special operations forces of partner NATO
nations and aspirant nations of NATO; facilitate joint
operations by the special operations forces of partner NATO
nations and aspirant nations of NATO; support special
operations forces peculiar capabilities; promote special
operations forces intelligence and informational requirements
within NATO; and promote interoperability through the
development of common equipment standards, tactics, techniques
and procedures, and through the execution of a multinational
education and training program. The committee also urges the
Commander, Special Operations Command, to pursue SOF-peculiar
funding support to the NSCC and to NATO special operations more
broadly.
The committee believes that U.S. national security
interests are well served when allied NATO and partner nations
develop highly trained special operations forces and maintain
interoperable capabilities with those exhibited by United
States SOF personnel. The committee notes that military
construction is needed to support the NSCC and, elsewhere in
this report, recommends funds to support this requirement.
The committee is concerned that the future success of the
NSCC is endangered by the lack of a clear organizational
proponent within the Department of Defense. Accordingly,
elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to certify that executive agent responsibility has
been assigned and to detail the Department's efforts to foster
special operations capabilities within NATO.
Piracy Off the Somali Coast and Within Somalia
During the early months of the 111th Congress, the
committee held several briefings and hearings on piracy off the
coast of Somalia. This increasingly complex and dangerous
challenge, organized from within Somalia and conducted
primarily within its territorial waters, has become much more
sophisticated over the last year, as have the organizations
behind these actions. The committee is concerned about reports
of funding of pirate attacks from outside groups and
individuals. The committee is also concerned about possible
links or future links to other criminal, extremist, or
terrorist groups that are already known to be operating in the
same areas of Somalia. While the efforts of the United States
Navy and its international partners have succeeded in thwarting
a number of attacks, there does not appear to be a strategy for
dealing with the organizations ashore in Somalia. The committee
is concerned that as long as the individuals responsible for
organizing the attacks retain their safe havens, the problem
will grow into an even greater national security risk for the
United States and its allies. Historically, the only successful
way to eliminate pirate attacks has been to eliminate their
access to safe havens ashore.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report by October 1, 2009, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the Department of
Defense's role in the short- and long-term strategies for
combating piracy off the coast of Somalia as well as the
strategy for dealing with the parent organization ashore in
Somalia. At a minimum, the report should include the following:
(1) An assessment of the effectiveness of United
States military assets currently deployed to the region
under command of Joint Combined Task Force One Five One
and future plans for such deployments.
(2) The efforts of the Department of Defense to deal
with the command structure responsible for organizing
the attacks.
(3) A discussion of any links between Somali piracy
and any other criminal, extremist, or terrorist
organizations.
(4) The extent to which the Department of Defense is
addressing foreign funding for acts of piracy from
groups or individuals outside of Somalia.
Planning for Logistical Challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan
The committee is concerned that as the Department of
Defense begins to drawdown forces in the Republic of Iraq and
increase force levels in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
it will face an array of challenges. For example, the
Department's ability to move equipment and materiel from Iraq
may be constrained, impacting its ability to quickly deploy
these resources in Afghanistan or elsewhere. U.S. forces are
also significantly stressed from ongoing operations, thereby
affecting the availability of trained and ready personnel to
deploy to Afghanistan. Availability of equipment also may be
limited as much has been deployed to Iraq and many
prepositioned assets have been withdrawn to support ongoing
operations. Further, the ability to transport personnel and
equipment into Afghanistan will likely be constrained due to
the limited infrastructure and topography of Afghanistan.
Additionally, efforts in both countries will require
significant combat support capabilities, which are already
significantly stressed because of operational demands over the
past several years. The Department will also need to assess its
requirements for specialized capabilities, such as
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, to support
increased force levels in Afghanistan, given its current
allocation of such assets to support ongoing operations in
Iraq. Finally, the extent to which contractors will be used and
available to support deployed U.S. forces in both countries
must be considered as well as how oversight of these
contractors will be ensured.
Given all of these factors, it is critical that the
Department develop sound plans with realistic assumptions,
carefully assess risks and develop alternative mitigation
strategies, and implement clear leadership accountability to
guide both its planning and execution. The committee therefore
directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report on
its plans for executing the drawdown in Iraq and build-up in
Afghanistan to the congressional defense committees within 180
days. Such a report should identify organizational
responsibilities at the national level for developing the
overall plan and synchronizing the efforts, including planned
movements of forces and equipment with timelines, and provide
information on the analysis performed to reach these decisions.
In particular, the committee is interested in understanding:
the underlying assumptions used to formulate the plans; the
nature of any risk assessments and mitigation strategies; the
level of combat support capabilities required, including
required contractor support, and how the Department plans to
provide this capability; and any analysis performed to assess
the feasibility of the current timelines for drawdown and
build-up given competing demands on the availability of
personnel, equipment, and specialized capabilities.
Report on Department of Defense Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by April 10, 2010, on efforts of
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010 to enhance the
counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan's security forces.
The report should include the following:
(1) A description of the mechanisms within the
Department of Defense to receive funds that are
transferred from the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund (PCCF) of the Department of State to
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) of the
Department of Defense and to manage the execution of
such funds, including the following:
a. The office accountable for the acceptance
of transferred funds.
b. The office responsible for the transfer of
funds to the United States Central Command.
c. The office responsible for oversight and
the execution of transferred funds.
(2) A description of the spending plan of United
States Central Command for the PCF, as submitted in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2010.
(3) A description of any adjustments made to the
spending plan described in paragraph (2), including an
identification of any departments, agencies, or other
organizations responsible for making such adjustments.
(4) A description of any requirements or conditions
placed on PCF funds prior to the transfer of such funds
to the Office of Defense Representative for Pakistan
(ODRP), including an identification of any departments,
agencies, or other organizations responsible for
setting such requirements or conditions.
(5) A description of any delays in transfers of PCF
funds to the ODRP.
(6) A description of any goals, objectives, or
emerging requirements that the ODRP was not able to
meet as a result of any delays in transfers of PCF
funds to the ODRP.
(7) Any other relevant information regarding the
execution of PCF funds.
Security Cooperation and Security Assistance
The committee notes that over the last several years, the
Department of Defense has developed a number of security
cooperation programs to increase the capability of the military
forces of certain partner nations, broadly referred to as
Building Partnership Capacity (BPC). The committee commends the
Department for proactively adapting to a rapidly evolving
operating environment but notes that Congress continues to
consider the future, permanent form these BPC authorities will
take.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
submit a report not later than April 1, 2010, to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations and the House Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the timeliness,
effectiveness, and interagency coordination of Department of
Defense BPC programs relative to the Department of State and
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
security assistance programs that conduct similar activities.
At a minimum, the report should include an assessment of:
(1) Where, if anywhere, BPC programs and BPC-like
security assistance programs in the Department of State
and USAID do not meet requirements identified by the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.
(2) The long-term plans for these programs, to
include resourcing and legal authorities that may be
required.
(3) The requirements of other executive branch
stakeholders in the program, beyond the department or
agency administrating a particular program, including,
but not be limited to relevant ambassadors, USAID
missions, combatant commands, and Department of State
regional bureaus.
Security Concerns Involving North Korea
The committee is seriously concerned by the nuclear test of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) on May
25, 2009, as well as North Korea's launch of a long-range
Taepodong-2 missile on April 5, 2009, and other recent missile
launch activities. North Korea's nuclear and missile activities
constitute a threat to international peace and security and are
in blatant defiance of the United Nations (U.N.) Security
Council.
The committee supports recent U.N. Security Council
actions, which condemn North Korea's reckless and threatening
provocations and confirm that they violate international law;
and urges appropriate action by the U.N. to generate tough
consequences for North Korea. The committee also supports
actions by the Administration that urge North Korea to
verifiably abandon its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
and their means of delivery, and refrain from further
provocations in this regard. This includes efforts to work with
U.S. allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks and other
members of the U.N. Security Council to achieve the verifiable
elimination of the North Korea's nuclear weapons program and
the reduction of tensions on the Korean peninsula.
The committee is carefully monitoring the security
situation on the Korean peninsula and in the region and
encourages the Department of Defense and the interagency to
keep the committee fully informed of any significant
developments.
Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for Afghanistan
The committee is seriously concerned about instability in
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which has steeply increased
since mid-2007, and the implications for U.S. national security
and security in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the
region. The committee notes that it has held hearings and
briefings throughout the last year on a range of security
issues involving Pakistan, including:
(1) The security situation in Pakistan's border
areas, and any implications for Afghanistan;
(2) Internal instability in Pakistan, including
increasing militant attacks in the country's settled
areas;
(3) The security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons,
including the command and control structure;
(4) Counterterrorism operations by Pakistan's
military;
(5) Pakistan-India tensions following the November
2008 terrorist bombings in Mumbai, India;
(6) U.S. strategy and policy involving Pakistan,
including measures of progress toward achieving goals
and objectives;
(7) U.S. military and other security-related
assistance for Pakistan, and possible limits,
conditions, and performance requirements relating to
such assistance;
(8) Department of Defense (DOD) Coalition Support
Fund reimbursements to Pakistan and possible
alternatives that could achieve the same goals and
objectives;
(9) Information regarding possible U.S. military
involvement in Pakistan; and
(10) The U.S. Security Development Plan for Pakistan,
including efforts to: train and equip the Pakistani
Frontier Corp; increase the counterinsurgency
capabilities of the Pakistan military; and establish
Border Coordination Centers.
The committee welcomes the Administration's efforts to
prioritize issues involving Pakistan, and its commitment to
strengthening the U.S.-Pakistan partnership. The committee
believes the Administration's new strategy for Afghanistan and
Pakistan, its appointment of a U.S. Special Representative for
the two countries, and its regional approach to issues
involving Pakistan are positive developments. The committee
also appreciates the Administration's efforts to improve the
effectiveness of U.S. funding and other assistance for
Pakistan, including efforts to achieve the appropriate balance
between military and non-military assistance.
However, the committee emphasizes that implementation of
the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, measures of effectiveness,
and accountability are also critical, as well as close
cooperation with Pakistan in these areas. The committee also
notes that the Administration continues to request significant
funding from Congress and the American people for efforts in
Pakistan. The committee has been conducting vigorous oversight
of such DOD funding, and will continue to do so to ensure that
funding achieves its intended goals and objectives and is not
without limits.
The committee appreciates the information that has been
provided by the Department of Defense and the interagency on
Pakistan. The committee encourages the Department and the
interagency to remain actively engaged on security matters
involving Pakistan and to keep the committee fully informed of
any significant developments.
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and Women
Section 103(a)(7) of the Afghan Freedom Support Act of 2002
(22 U.S.C. 7513(a)(7)) states that the objectives of U.S.
assistance in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be
aimed toward advancing political and human rights, health care,
education, training, security, and shelter for women and girls.
However, it has come to the committee's attention that the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
(SIGAR) and the Inspector General for the Department of Defense
(DOD IG) have not conducted their auditing missions with a
focus on social, economic, and political empowerment of women
in Afghanistan.
The committee notes that the protection of the rights of
women and girls in Afghanistan and their full and equal
participation in Afghan civil society is essential to the
development of a stable and democratic Afghanistan. To achieve
these goals, the United States Government must continue to
commit resources to advance the rights of women throughout
Afghanistan. However, without adequate metrics, it will remain
difficult for Congress to assess the effectiveness of U.S.
assistance in support of girls and women in Afghanistan.
Therefore, the committee recommends that SIGAR and DOD IG
modify their auditing and assessment protocols to include the
impact that U.S. development assistance has on the lives of
girls and women as part of their reporting requirements to
Congress.
Train and Equip Authorities
The committee has closely watched the application and
evolution of the ``train and equip'' authority also known as
``1206'' since its inception through section 1206 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public
Law 109-163). In general, and with some notable exceptions, the
committee regards the historical execution of this authority
favorably and concludes that it is an important aspect of a
combatant commander's theater engagement strategy. The
committee recognizes that it has become an important tool for
building partner capacity and security cooperation.
In the past, the committee has regarded this and related
authorities as part of the foreign assistance family of
authorities that has traditionally resided within the
Department of State's purview. However, as the committee has
observed the execution and growth of this program over time,
the committee has come to see a distinction between traditional
foreign assistance-related authorities designed to assist a
foreign country to meet what it perceives as its own national
security requirements within the context of a larger United
States foreign policy framework, and this new type of
authority, which generally represents the Secretary of
Defense's assessment of a combatant commander's need to build
certain capacities in partner nations to satisfy specific
theater security requirements.
This fundamental distinction of purpose between
requirements generated on behalf of the foreign nation
(consistent with U.S. policy), and requirements generated
through a Department of Defense-led assessment of the United
States' national security needs is significant. It is critical
to the understanding of the future of these authorities. The
committee believes it is appropriate for the Secretary of
Defense to have a major role in the latter case. In the past,
the committee has supported the notion that these ``train and
equip'' authorities might better reside within the Department
of State's suite of foreign assistance tools. This may still
prove to be the optimal case in the future. Nevertheless, the
committee supports the idea of retaining the ``dual key''
approach that requires Secretary of State concurrence, but
emphasizes that, whatever the final, permanent form these
authorities take, the Secretary of Defense must play a primary
role in generating requirements.
Additionally, the committee is concerned that the
Department of State still lacks the capacity to execute these
authorities. The Department of State has not yet reformed the
management of its foreign assistance programs in a manner that
would give the committee confidence that the Department of
State is ready to assume responsibility for Department of
Defense security cooperation programs. The committee looks
forward to continuing interaction with the Department of
Defense and the Department of State to design the enduring form
these authorities will take when this temporary authorization
expires at the end of fiscal year 2011.
The committee notes that, so far, the bulk of the
application of this authority has been for the counterterrorism
purpose. That, coupled with the planned reorganization within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to house the office
which oversees this authority under the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict &
Interdependent Capabilities, threatens to create an enduring
perception that this is primarily intended to be
counterterrorism authority. ``1206'' authority was meant for a
fairly broad purpose, both to train and equip partner countries
to conduct counterterrorism operations and also to participate
in military or stability operations in conjunction with United
States forces. The committee cautions against the sub-
optimization of the authority and therefore would like to make
clear that, as an example, it would entertain proposals to use
this authority to train and equip partner nations and allies
with a demonstrated need for assistance for participation in
third theatres, including ongoing operations in the Republic of
Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
U.S.-China Maritime Issues
The committee welcomes recent positive exchanges between
the navies of the U.S. and the People's Republic of China. Such
exchanges are particularly important given the harassment of an
unarmed U.S. ship, the U.S.N.S. Impeccable, by Chinese ships in
international waters on March 8, 2009. This incident violated
China's requirement under international law to operate with due
regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the
sea.
The committee urges more U.S.-China engagement and
cooperation on maritime issues of mutual concern. The committee
also supports the Administration's call for Chinese ships to
act responsibly and refrain from provocative activities that
could lead to miscalculation or a collision at sea, endangering
vessels and the lives of U.S. and Chinese mariners.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--Modification and Extension of Authority for Security and
Stabilization Assistance
This section would extend the authority for general
security and stabilization assistance provided in section 1207
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163), as amended by section 1207(b) of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) through September 30, 2010, but
would reduce the authorized amount to $25.0 million. This
section would not extend the specific authority for assistance
to the Republic of Georgia.
As stated in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-360)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006, the committee does not believe it is appropriate to
provide long-term funding from the Department of Defense to the
Department of State so that the Department of State can fulfill
its statutory requirements. While the projects undertaken with
funds provided by this authority are worthy, the committee is
concerned that insufficient progress has been made in building
the capacity within the Department of State to assume the
statutory and fiscal responsibility necessary to fulfill its
statutory requirements. Moreover, the committee believes that
Department of Defense operation and maintenance funds should be
used for core missions of the Department of Defense including
security cooperation. The committee stresses that it has always
been the intent of Congress for this to be a temporary
authority and urges the Administration to develop capacity
within the Department of State so that this transfer authority
is no longer required.
Section 1202--Increase of Authority for Support of Special Operations
to Combat Terrorism
This provision would increase the amount of funds available
to the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to foreign
forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals supporting or
facilitating military operations by U.S. special operations
forces to combat terrorism. This provision would increase the
amount that may be expended from available funds during any
fiscal year from $35.0 million to $50.0 million.
Section 1203--Modification of Report on Foreign-Assistance Related
Programs Carried Out by the Department of Defense
This section would make permanent the reporting requirement
in section 1209 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) requiring a report on
certain assistance provided to foreign nations. It would also
add the humanitarian and civil assistance provided through the
Combatant Commander's Initiative Fund as an additional
reporting requirement.
Section 1204--Report on Authorities to Build the Capacity of Foreign
Military Forces and Related Matters
This section would require a report from the President by
March 1, 2010, on the relationship between security cooperation
authorities the Department of Defense uses to build the
capacity of foreign military forces and the security assistance
authorities the Department of State and other agencies use to
train and equip foreign military forces. The report required by
this section would also include information regarding: the
strengths and weaknesses of current laws governing and relating
to the provision of this type of assistance; recommended
changes, if any, to those laws; any organizational and
procedural changes that should be made in the Department of
Defense and the Department of State to improve their ability to
conduct such programs; and the resources and funding mechanisms
required to assure adequate funding for such programs.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
Section 1211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Purposes
Relating to Iraq
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by
this Act to establish permanent U.S. military installations or
bases in the Republic of Iraq or to exercise U.S. control of
the oil resources of Iraq.
Section 1212--Reauthorization of Commanders' Emergency Response Program
This section would amend section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 106-
163), as amended most recently by section 1214 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) to modify the authorized level of funding
for the activities on the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP). This section would authorize $1.3 billion for
activities in fiscal year 2010.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has been unable to provide adequate justification to date for
the budget requests for the Commanders Emergency Response
Program. It was for this reason that the committee, as part of
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
detailing how the Department of Defense formulated the CERP
requests. Unfortunately, that report did not adequately address
the committee's concerns, and the Department of Defense to date
continues to be unable to satisfactorily justify the request
for fiscal year 2010. The Department has been unable to explain
how changes in basing and operating patterns in the Republic of
Iraq, low spending rates for fiscal year 2009 in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, differences in operating environments
in areas of Afghanistan, and an overall reduction in the force
levels from the high points in the past are taken into account
in developing the CERP budget request. In addition, the
committee has been informed by the Department that the funding
for CERP in Afghanistan will be increased significantly over
the past two years, but the Department has been unable to
provide information about increased personnel to the
contracting and contract administration functions. The
committee is concerned that without these additional personnel
in Afghanistan, the Department will be unable to successfully
manage and oversee CERP to ensure that authorized and
appropriated funding is used effectively.
Finally, the committee notes that the Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction, and the Army Audit Agency are
currently conducting or are planning to conduct major reviews
of controls and accountability of funds in the Commanders'
Emergency Response Program and to determine if procedures and
guidance are sufficient to appropriately implement the program.
The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense will act to
implement any recommendations that may result from these
reviews and will keep the committee informed of his actions.
Section 1213--Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support
Provided to United States Military Operations
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse any key cooperating nation for logistical and
military support provided by that nation to or in connection
with U.S. military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom or
Operation Enduring Freedom (Coalition Support Fund
reimbursements). The total amount of reimbursements made under
this authority during fiscal year 2010 could not exceed $1.6
billion. The Secretary would be required to notify the
congressional defense committees and the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
not less than 15 days before making any reimbursement under
this section, and submit detailed notifications for
reimbursements for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through
fiscal year 2011. The Secretary would also be required to
submit quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees on any reimbursements made under this section.
Section 1214--Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
As addressed in title XV of this Act, the Department of
Defense requested $700.0 million for fiscal year 2010 for a new
Pakistan Counter-insurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF). The
committee has not provided the Department of Defense with
funding for the PCCF because of the understanding between the
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the respective
authorizing and appropriating congressional committees that for
fiscal year 2010, the PCCF is to be funded from amounts
authorized and appropriated to the 150 (International Affairs)
Account, and that such amounts may be transferred to the 050
(National Defense) Account.
However, this section would establish a Department of
Defense ``Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund'' (PCF), which would
consist of: (1) amounts appropriated to the PCF for fiscal year
2009; and (2) amounts transferred to the PCF by the Secretary
of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.
Amounts in the PCF would be available to the Secretary of
Defense to improve the counterinsurgency capabilities of the
security forces of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (including
Pakistan's military, Frontier Corps, and other security
forces), and to provide limited humanitarian assistance to the
people of Pakistan as part of civil-military training exercises
for Pakistani security forces receiving assistance under the
PCF. Except as provided in section 1215 (regarding the program
to provide for the registration and end-use monitoring of
defense articles and defense services transferred to
Afghanistan and Pakistan) of this Act, amounts in the PCF would
be authorized notwithstanding any other provision of law.
The Secretary of Defense would also be able to transfer
amounts within the PCF to any Department of Defense account, or
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the head of
the relevant department or agency, to any non-intelligence
related federal account. The amounts transferred would be for
the purposes of this section, and subject to account conditions
and limitations. If any transferred amounts are not necessary,
such amounts could be transferred back to the PCF and would be
subject to the originally applicable conditions and
limitations.
Amounts could not be obligated or transferred from the PCF
until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense notifies the
congressional defense committees, and the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
in writing of the details of the proposed obligation or
transfer.
The committee has not provided the Department of Defense
with the authority it requested to provide assistance to
irregular security forces operating within Pakistan since the
committee does not currently have enough information regarding
the Department's intended use of such authority.
The committee emphasizes the critical importance of
security and stability in Pakistan to U.S. national security
and regional security, and the importance of assisting Pakistan
to achieve necessary goals of objectives in this area. By
authorizing the PCF, this section provides the Commander of the
United States Central Command (CENTCOM) with a useful tool to
train and equip Pakistan's security forces. The committee
intends to closely monitor the management of PCF funds and the
transfer of such funds from the Department of State to the
Department of Defense, and urges the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the CENTCOM Commander receives the funding and
resources needed to execute the train and equip program
effectively. The committee also urges the Department of State,
over the next year, to develop the capacity to manage this
important program.
Section 1215--Program to Provide for the Registration and End-Use
Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Transferred to
Afghanistan and Pakistan
This section would establish an export and transfer policy
for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan that would require that the President
implement a registration and monitoring system for all defense
articles provided to the Government of Afghanistan or the
Government of Pakistan or other individuals or groups in
Afghanistan or in Pakistan.
This section would require the President to certify that a
system for registration and monitoring is in place before
defense articles are provided to the Government of Afghanistan
or the Government of Pakistan or any other group, organization,
or individual in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. The committee
expects that the end-use monitoring program would be at least
equivalent in scope to existing U.S. end-use monitoring
programs. This section would also provide an exemption for an
item from registration and monitoring procedures if the
President submits a notification to congressional defense
committees. This section would require the President to conduct
periodic reviews of the registration and monitoring system and
report findings to the congressional defense committees. This
section would take effect 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act. This section would provide the President with the
authority to delay the effective date of this section up to 90
days following a formal notification to the congressional
defense committees.
Section 1216--Report on Campaign Plans for Iraq and Afghanistan
This section would require that the Comptroller General
submit, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, separate assessments of the campaign plans for the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This
section would additionally require updates to these assessments
if the existing campaign plans are significantly altered. This
section would provide an exception to the requirement for an
assessment if the Comptroller General stated in writing that a
previously issued report would substantially fulfill the
requirement for an initial assessment.
Section 1217--Required Assessments of United States Efforts in
Afghanistan
This section would require that the President, 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act and every 180 days
thereafter, conduct an assessment of progress in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. This section would require that the
President assess progress in at least four areas including:
assisting the Afghan people to build a legitimate and
functional government; helping the government and people of
Afghanistan to spread the rule of law and reduce corruption;
assisting the government and people of Afghanistan to reduce
the ability of anti-government elements to operate, establish
safe havens, and carry out attacks in and from Afghanistan; and
assisting the people and government of Afghanistan to improve
the legal economy of that country. This section would require
that the President develop goals and timelines to achieve those
goals for each of the listed areas and any others he deemed
necessary. This section would further require that the
President develop metrics and measures of effectiveness to
allow for the thorough and accurate assessment of these areas.
Finally, this section would require that the President report
to Congress on this assessment and how it was conducted.
Section 1218--Report on Responsible Redeployment of United States Armed
Forces from Iraq
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a quarterly report, within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, or December 31, 2009, whichever is
later, to the congressional defense committees, the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, on the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces
out of the Republic of Iraq. This section would require that
the Secretary of Defense report on: the number of United States
military personnel in Iraq for each month of the reporting
period; the number of facilities in Iraq occupied by 100 or
more U.S. military personnel; an estimate of the amount of
equipment and other material that has been removed from Iraq in
the reporting period; an assessment of detainee operations and
releases; and information about how the Commander, Multi-
National Force-Iraq and the Secretary of Defense assess risk
associated with the drawdown and make recommendations about
maintaining or changing the pace of the redeployment out of
Iraq.
Section 1219--Report on Afghan Public Protection Program
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
submit a report on the Afghan Public Protection Program to the
congressional defense committees 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. The report would include an assessment
of the program in the initial pilot districts of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and an assessment of the future of the
program including how decisions about the program would be
made.
Section 1220--Updates of Report on Command and Control Structure for
Military Forces Operating in Afghanistan
This section would clarify that any updates of the report
on command and control arrangements in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan as required by section 1216 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) can be included as an element of the reports on
Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan as
required by section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The committee notes that: a new commander for U.S. forces
in the Afghanistan has been nominated; the decision has been
made to add an additional three-star general officer to the
U.S. headquarters in Afghanistan; and the President has decided
to deploy 21,000 U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan, 17,000 of
whom will fall under the International Assistance Security
Force. These changes could help create an improved system of
command and control in Afghanistan or could further complicate
an already-complex chain of command structure. The committee
expects that the Department of Defense will continue its
efforts to clarify command and control relationships in
Afghanistan and to report to Congress on these efforts as
required in section 1216 of Public Law 110-417.
Section 1221--Report on Payments Made by United States Armed Forces to
Residents of Afghanistan as Compensation for Losses Caused by United
States Military Operations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a semi-annual report, beginning not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, to the congressional
defense committees on payments made to noncombatant residents
of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for losses caused by
United States military operations. The initial report would
include payments made over the previous five year period while
updates to the report would include information on payments
made since the issuance of the previous report. The reporting
requirement would terminate on September 30, 2012.
Section 1222--Assessment and Report on United States-Pakistan Military
Relations and Cooperation
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to conduct an
assessment of possible alternatives to Department of Defense
reimbursements to Pakistan for logistical, military, or other
support provided by Pakistan to, or in connection with, U.S.
military operations (Coalition Support Fund reimbursements),
which could encourage the Pakistani military to undertake
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations and achieve
the goals and objectives for long-term U.S.-Pakistan military
relations and cooperation. The assessment should include
alternatives that are not reimbursements. This section would
further require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, to submit to the congressional defense
committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, a report on the assessment.
Section 1223--Required Assessments of Progress toward Security and
Stability in Pakistan
This section would require the President, 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act and every 180 days
thereafter, to conduct an assessment of progress toward long-
term security and stability in the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan. This section would specifically require the President
to assess the effectiveness of efforts to disrupt, dismantle,
and defeat al Qa'ida, its affiliated networks, and other
violent extremist forces in Pakistan; eliminate the safe havens
for such forces; and prevent the return of such forces to the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or Pakistan. It would also
require the President to assess the effectiveness of U.S.
security assistance to Pakistan to achieve this strategic goal.
The areas assessed should include: (1) progress toward Pakistan
no longer being a safe haven for terrorist or insurgent
networks, including improvements in the capacity of Pakistani
military forces to conduct effective counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency operations; (2) progress toward increasingly
effective civilian governance throughout Pakistan; and (3)
progress toward creating conditions for long-term economic and
social growth and stability in Pakistan.
For any area assessed, this section would require the
President, in consultation with the Government of Pakistan and
the governments of other countries the President determines to
be necessary, to establish goals and objectives and timelines
for meeting such goals and objectives. This section would
further require the President to develop metrics that allow for
the accurate and thorough assessment of these areas. This
section would also require the President to report to Congress
on the assessment and how it was conducted.
Section 1224--Repeal of GAO War-Related Reporting Requirement
This section would eliminate the requirement that the
Government Accountability Office submit quarterly reports to
Congress on the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom as required under section 1221(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public
Law 109-163).
Section 1225--Plan to Govern the Disposition of Specified Defense Items
in Iraq
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prepare a plan to govern the disposition of major end items and
tactical equipment in the Republic of Iraq. The plan would
include: the identification of an individual, position, or
office that would be responsible for making recommendations
about the disposition of covered equipment; a mechanism for
conducting a thorough inventory of covered equipment, including
any that might be operated by contractors; a mechanism for
soliciting input regarding competing requirements for covered
equipment; a mechanism for identification of, and disposition
of, covered equipment that is not economically viable to move
out of Iraq or needed for other requirements; and a mechanism
for ensuring that the views of other agencies of the Federal
government are taken into account. This section would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees at the time of the President's
budget submission for fiscal year 2011 outlining the plan
required by this section. This section would require that the
Comptroller General of the United States review the plan
required by this section and make recommendations. Finally,
this section would clarify that this section would not grant
any additional authority to transfer equipment to Iraq or any
other entity outside the Department of Defense.
The redeployment of U.S. forces and their associated
equipment from the Republic of Iraq by December 31, 2011, will
be a monumental undertaking. The committee understands that
there are more than 31 million items, 100,000 vehicles, 120,000
containers, and tens of thousands of tons of ammunition in Iraq
that must be moved or otherwise disposed. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense does not currently
have an approved plan or mechanism for evaluating competing
priorities when making decisions about the disposition of
equipment, and that this shortfall could result in a less-than-
optimal disposition of large amounts of equipment. The
committee expects that the Department of Defense will continue
to keep the committee informed during the development of the
plan required by this section.
Section 1226--Civilian Ministry of Defense Advisor Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide civilian
advisors to the Republic of Iraq and Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan to provide institutional, ministerial-level advice
and training to senior civilian and military officials of those
countries. This section would require that the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State jointly formulate any
program to provide advice and training. This section would
limit the amount of advice and training to $13.1 million in any
fiscal year. Finally, the authority provided by this section
would terminate on September 30, 2010.
The committee is concerned that the present effort to
provide mentors and advisors is not well coordinated,
particularly the effort to provide those mentors and advisors
to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The
committee expects that the authority and requirements in this
section would lead to a substantial improvement in coordination
in this effort between the Department of Defense and the
Department of State. The committee expects that the process of
selecting appropriate personnel from the Department of Defense
and placing them in appropriate positions in the ministries in
Iraq and Afghanistan would be coordinated with and transparent
to the Secretary of State. The committee further expects the
Secretary of Defense to keep the committee informed about the
effort to provide mentors and advisors in Afghanistan.
Finally, the committee notes that the authority provided in
this section would only be for one year, as was requested by
the Administration. The committee is concerned that the
Ministries of Defense in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan may require assistance for several
years and that a one-year authority will be insufficient to
address this need. The committee therefore expects the
Secretary of Defense to examine carefully the need for a fully-
resourced, multi-year authority and to report back to the
committee.
Section 1227--Report on the Status of Interagency Coordination in the
Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom Theater of Operations
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of State submit to the appropriate
congressional committees, within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, a report
on the status of interagency cooperation in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom theater
of operations. This section would require that the report
include information regarding the staffing structure of
Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan, including the
role of non-Armed Forces personnel; the use of members of the
Armed Forces for reconstruction activities outside the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense; coordination between
United States-led and NATO ISAF-led reconstruction programs;
and unfilled staffing and resource requirements for
reconstruction.
Section 1228--Sense of Congress Supporting United States Policy for
Afghanistan
This section expresses the sense of Congress that the
United States has a vital national security interest in
ensuring that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan does not once
again become a haven for terrorists; that the President's
announced strategy requires an integrated civil-military
counterinsurgency strategy and a sustained commitment of
military resources to operations in Afghanistan; that the
President should provide the necessary military forces to
conduct combat operations in Afghanistan; and that Congress
should provide commanders in Afghanistan with the funding and
resources needed to succeed.
Section 1229--Analysis of Required Force Levels and Types of Forces
Needed to Secure Southern and Eastern Regions of Afghanistan
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, at
the request of the Commander of United States Forces for
Afghanistan (USFOR-A), to enter into a contract with a
Federally Funded Research Development Center to provide
analysis and support to the commander to assist with analyzing
the required force levels and types of forces needed to secure
the southern and eastern regions of Afghanistan. This section
would allow the Secretary of Defense to use up to $3,000,000
from the amounts appropriated for Defense-wide operation and
maintenance accounts to accomplish this purpose.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1231--NATO Special Operations Coordination Center
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
allocate up to $30.0 million to improve the capacity and
capabilities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Special Operations Coordination Center. Accordingly, this
section would require the Secretary of Defense to allocate such
funds to:
(1) Improve coordination and cooperation among the
special operations forces of NATO nations;
(2) Facilitate joint operations by the special
operations forces of NATO nations;
(3) Support special operations-peculiar command,
control, and communications capabilities;
(4) Promote special operations forces' intelligence
and informational requirements within the NATO
structure; and
(5) Promote interoperability through the development
of common equipment standards, tactics, techniques, and
procedures, and through the execution of a
multinational education and training program.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
certify to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act that the Department of Defense (DOD) has
assigned executive agent responsibility for the NATO Special
Operations Coordination Center to an appropriate DOD
organization.
Section 1232--Annual Report on Military Power of the Islamic Republic
of Iran
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report by March 1 of each year to the
congressional defense committees, the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the current and
future military strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This
section would require that the report contain: information
related to Iran's strategy; an assessment of Iran's
conventional capabilities; an assessment of Iran's
unconventional capabilities, including special operations
forces and terrorist proxies; and an assessment of Iranian
capabilities related to nuclear capabilities and missile
forces.
Section 1233--Annual Report on Military and Security Developments
Involving the People's Republic of China
This section would amend section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) by changing the title of the report to ``Annual Report on
Military and Security Developments Involving the People's
Republic of China,'' and by making certain clarifying and
technical changes.
This section would also expand the scope of the report. It
would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary of State and Secretary of Energy, to provide
analyses and forecasts of developments regarding U.S.
engagement and cooperation with the People's Republic of China
on security matters, such engagement and cooperation through
military-to-military contacts, and the U.S. strategy for such
engagement and cooperation in the future. Specifically, the
committee requests the Secretary to provide information
regarding U.S.-China engagement and cooperation in the areas
of: counter-terrorism; counter-piracy; maritime safety;
strategic capabilities, including space, nuclear and cyber
warfare capabilities; nuclear policy and strategy;
nonproliferation, including export controls, border security,
and illicit arms transfers and interdictions; energy and
environmental security; peacekeeping; humanitarian assistance
and disaster relief, including in the area of military
medicine; crisis management, including use of the ``defense
hotline''; regional security issues, including in the Taiwan
Strait and South and East China Seas and on the Korean
peninsula; and regional security organizations and other
mechanisms.
In addition, this section would incorporate the reporting
requirement under section 1201 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) on
U.S.-China military-to-military contacts into the reporting
requirement under section 1202 of that Act. It would also
include a new requirement for a comprehensive and coordinated
strategy for U.S.-China military-to-military contacts.
This section would further require the Secretary of Defense
to provide additional information regarding military and
security developments involving China that the Secretary
considers relevant to U.S. national security.
Section 1234--Report on Impacts of Drawdown Authorities on the
Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report at the time of the President's budget
submission to the congressional defense committees and the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs on the impact of drawdown authorities on the
Department of Defense. This section would require that the
report address several potential impacts on the Department of
Defense, including cost to replace equipment or other items;
potential impacts on readiness; and impacts on the ability of
the United States armed forces to meet the requirements of
ongoing contingency operations, the impact on the level of risk
on the ability of the armed forces to execute the missions
called for in the National Military Strategy, the impact on the
ability of the armed forces to reset; the impacts on training,
and the ability of the reserve forces to respond to domestic
emergencies.
Section 1235--Risk Assessment of United States Space Export Control
Policy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the national
security risks of removing satellites and related components
from the United States Munitions List (USML).
The assessment required by this section must include a
review of the space and space-related technologies currently on
the USML; an assessment of the national security risks of
removing certain space and space-related technologies from the
list; and an examination of the degree to which other nations'
export control policies control or limit the export of space
and space-related technologies for national security reasons.
The assessment must also include: recommendations for the space
and space-related technologies that should remain on, or may be
candidates for removal from, the USML; the safeguards and
verifications necessary to prevent the proliferation and
diversion of such space and space-related technologies, confirm
appropriate end use and end users, and minimize the risk that
such space and space-related technologies could be used in
foreign missile, space, or other applications that may pose a
threat to the security of the United States; and improvements
to the space export control policy and processes of the United
States that do not adversely affect national security.
This section also requires the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations
of the Senate a report on the assessment required within 180
days after enactment of this Act.
Section 1236--Patriot Air and Missile Defense Battery in Poland
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to seek
to deploy a United States Army Patriot air and missile defense
battery and the personnel required to operate and maintain such
battery to the Republic of Poland by 2012, consistent with
United States national security interests and the Declaration
on Strategic Cooperation between the United States of America
and the Republic of Poland (signed in Warsaw, Poland, on August
20, 2008), and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Section 1237--Report on Potential Foreign Military Sales of the F-22A
Fighter Aircraft to Japan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and in consultation
with the Secretary of the Air Force, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on
the potential for foreign military sales of the F-22A fighter
aircraft to the Government of Japan.
Section 1238--Expansion of United States-Russian Federation Joint
Center to Include Exchange of Data on Missile Defense
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with the Government of the Russian Federation, to
expand the United States-Russian Federation joint center for
the exchange of data from early warning systems for launches of
ballistic missiles, as established pursuant to section 1231 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), to include the exchange
of data on missile defense-related activities.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on plans for expansion of the joint data
exchange center to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives within 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
This section would also make $5.0 million available from
the fiscal year 2010 authorization for PE 64869A within
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Army to
carry out this section.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for the Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $404.1
million for fiscal year 2010, representing a decrease of $30.0
million from the amount authorized in fiscal year 2009,
excluding any supplemental funds. The request contained the
following decreases: $13.6 million for strategic offensive arms
elimination in the Russian Federation; $1.0 million for
chemical weapons destruction; $9.0 million for nuclear weapons
storage security in Russia; $32.3 million for biological threat
reduction in states of the former Soviet Union (FSU); $3.0
million for defense and military contacts; and $10.0 million
for new CTR initiatives. The request also contained the
following increases: $0.4 million for strategic nuclear arms
elimination in Ukraine; $5.6 million for nuclear weapons
transportation security in Russia; $31.6 million for weapons of
mass destruction proliferation prevention in the FSU; and $1.3
million for other assessments and administrative costs.
The committee fully supports the goals of the CTR Program
and continues to believe that the Program is critical to U.S.
national security and must be a top priority. In recent years,
the committee has expressed concern that a lack of effective
policy guidance and leadership, as well as programmatic and
funding constraints, have limited the progress of the CTR
Program. The committee has also noted that despite the
significant achievements of the CTR Program over the last 10
years, much remains to be done, and has emphasized the need for
a strong national commitment to reinvigorate the CTR Program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
addressed these concerns by: repealing limitations on the use
of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority outside the FSU;
increasing CTR funding, including funding for new CTR
initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of
Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new
CTR initiatives; requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense
regarding efforts to complete the chemical weapons destruction
project at Shchuch'ye, Russia; and including other provisions
to ensure that wherever possible, the CTR Program addresses
threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and
weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise. In
addition, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53), passed in the 110th
Congress by both the House and Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly
known as ``the 9/11 bill,'' included a number of provisions and
authorized funding to accelerate, strengthen, and expand the
CTR Program.
However, the committee believes there are additional
opportunities for the CTR Program to address the wide variety
of global threats arising from the proliferation of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons and weapons-related materials,
technologies, and expertise. The committee welcomes the
President's commitment to reinvigorate the CTR Program and
ensure that it is a top priority going forward. This Act
provides the President with additional funding and new tools to
further the President's goals and objectives for the CTR
Program, including: the authority to accept international
contributions for CTR activities; a limited exemption from CTR
funding limitations for urgent CTR activities; and a report by
the National Academy of Sciences on metrics to measure the
impact and effectiveness of CTR activities.
The committee authorizes $434.1 million, an increase of
$30.0 million from the budget request, which includes an
increase of $29.0 million for new CTR initiatives.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Biological Threat Reduction
The committee continues to recognize the importance of
biological threat reduction activities to U.S. national
security interests and believes the United States should be
actively engaged in this area. However, the committee also
believes that the Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP)
under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) Program should be guided by a comprehensive long-term
interagency strategy for biological threat reduction and
requires: robust interagency engagement and coordination;
rigorous Department management and oversight; coordination and
integration with other Department programs and activities; and
concrete metrics for measuring progress.
The committee welcomes the Department's current efforts to
restructure and strengthen BTRP activities, including in the
area of interagency engagement and coordination to ensure that
the Department of Defense is the appropriate agency to
undertake such activities. The committee encourages the
Department to keep the committee fully informed of developments
with respect to this effort. The committee also encourages the
Department to maintain a strong focus within the CTR Program on
other threat reduction challenges, including preventing the
proliferation of chemical and nuclear weapons and weapons-
related materials, technologies, and expertise.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Contracting Procedures and
Agreements
The committee welcomes current efforts of the Department of
Defense to review the contracting procedures and umbrella
agreements used by the Department's Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) Program, and to assess possible alternatives,
in order to ensure that all CTR activities are being undertaken
in the most effective manner possible and consistent with the
urgency and necessity of such activities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2010, on the
results of the review, including any related actions that the
Secretary plans to take.
New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
The committee welcomes the recent report of the National
Academy of Sciences, pursuant to section 1306 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), regarding options for strengthening and expanding the
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
Program. The report includes many findings and recommendations
on possible ways to make the CTR Program more flexible,
responsive, and effective in addressing threats arising from
the proliferation of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons,
and weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
seriously assess the report's findings and recommendations, and
to continue taking actions to strengthen and expand the CTR
Program. The committee notes that it has authorized additional
funding for new CTR initiatives in this Act, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417). Such funding is
consistent with the President's commitment to reinvigorate the
CTR Program and ensure that it is a top priority going forward.
The committee encourages the Department to actively consult
with the committee regarding possible new CTR initiatives, and
to keep the committee fully informed of significant
developments in this area.
Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project
The committee welcomes recent progress by the Department of
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program toward
completion of the chemical weapons destruction project in the
Russian Federation at Shchuch'ye. This has been a flagship
project for the CTR Program, and in past years the committee
has conducted vigorous oversight of the project. The committee
encourages the Department to make efforts to ensure completion
and sustainability of the project and to keep the committee
fully informed of developments in this regard.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
This section would define the programs and funds that are
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those
authorized to be appropriated in section 1301 of this Act and
specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation
for three fiscal years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate specific amounts for each
program element under the Department of Defense Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) Program from within the overall $434.1
million that the committee would authorize for the CTR Program.
The allocation under this section reflects a $30.0 million
increase from the budget request of $404.1 million for fiscal
year 2010 as follows: $29.0 million for new CTR initiatives;
and $1.0 million for chemical weapons destruction. This section
would also require notification to Congress 30 days before the
Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2010
funds for purposes other than those specifically authorized. In
addition, this section would provide limited authority to
obligate amounts for a program element under the CTR Program in
excess of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose.
Section 1303--Utilization of Contributions to the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program
This section would establish the authority of the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to
enter into agreements with any person, including a foreign
government or entity, which the Secretary of Defense considers
appropriate, to accept funds to assist with the activities of
the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
Contributed funds would be maintained in a separate account in
the Treasury and would be returned to the donor if not used in
five years. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a quarterly report to the congressional
defense committees on the receipt and use of funds, and to
include in the first such report, an implementation plan for
the authority provided under this section. The authority
provided in this section to accept contributions would expire
on December 31, 2012, and the authority to retain and use
contributions would expire on December 31, 2015. This provision
would not preclude the transfer of funds pursuant to the
Economy Act (P.L. 97-258 and P.L. 98-216) from the Department
of Defense to other U.S. agencies.
Section 1304--National Academy of Sciences Study of Metrics for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) under which the NAS would carry out a study to identify
metrics to measure the impact and effectiveness of activities
under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program to address threats arising from the proliferation of
chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons and weapons-related
materials, technologies, and expertise. This section would also
require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress by
December 31, 2010, on the NAS study, including the Secretary's
assessment of the NAS report and any actions the Secretary
plans to take to implement its recommendations.
Section 1305--Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Authority for Urgent
Threat Reduction Activities
This section would enable the Secretary of Defense to
expend up to 10 percent of Department of Defense Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) Program funds in any fiscal year,
notwithstanding certain provisions of law, for CTR activities
to address urgent threats arising from the proliferation of
chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, and weapons-related
materials, technologies, and expertise.
Prior to expending funds under the authority provided in
this section, the Secretary would be required to make a written
determination, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
that Department of Defense CTR Program funds are needed for
urgent Program activities and that certain provisions of law
would unnecessarily impede the Secretary's ability to carry out
such activities. The Secretary would also be required to submit
a 15-day advance notice to the congressional defense
committees, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs that includes: the
Secretary's written determination; an identification of the
provisions of law addressed in the determination; a description
of the CTR activities to be undertaken pursuant to the
determination; and the expected time frame for, and cost of,
such activities.
Section 1306--Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and Military
Contacts Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the Defense and Military Contacts Program under the
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
Program is: strategically used to advance the mission of the
CTR Program; focused and expanded to support specific
relationship-building opportunities, which could lead to CTR
Program development in new geographic areas and achieve other
CTR Program benefits; directly administered as part of the CTR
Program; and includes, within an overall strategic framework,
cooperation and coordination with the unified combatant
commands that operate in areas in which CTR activities are
carried out, and with related diplomatic efforts.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Working Capital Fund Cash Balance
The committee is concerned that the setting of prices and
rates for Defense Working Capital Fund activities is being
driven by an arbitrary, outdated goal of maintaining 7 to 10
days of cash to sustain business operations. The committee is
concerned that this metric was developed during peacetime and
cannot account for changes related to overseas contingency
operations supported by supplemental appropriations or
fluctuations in commodity markets that are outside of the
Department of Defense's control.
As an example, the committee notes that in recent fiscal
years, the Defense Working Capital Fund has changed the
standard fuel price multiple times during the year of
execution. Additionally, as part of the budget request for
fiscal year 2010, the Army proposes levying cash surcharges
against its industrial operations customers during the fiscal
year to recover potential cash shortfalls at the same time the
Army is lowering its direct labor hours rate to return positive
accumulated operating results to its customers. These changes
directly impact the readiness of the services, as organizations
engaged in daily combat operations or combat support cannot
adequately gauge their costs during the year of execution.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, that examines a range
of alternative cash balance parameters by which the revolving
funds could be managed to sustain a single rate or price to the
customer throughout the fiscal year. These parameters should
not necessarily be the same across all working capital funds,
as the nature of the activity should be a significant factor in
determining the appropriate cash balance levels.
Subtitle A-- Military Programs
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $1.5 billion for Working
Capital Funds.
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund
This section would authorize $1.7 billion for the National
Defense Sealift Fund.
Section 1403--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize $26.9 billion in fiscal year
2010 funds for the Defense Health Program (DHP) and other
programs.
The committee notes the difficulties that the Department of
Defense continues to experience with its health information
management (IM)/information technology (IT) systems. The
committee is concerned that none of the solutions proposed by
the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity over the past two years
have found their way into the President's budget request.
Consequently, the committee believes that a higher level of
leadership oversight is required to ensure that existing
problems with the Department's health information management/
information technology programs are addressed and to ensure
better coordination among other Department information
technology efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends the
following transfers of funds from the Defense Health Program to
the Office of the Secretary of Defense:
(1) $808.4 million ($692.1 million from Tri-Service
IM/IT and $116.2 million from DHP IM/IT Support
Program) from Defense Health Program Operations and
Maintenance to Operations and Maintenance, Defense-
wide, Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(2) $144.6 million from Defense Health Program
Procurement to Procurement Line 47 (Major Equipment,
Office of the Secretary of Defense).
(3) $124.4 million from PE 65013 Information
Technology Development to PE 65170D8Z, Support to
Networks and Information Integration, RDT&E, Defense-
wide.
The committee intends for these funds to be used only for
their original budgeted purpose of providing health information
management/information technology.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
plan for the projected expenditure of these funds to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act. Further, the committee directs the
Secretary to provide prior notification of any transfer of the
funds listed above to the congressional defense committees not
less than 10 days before those funds are transferred to another
account.
Section 1404--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
This section would authorize $1.6 billion for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.
Section 1405--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize $1.1 billion for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities.
Section 1406--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize $279.2 million for the
Department of Defense Inspector General. This would represent
an increase of $6.8 million for operation and maintenance. This
increase would support activities such as increased audit,
inspection policy oversight, and investigative efforts.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $41.2 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 2010. This section would also permit the use of additional
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after
Congress receives notification.
Section 1412--Extension of Previously Authorized Disposal of Cobalt
from National Defense Stockpile
This section would amend section 114(b) of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) to extend the authority for cobalt sales
through fiscal year 2011.
Section 1413--Report on Implementation of Reconfiguration of the
National Defense Stockpile
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on any
actions the Secretary plans to take in response to the
recommendations in the April 2009 report entitled
``Reconfiguration of the National Defense Stockpile Report to
Congress.'' This section also would require congressional
notification 45 days prior to the Secretary taking any action
regarding implementation of the report's recommendations.
The committee agrees with the conclusion contained in the
report by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics that ``ensuring the current and future
availability of strategic and critical materials requires a
more integrated and responsive approach on the national
level.'' However, the committee desires to explore other
options that were not included in the Under Secretary's
recommendations. The committee will work collaboratively with
the Department of Defense to identify the steps that should be
taken to address the strategic materials issues that the
Department and nation face in the emerging security
environment.
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home
Section 1421--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home
This section would authorize $134.0 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2010.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for
each fiscal year to include:
(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for
ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required
in that fiscal year for operations; and
(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
The committee greatly appreciates that the Department's
Overseas Contingency Operations request for fiscal year 2010
complied with these requirements, and commends the Department
on its action.
The committee recommends authorization of $130.0 billion in
funds to be appropriated available upon enactment of this Act
to support overseas contingency operations principally
associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table summarizes authorizations included in
the bill for Overseas Contingency Operations.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Advanced GPS Receivers
The fiscal year 2010 budget request for ongoing military
operations contained $53.5 million for Defense Advanced GPS
Receivers (DAGR). The committee notes that additional funding
of $72.7 million for DAGRs is authorized in title I of this
Act, for a total budget request of $126.2 million for
acquisition of 41,370 DAGRs.
To date, over 275,000 DAGR units have been delivered to the
Army, replacing the need to purchase jamming-susceptible
commercial GPS receivers. However, approximately 60 percent of
the currently fielded DAGRs have been installed in vehicles,
creating a GPS void for individual service members. Additional
funding for DAGR procurement should reduce the cost of each
unit and increase the number of units available for deployment
to individual warfighters.
The committee recommends $58.5 million, an increase of $5.0
million, for procurement of additional DAGRs for ongoing
military operations. The $58.5 million authorized is in
addition to the $72.7 million authorized in title I of this
Act, for a total authorized amount of $131.2 million.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request contained $1.5 billion for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF).
The committee concurs with the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO) decision to increase its
support to disrupt and discourage human networks that use
improvised explosive devices (IED) to attack U.S. and coalition
military forces in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. U.S. and coalition forces' efforts to
thwart IED networks have produced significant and relatively
long-lasting reductions in violence and casualties.
The committee continues to encourage JIEDDO to support the
Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) program and other Department
agencies that have the expertise and experience to conduct
successful irregular warfare and counter-insurgency programs
against hostile human networks. The committee notes that the
IWS program leverages ongoing research efforts at Special
Operations Command and other parts of the federal government to
analyze, modify, design, and demonstrate enduring technical and
operational capabilities. Promising projects include: counter-
motivation; counter-enterprise; counter-infrastructure;
counter-financing; and sanctuary-denial methodologies for the
tactical and operational warfighter. IWS personnel and agents
alternatively provide both a mentoring and a support role to
uniformed personnel performing in the field, or in analytical
and command positions. The committee supports efforts to
further mature this concept.
The committee is concerned that, despite the Secretary of
Defense's priority for enhancing the Department's irregular
warfare capabilities, the widespread endorsement of the IWS
program by combatant commanders, and the strong encouragement
by the committee to provide such funding, JIEDDO has not acted
with urgency to fund relevant IWS and other related
initiatives.
The committee recommends authorization of $1.4 billion, a
decrease of $100.0 million, for the JIEDDF. The committee
further authorizes $100.0 million for the IWS program within
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE
0603121D8Z.
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund
The budget request contained $700.0 million for a new
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF). The
committee has not provided the Department with funding for the
PCCF for fiscal year 2010 because of the understanding between
the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the
respective authorizing and appropriating congressional
committees that the PCCF is to be funded from amounts
authorized and appropriated to the 150 (International Affairs)
Account. The committee addresses the President's request for
this authority in title XII of this Act.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1501--Purpose
This section would establish this title and make
authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of
this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts
otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional
costs due to Overseas Contingency Operations.
Section 1502--Army Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $9.8 billion for
Army procurement.
Section 1503--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
This section would authorize an additional $1.4 billion for
requirements to defeat improvised explosive devices.
Section 1504--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization Pending Report to Congress
This section would limit the amount of funds that the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) may
obligate until the committee is provided JIEDDO's detailed
budget and program information.
The committee recognizes that JIEDDO responds to rapidly
changing requirements from combatant commanders to counter the
threat of improvised explosive devices (IED), which continue to
be the primary threat to U.S. military forces in the Republic
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee
also understands that in responding to these requirements,
JIEDDO is unable to plan in advance how it will obligate all of
its funds in any fiscal year. However, the committee believes
that JIEDDO has become a sufficiently mature and established
organization to allow it to plan in advance for continuing and
enduring costs such as: staff and infrastructure; multiple-year
initiatives; training support; and information fusion support.
In order for the congressional defense committees to
conduct adequate oversight of JIEDDO and its efforts to support
combatant commanders to defeat IEDs, JIEDDO must submit
sufficiently detailed budgetary and programmatic information
prior to the authorization of its appropriations.
Section 1505--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $3.2 billion for
Navy and Marine Corps procurement.
Section 1506--Air Force Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $3.8 billion for
Air Force procurement.
Section 1507--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $799.8 million
for Defense-wide activities procurement.
Section 1508--Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
This section would authorize the President's request of
$5.5 billion for the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP)
vehicle fund. The committee is aware these vehicles are high
priority assets in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom and continue to save lives in combat.
The committee notes the extraordinary effort it took to produce
over 16,000 vehicles in two years and commends the Secretary of
Defense for acknowledging the importance of this program by
making it a top priority.
The committee believes troops in pre-mobilization, post-
mobilization, and final deployment training should have the
ability to train in the same types of equipment they will
operate while deployed in combat theaters of operation. The
committee understands MRAP vehicles are currently in short
supply for home-station training at joint national training
centers and combined training centers. The committee believes
the Secretary of Defense should use the funds provided in this
account to address this critical shortfall and rapidly
facilitate the fielding of MRAP vehicles for pre-mobilization,
post-mobilization, and final deployment training.
The committee understands that in response to a joint,
urgent operational needs statement from OEF and as part of the
MRAP vehicle program, the MRAP joint program office is pursuing
a MRAP all-terrain variant (MATV) that: would be a smaller,
lighter-weight version of the original MRAP vehicle; is
intended for use primarily in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan; and is currently undergoing source-selection. The
committee notes the MATV requirement could increase by over
3,000 vehicles in fiscal year 2010 and that increase could
potentially create a $2.0 billion shortfall. The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to pursue an aggressive
acquisition strategy for this vehicle that would allow for the
production and fielding of this vehicle as quickly as possible
and to fully fund the new MATV requirement in fiscal year 2010.
The committee also expects the Secretary of Defense to keep the
committee fully informed as to the progress of this strategy.
Section 1509--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
This section would authorize an additional $410.3 million
for research, development, test, and evaluation.
Section 1510--Operation and Maintenance
This section would authorize an additional $80.7 billion
for operation and maintenance programs.
Section 1511--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize an additional $396.9 million
for Defense Working Capital Funds.
Section 1512--Military Personnel
This section would authorize an additional $13.6 billion
for military personnel.
Section 1513--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
This section would authorize an additional $7.5 billion for
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund and would subject these
funds or any other funds made available to the Department of
Defense for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to the terms
and conditions of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
Section 1514--Iraq Freedom Fund
This section would authorize an additional $115.3 million
to the Iraq Freedom Fund.
Section 1515--Other Department of Defense Programs
This section would authorize an additional $1.5 billion to
other Department of Defense programs.
Section 1516--Limitations on Iraq Security Forces Fund
This section would subject funds made available to the
Department of Defense for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund for
fiscal year 2010 to the terms and conditions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181).
Section 1517--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United States Funds
for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq
This section would apply section 1508(a) of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) and prohibit the use of funds contained in
this title for the acquisition, conversion, rehabilitation, or
installation of facilities for the use of the government of the
Republic of Iraq, political subdivisions of Iraq, or agencies,
departments, or forces of the government of Iraq or its
subdivisions.
Section 1518--Special Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the transfer of up to an
additional $4.0 billion of war-related funding authorizations
in this title among the accounts in this title.
Section 1519--Treatment as Additional Authorizations
This section would state that amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
Division B provides military construction, family housing,
and related authorities in support of the military departments
during fiscal year 2010. As recommended by the committee,
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$23,174,965,000 for construction in support of the active
forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2010.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $13,111,072,000 for
military construction, $7,876,266,000 for Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,958,698,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends
authorization of $13,635,301,000 for military construction,
$7,666,266,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,958,698,000 for
family housing in fiscal year 2010.
Section 2001--Short Title
This section would cite Division B of this Act as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010.''
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be
Specified by Law
This section would ensure that the authorizations provided
in titles XXI through XXVI and title XXIX shall expire on
October 1, 2012, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2013, whichever
is later.
Section 2003--Effective Date
This section provides that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,
XXV, XXVI, XXVII and XXIX of this Act take effect on October 1,
2009, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,660,779,000 for Army
military construction and $796,654,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,630,422,000 for military construction and $796,654,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Castner Range Complex at Fort Bliss
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
ceased operations at the Castner Range Complex at Fort Bliss,
Texas, in 1971. In testimony, the Army indicated that Castner
Range is ``wholly impractical to use for any range activity.''
The committee is interested in maintaining this land for a
conservation purpose.
The committee encourages the Department to enter into a
lease in furtherance of conveyance with eligible conservation
entities.
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $500,000,000 for the stationing of brigade combat
teams at Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Stewart, Georgia;
and Fort Bliss, Texas.
The budget request included $404,000,000 in brigade combat
team construction and $1,070,000,000 in brigade combat team
facility support construction.
The Secretary of Defense recently announced a reduction of
the number of Army brigade combat teams from 48 to 45. The Army
indicated that they will reduce the number of brigades
programmed to arrive at Fort Carson, Fort Stewart, and Fort
Bliss. Unfortunately, this revision was announced after
significant infrastructure investment was made at these three
installations. This misalignment of infrastructure with the
strategic posture of the Army is troubling. As a result of
these announcements, the Army is developing a program that
would seek to accelerate the reduction of temporary facilities
at the three installations that were associated with the
stationing of other brigade combat teams. The committee
supports this initiative. The Army has indicated that they
should complete a final analysis of this basing decision by
July 31, 2009.
The committee is concerned that the application of funds
beyond the support of brigade combat teams at the recipient
locations is out of scope of the authorized projects. For those
projects that exceed the scope of the current authorizations,
the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to follow the
process established by section 2853 of title 10, United States
Code, and the budget reprogramming process. The committee also
expects the Secretary of the Army to complete an update of the
Grow the Army stationing plan by July 31, 2009:
(2) $30,000,000 for the Aviation Task Force Complex
Phase 1 at Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
The budget request included $125,000,000 to support
construction of various facilities including a barracks and a
vehicle maintenance shop.
The committee supports the full authorization of this
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $95,000,000, a
reduction of $30,000,000, to support this project.
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army
complete planning and design activities for the following
projects:
(1) $401,000--Water Survival Training Facility, Fort
Rucker, Alabama;
(2) $720,000--General Purpose Admin Facility, Fort
Bragg, North Carolina;
(3) $6,500,000--Access Control Points, Fort Bliss,
Texas;
(4) $900,000--Physical Fitness Complex, Fort
Campbell, Kentucky; and
(5) $956,000--Information Processing Node, PH 2,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2010. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2010.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2010.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year
2010 for the Army. This section also would provide an overall
limit on the amount the Army may spend on military construction
projects.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Project
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2873 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110-417) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct a 400-person chapel.
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2010, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,763,264,000 for Navy
military construction and $515,109,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,705,610,000 for military construction and $515,109,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division, Indian Head,
Maryland
The committee supports the Naval Surface Warfare Center
Indian Head ``Naval Ashore Vision 2020 Plan'' that contains
infrastructure improvements vital to ensuring that the Indian
Head Division maintains its critical role as the Department of
Defense Energetics Center. Centerpieces of the ``Naval Ashore
Vision 2020 Plan'' are the construction of the new Advanced
Energetics Research Laboratory Complex and the Energetics
Systems and Technology Laboratory Complex. Therefore, the
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to ensure inclusion
of these priority programs in the Future Years Defense Program.
Navy-State Partnership for Improving Infrastructure at Naval
Installations
The committee understands that the State of Connecticut
offered $7.6 million in state funding to enter into an
agreement with the Department of the Navy to improve the
infrastructure of Naval Submarine Base New London. The funding
is expected to be used to upgrade inefficient boilers at the
base's power plant ($3.0 million) and make improvements to the
91-year-old dive locker ($4.6 million). The committee
understands that the Navy has determined that these
improvements can be made without congressional authorization so
long as the State of Connecticut fully funds the projects.
The committee recognizes this agreement as an innovative
partnership that invests in the operational needs of Naval
Submarine Base New London, while providing the State of
Connecticut the opportunity to participate in the support of
the submarine force. The committee encourages the Department to
view favorably these types of offers from states to support
military installations.
Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range
The committee notes that the San Diego Shotgun Sports
Association (SDSSA) has operated a trap and skeet range on
Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar since 1957, providing free
recreational shooting for Marines and their families for more
than 50 years. The committee understands that the operation of
the range over the years may have caused lead contamination
beyond the range boundaries and that the Marine Corps is
conducting a Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/
SI) to assess necessary environmental mitigation. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to complete the PA/SI as
rapidly as possible so that appropriate mitigation measures may
be taken and the range reopened without undue delay. The
committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives when the PA/SI
is completed. The report should include a description of any
mitigation measures needed and timeline to complete, and plans
and timeline to reopen the range.
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $30,000,000 for the North Region Tertiary
Treatment Plant Phase 1 at Camp Pendleton, California.
The budget request included $142,330,000 to support
construction of the 5 million gallon per day sludge treatment
facility.
The committee supports the full authorization of this
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $112,330,000, a
reduction of $30,000,000, to support this project.
(2) $50,000,000 for the Ship Repair Pier Replacement
at Naval Support Activity Norfolk Navy Shipyard,
Portsmouth, Virginia.
The budget request included $226,969,000 to support a new
ship repair pier.
The committee supports the full authorization of this
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $176,969,000, a
reduction of $50,000,000, to support this project; and
(3) $40,000,000 for the Apra Harbor Wharf
Improvement, Agana, Guam.
The budget request included $167,033,000 to provide
infrastructure, wharf improvements, and utilities to allow cold
iron berthing for transient ships.
The committee supports the full authorization of this
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $127,033,000, a
reduction of $40,000,000, to support this project.
(4) $46,303,000 for Channel Dredging at Naval Station
Mayport.
The budget request included $46,303,000 to support
construction dredging of the Naval Station Mayport turning
basin, inner channel, and outer channel.
The committee is concerned that a decision to complete the
construction dredging of Naval Station Mayport would predispose
a Quadrennial Defense Review's determination as to an East
Coast Nuclear Aircraft Carrier basing.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of
$46,303,000, to support this project.
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy
complete planning and design activities for the following
projects:
(1) $510,000--Strategic Weapons Storage Facility,
Naval Support Activity, Crane, Indiana;
(2) $520,000 Joint Diver A-School, Panama City,
Florida;
(3) $850,000 Drydock 2 Starboard Waterfront Facility,
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Hawaii; and
(4) $2,000,000 Consolidation of Structural Shops,
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2010. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2010.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2010.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year
2010 for the Navy. This section also would provide an overall
limit on the amount the Navy may spend on military construction
projects.
Section 2205--Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2006 Project
This section would increase the authority for a project at
Bangor, Washington that was included in section 2201 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Division B of Public Law 109-163), from $60,160,000 to
$127,163,000. Furthermore, this section would extend the
authorization listed until October 1, 2010, or the date of the
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. Furthermore, it would
increase the authorization listed by $67,003,000 to
$127,163,000.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,145,434,000 for Air Force
military construction and $569,037,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,359,171,000 for military construction and $569,037,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station
The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment findings directed
that the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Wings at
Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, in completing an association
of the two wings, to jointly operate C-130 tactical airlift
assets assigned to the base. This association of the two wings
requires the construction of a joint operations center to
replace the smaller operations facilities manned separately by
the 914th and 107th Wings at the base. Existing facilities had
met the wings' needs under their previous configuration but
will not adequately support the requirements of the joint
operations under their association. The construction of a new
joint operations center is essential to future operations at
the base. The committee encourages the Air Force Reserve to
include the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station Joint Operations
Center in the Future Years Defense Program for its expeditious
execution and construction to support the association.
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee notes that several projects included in the
budget request were concurrently funded by the Navy and Air
Force at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. The budget request also
included a separate authorization for each of these projects
and the committee notes that this request would not yield a
complete and usable facility.
Therefore, the committee has realigned the Navy portion of
the funds to the Air Force to ensure a complete and usable
facility can be constructed.
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force
complete planning and design activities for the following
projects:
(1) $384,000--Mission Support Facility, MacDill Air
Force Base, Florida;
(2) $690,000--Civil Engineer Maintenance Complex,
Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho;
(3) $930,000--Physical Fitness Center, Andrews Air
Force Base, Maryland;
(4) $1,710,000--Control Tower/Base Operations, Minot
Air Force Base, North Dakota; and
(5) $450,000--Dormitory, Cannon Air Force Base, New
Mexico.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2010. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2010.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2010.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year
2010 for the Air Force. This section also would provide an
overall limit on the amount the Air Force may spend on military
construction projects.
Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2007
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2010, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later.
Section 2306--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2010, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,097,526,000 for defense
agency military construction and $77,898,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,054,126,000 for military construction and $77,898,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
The budget request also contained $146,541,000 for chemical
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends
authorization of $146,541,000 for military construction for
fiscal year 2010.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $300,000,000 for the second increment of funds
associated with a data center at Camp Williams, Utah.
The budget request included $800,000,000 to support
construction of the data center.
The committee supports the full scope of this project.
However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $500,000,000, a
reduction of $300,000,000, to support this project; and
(2) $80,000,000 for the fourth increment of funds
associated with the United States Army Medical Research
Institute.
The budget request included $108,000,000 to support
construction of the replacement facility.
The committee supports the full scope of this project.
However, the committee notes that the award of the replacement
facility construction, using funding from increments one
through three, occurred in March 2009, leaving a significant
funding balance available in fiscal year 2008 and 2009
unexpended. The committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $28,000,000, a
reduction of $80,000,000, to support this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section contains the list of defense agencies
construction projects that would be authorized for fiscal year
2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year
2010 for the defense agencies. This section would provide an
overall limit on the amount the defense agencies may spend on
military construction projects. Lastly, this section would
require that a proportion of the funds for energy conservation
projects equivalent to the proportion of energy used by reserve
component facilities as a percentage of the total energy
consumed by military installations be made available for
reserve components.
Section 2403--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2008 Project
This section would increase the authority for a project at
Point Loma Complex, California, that was included in section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Division B of Public Law 110-181), from $140,000,000
to $195,000,000.
Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Project
This section would increase the authority for a project at
Souda Bay, Greece, that was included in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Division B of Public Law 110-417), from $8,000,000 to
$32,000,000.
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2007
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2010, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later.
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year
2010 for the chemical demilitarization construction. This
section also would provide an overall limit on the amount the
chemical demilitarization office may spend on military
construction projects.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $276,314,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends authorization of
$276,314,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2010.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section 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 Act
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize $276,314,000 as the U.S.
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,021,214,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends authorization for
fiscal year 2010 of $1,463,117,000 to be distributed as
follows:
Army National Guard................................... $529,129,000
Air National Guard.................................... 226,126,000
Army Reserve.......................................... 432,516,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve........................ 172,177,000
Air Force Reserve..................................... 103,169,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Virginia National Guard Headquarters
The committee understands that the Adjutant General of the
Virginia National Guard has recommended that the Virginia
National Guard headquarters relocate from Fort Pickett to
Sandston, Virginia, to be closer to Richmond. The cited purpose
of the move is to improve the Commonwealth's emergency response
capabilities in a natural disaster or terrorist attack by
collocating the State National Guard headquarters with other
state emergency response agencies in the State capital. The
committee believes that the current Virginia National Guard
headquarters facility meets the needs of the Commonwealth, and
questions whether this move is the best use of federal military
construction funding. The committee believes that the Army
National Guard military construction budget would be better
applied to higher priority projects.
Planning and Design, Army National Guard
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army
complete planning and design activities for the following
projects:
(1) $5,446,000--Readiness Center, Kapolei, Hawaii;
(2) $1,240,000--Readiness Center, West Memphis,
Arkansas;
(3) $334,000--Joint Forces Headquarters, Frankfort,
Kentucky;
(4) $440,000--Barracks Replacement PH 2, Camp
Grayling, Minneapolis;
(5) $727,000--CST Ready Building, Las Vegas, Nevada;
(6) $368,000--Water Supply System, Camp Rilea,
Oregon;
(7) $924,000--Readiness Center, Luzerne,
Pennsylvania;
(8) $501,000--Readiness Center, Logan/Mingo County,
West Virginia;
(9) $2,234,000--Readiness Center, Parkersburg, West
Virginia; and
(10) $967,000--Field Maintenance Shop, Parkersburg,
West Virginia.
Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of
the Army complete unspecified minor construction activities for
the following projects:
(1) $1,963,000--Motor Vehicle Storage Building,
Freedom Center Armory, Camp Dodge, Idaho;
(2) $2,000,000--Army Aviation Support Facility
Addition/Alteration, Davenport, Idaho;
(3) $2,000,000--Readiness Center Addition/Alteration,
Iowa Falls, Idaho;
(4) $2,000,000--Field Maintenance Shop Addition/
Alteration, Fairfield, Idaho;
(5) $1,750,000--Troop Medical Facility Addition/
Alteration, Fort Harrison, Montana;
(6) $2,000,000--Joint Forces Headquarters Addition,
Beightler Armory, Ohio;
(7) $2,000,000--Shoot House, Ravenna, Ohio;
(8) $1,996,000--Bachelor Quarters Addition/
Alteration, Ethan Allen Range, Vermont; and
(9) $1,669,000--Urban Assault Course, Camp Santiago,
Puerto Rico.
Planning and Design, Air National Guard
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force
complete planning and design activities for the following
project:
1(1) $600,000 Contingency Response Group Facility,
Stanford Field, Kentucky.
Unspecified Minor Construction, Air National Guard
The committee recommends that, within the authorized
amounts for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of
the Air Force complete unspecified minor construction
activities for the following projects:
(1) $1,300,000--Joint Use Armed Forces Reserve
Center, McEntire Joint Reserve Base, South Carolina;
(2) $1,700,000--Munitions Administration Facility,
Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey;
(3) $1,805,000--Aviation Operations Facility, London,
Kentucky;
(4) $1,900,000--Starbase Facility, Minneapolis-Saint
Paul International Airport, Minnesota;
(5) $1,500,000--Joint Forces Operations Center,
Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts;
(6) $2,000,000--Multi-Use Instructional Facility,
Toledo Express Airport, Ohio;
(7) $1,000,000--New Supply Warehouse, Zanesville Air
National Guard Base, Ohio; and
(8) $1,300,000--Addition to Munitions Maintenance
Complex, Joe Foss Field, South Dakota.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize military construction for the
Army National Guard for fiscal year 2010. The authorized
amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis.
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize military construction for the
Army Reserve for fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize military construction for the
Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2010. The
authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis.
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize military construction for the
Air National Guard for fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts
are listed on a location-by-location basis.
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize military construction for the
Air Force Reserve for fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts
are listed on a location-by-location basis.
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for National Guard and Reserve by service
component for fiscal year 2010. The state list contained in
this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Section 2607--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2007
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2010, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later.
Section 2608--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2010, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later.
TITLE XXVII BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $396,768,000 for activities
related to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities
and $7,479,498,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The
committee recommends authorization of $536,768,000 for prior
BRAC round activities and $7,129,498,000 for BRAC 2005
activities.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding in the budget request for the 2005 round of Base
Closure and Realignment. This reduction includes:
(1) $350,000,000 for funds associated with the
implementation of the 2005 round of Base Closure and
Realignment at defense-wide activities.
The budget request included $7,479,498,000 to support
construction of the data center.
The committee supports the implementation of the 2005 round
of Base Closure and Realignment by the statutory deadline.
However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this account, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2010.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $7,129,498,000, a
reduction of $350,000,000, to support this account.
Ft. Bragg/Pope Air Field BRAC Force Structure
BRAC legislation approved in 2005 directs transfer of the
real property at Pope Air Force Base to Ft. Bragg to occur not
later than September 15, 2011. It also directs the Army's
Forces Command headquarters (FORSCOM) to relocate to Ft. Bragg
from Atlanta, Georgia by 2011, and the relocation of a reserve
Air Force airlift wing from Milwaukee to Pope AFB. As part of
this realignment, BRAC 2005 downsized the active duty wing at
Pope AFB to an active duty group which will maintain control of
airfield operations and, along with the reserve wing, will
provide support to Army operations.
Fort Bragg and Pope AFB are vital to this nation's rapid
response capability including high level planning for
contingency operations and the requirement to quickly generate
and deploy troops, which is dependent on Air Force airlift
support. Considering this essential mission and cooperation
required, the committee is concerned that this reduced Air
Force presence may not be able to fully support the expanding
Army and Special Operations missions at Fort Bragg.
The committee therefore directs the Chairman, Joint Chiefs
of Staff (CJCS), to conduct a review of the air mobility
requirements of the varied Army, Air Force, and Special
Operations units likely to be deployed from Pope Air Force Base
in support of the geographic combatant commanders and provide
those requirements to the Secretary of the Air Force by
December 31, 2009. The committee further directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to report the congressional defense committees
by March 1, 2010, whether the Air Forces' programmed force
structure at Fort Bragg (Pope Army Airfield) meets both the
coordinating headquarters level planning capability and the
operational requirements prescribed by the CJCS. The Secretary
should also address how he plans to address any resultant
shortfall in Air Force planning or operational capability at
Fort Bragg to meet CJCS requirements for the expanded mission
at Fort Bragg.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorizations
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Closure and
Realignment Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 1990
This section would authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the
decision of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Closure and
Realignment.
Section 2702--Authorized Base Closure and Realignment Activities Funded
Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005
This section would authorize military construction projects
for fiscal year 2010 for ongoing activities that are required
to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Closure and
Realignment. The table included in this title of this report
lists the specific amount authorized at each location.
Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Closure and
Realignment Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 2005
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction projects for fiscal year 2010 that are required to
implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) round. This provision also would provide an
overall limit of the amount authorized for BRAC military
construction projects. The state list contained in this report
provides a list of specific projects authorized at each
location.
Subtitle B--Amendments to Base Closure and Related Laws
Section 2711--Use of Economic Development Conveyances to Implement Base
Closure and Realignment Property Recommendations
This section would amend section 2905 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510) and redefines the roles of economic
development conveyances. Furthermore, this section eliminates
fair market value negotiations between eligible parties and the
Department of Defense prior to conveyance. The economic
development conveyance would instead rely on actual market
returns realized at the completion of the development. A
revised economic development conveyance would expedite
conveyances and allow local communities to quickly recover from
the adverse effects of a tax base loss. Finally, the Secretary
of Defense would be required to complete implementing
regulations within 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act and be required to submit a report to Congress within 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act regarding the
status of ongoing economic development conveyances.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 2721--Sense of Congress on Ensuring Joint Basing
Recommendations Do Not Adversely Affect Operational Readiness
This section would express the sense of Congress that, in
implementing joint basing recommendations associated with the
recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510), the
Secretary of Defense should ensure that the operational
employment of units at the joint base are not adversely
impaired.
Section 2722--Modification of Closure Instructions Regarding Paul Doble
Army Reserve Center, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
locate a new reserve center and associated training and
maintenance facilities adjacent or in the vicinity of Pease Air
National Guard Base.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acquisition of Land in the Clear Zone and Accident Potential Zones
The committee believes that controlling land use near
military airfields is important to minimize the damage
resulting from potential aircraft accidents and to reduce
hazards to aircraft navigation. The committee understands that
the Department of Defense has delineated clear zones (CZs) and
accident potential zones (APZs) in the vicinity of airfield
runways where, if a problem developed, an aircraft mishap would
likely occur. Studies show that most mishaps occur on or near
the runway or along the extended centerline of the runway.
However, the Department's acquisition of the CZs and the APZs
has been haphazard and inconsistent.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2010, on the Department's policy regarding acquisition
of title or lease arrangements to secure compatible development
in the CZs and APZs. Specifically, the Department should
prepare an evaluation for each aviation installation as to
their CZ and APZ requirements and whether the Department has
obtained the developmental limits required of the installation.
Furthermore, the Department should specify, for each aviation
installation, any aviation waivers that are being used to
continue flight operations.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funding for Department of
Defense Energy Initiatives
The committee notes that the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2007 (Public Law 111-5) provided
significant funding to the Department of Defense for energy-
related initiatives. ARRA included $3.8 billion within
operation and maintenance accounts for facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization, including funding to invest in
the energy efficiency of the Department's facilities. Of the
funds provided within the operation and maintenance accounts,
according to the ARRA expenditure plan dated March 20, 2009,
the Department has identified for funding 1,473 energy-related
projects with an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. ARRA also
included $300.0 million split evenly among the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and defense-wide research, development, test, and
evaluation accounts for improvements in energy generation,
efficiency, transmission, regulation, storage, and for use on
military installations and within operational forces. The act
also included $100.0 million within the military construction,
Navy and Marine Corps account for energy conservation and
alternative energy projects. The act further included $120.0
million within the defense-wide military construction account
for the Energy Conservation Investment Program. The committee
expects the Department to apply this funding in ways that
maximize the benefit to the warfighter and the Department's
ability to meet existing energy-related goals and requirements
for installations. Among these is the goal for the Department
to produce or procure not less than 25 percent of the total
quantity of electric energy it consumes within its facilities
and in its activities during fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal
year thereafter from renewable energy sources as established by
section 2852 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
Annual Installation Energy Report
The committee received a report from the Department of
Defense titled ``Department of Defense Annual Energy Management
Report'' on March 13, 2009. According to its cover letter, the
report was submitted pursuant to section 317 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107). The committee notes that the annual reporting requirement
established by that section will expire on January 1, 2010. A
similar reporting requirement is prescribed by part (a) of
section 2925 of title 10, United States Code. The committee
directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment) to notify the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services as to
whether the Department intends to submit an annual installation
energy management report to Congress in fiscal year 2011,
pursuant to the title 10 requirement. The notification should
be submitted with the Department's annual energy management
report for fiscal year 2009.
Army Ammunition Plant Infrastructure
The committee remains concerned over the deteriorating
infrastructure conditions at Army ammunition plants (AAP). The
committee is specifically concerned by the lack of emergency
response capabilities and other critical physical security
deficiencies that continue to exist across the AAP industrial
base despite increased funding across previous Future Years
Defense Programs. The committee is aware that many of these
AAPs are single points of failure. The committee notes the
Radford Army Ammunition Plant, the single point of failure for
propellant manufacturing, has identified critical
infrastructure issues that must be mitigated in order to ensure
continuity of operations and protection of the physical plant.
The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has published several directives to implement a program
for a worldwide DOD installation emergency response to manage
the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, or high-yield explosive incident (CBRNE). The
committee expects that emergency operations and response
activities will be a priority for the Department of Defense and
would be incorporated as part of any AAP industrial base
modernization plan.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report that would assess the immediate requirements
for AAP infrastructure recapitalization to include improvements
in mitigating shortfalls in any AAP's ability to respond to a
CBRNE event. The assessment should also include a proposed
schedule to address these requirements. Furthermore, this
assessment should employ the facility sustainment and
recapitalization metrics used by the Department of Defense in
analyzing defense infrastructure. The assessment should also
include a review as to the necessity of continuing to fund
these infrastructure upgrades under the Procurement of
Ammunition, Army Production Base Support account instead of the
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization account. The
committee directs the Secretary to submit the report to the
congressional defense committees by January 30, 2010.
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
The committee was advised that the Assembled Chemical
Weapons Alternatives U.S. Army Element selected a cost-plus-
incentive-fee contract approach in 2002 and 2003 when the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
approved alternative technologies for the Colorado and Kentucky
demilitarization plants. This decision to continue the cost-
plus-incentive-fee methodology has continued with the award of
subsequent phases of the program. While the previous decisions
to use a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract model may have been
valid during the deliberative sessions associated with the
initial chemical weapons alternatives development process, the
committee is concerned that the continued use of cost-plus-
incentive-fees for which the overall construction requirement
is well known at the solicitation of the next construction
phase may be inappropriate. This continued use of cost-plus-
incentive-fee contracting appears contrary to overall goals of
best government practices and contrary to Federal Acquisition
Regulation 16.301-2 that indicates ``Cost-reimbursement
contracts are suitable for use only when uncertainties involved
in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated
with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price
contract.'' At the same time, the committee is also concerned
that an acquisition strategy change in the middle of the
acquisition process is problematic.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to assess the continued need to use cost-plus-incentive-fee
type construction contracts in the future for Assembled
Chemical Weapons Alternatives. The committee also directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the findings of the
acquisition vehicle assessment and an assessment of the
necessity to continue the current acquisition methodology. This
report should be submitted to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2010.
Comptroller General Assessment of Military Basing Decision Process
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by May 1, 2010, on the military services' decision
process used in making basing determinations, such as the
decision to establish a second homeport for a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier on the East Coast of the United States. The
committee believes this decision raises significant strategic,
cost, and risk questions.
It is not clear to the committee how the Navy has been
determining its basing decisions. For example, the Navy's
consideration of whether to homeport additional surface ships
at Naval Station Mayport (NAVSTA Mayport), Florida, appears to
lack strategic depth. The committee notes that homeporting a
nuclear aircraft carrier at NAVSTA Mayport would cost at least
$560.0 million in military construction, require the dredging
and disposal of approximately 5.2 million cubic yards of dredge
material, and increase long-term operation and maintenance
costs. The Navy does not appear to have carried out a
comprehensive process to determine the need for such
expenditures with consideration for strategic rationale, fiscal
realities, environmental impacts, and personnel impacts
associated with the decision.
In light of the substantial costs and the strategic and
community impacts that result from basing decisions, the
committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study on
the manner in which the military services consider and utilize
the following in making basing decisions: changes to military
force structure, strategic imperative and risk assessment,
input from combatant commanders, cost, and environmental and
socio-economic impacts. Specifically, the review should address
the following:
(1) Military force structure considerations: When
rebasing military assets from one installation to
another, the processes the military services use to
assess the impact associated with the current and
future home stations or homeports.
(2) Strategic imperative and risk assessment: The
extent to which the military services consider
strategic shifts in force posture, such as the shift of
naval assets from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific
Ocean, in basing decisions. When making basing
decisions related to strategic dispersal of military
assets, the process used by the services to conduct and
consider risk assessments. In making the nuclear
aircraft carrier homeporting decision, how the Navy
weighed the comparative risk between the different
needs of the Navy. For example, the consideration the
Navy gave to building an additional nuclear aircraft
carrier homeport at Naval Station Mayport versus
failing to meet ship maintenance and repair shortfalls,
or the need for a 313-ship Navy.
(3) Cost: The extent to which the military services
use a cost-benefit analysis in making basing decisions
and the extent to which the budgetary requirements of
the entire military service and Department of Defense
are considered; the consideration given in the
decision-making process to shortfalls in other service
budgets and other internal budget accounts; and how the
services' analyses compare the strategic benefits of
expending funds for one purpose (such as the
construction of additional infrastructure) to the use
of funds for other purposes (such as meeting unfunded
procurement requirements) in determining whether to
proceed with a decision.
Economic Impact of Brigade Combat Team Stationing Plan
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense's
announcement of a reduction in the number of Army brigade
combat teams from 48 to 45 may cause an undue economic hardship
for those communities that expanded their own community
infrastructure in response to the Army's request for support of
its expanded force structure. Such hardship is particularly
likely in rural communities where the infrastructure investment
to absorb a brigade-sized population influx is disproportionate
and has little or no economic value if the population influx
does not occur. The committee is concerned that failure to halt
or ameliorate undue losses on these investments will make it
more difficult for the Army or other services to ensure that
private and public infrastructure investments are made in a
timely fashion by local communities to support future basing
decisions.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
to the congressional defense committees, within 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, a report describing the
enduring missions (across all branches) planned for the bases
affected by the Secretary's decision not to expand to 48
brigade combat teams or affected by any decision to retain
brigade combat teams in Europe. The committee encourages the
Secretary, during identification of enduring missions for the
affected bases, to make every effort to ameliorate any undue
hardship and investment losses incurred by the communities that
expanded their infrastructure to support the Army's prior
brigade combat team basing plan. The report should also include
an estimate, with supporting analysis, of the economic hardship
and investment loss that has been, or will be, incurred by each
of the affected communities as a result of these changed basing
decisions and a statement of the extent to which the enduring
missions identified for the bases will ameliorate or lessen the
undue hardship and investment losses.
The committee also directs the Secretary to instruct the
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to develop a plan by which
the OEA will work with the affected communities to mitigate the
economic impact. This plan should be reported to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Installation Energy Strategy and Management Assessment
The committee is concerned that the absence of a
comprehensive installation energy strategy for the Department
of Defense has led to a proliferation of disparate, poorly
integrated efforts to meet conservation and renewable energy
mandates across the services. For example, while each service
consumes about one third of the Department's total facility
electricity, the Air Force purchased significantly more
renewable electricity credits than the other services in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008. The committee believes that this imbalance
is but one reflection of differing approaches to energy
management among the services. While some degree of
experimentation is appropriate, the committee believes that the
Department would be better served by managing energy policy in
a more coordinated fashion at the Department level.
The committee believes a more holistic approach to energy
management will allow installation commanders to support
missions as efficiently as possible while leveraging tools,
such as installation metering, the Energy Conservation
Investment Program (ECIP), and alternative financing mechanisms
such as Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC), where
these tools make sense.
The committee therefore urges the Secretary of Defense to
establish a more comprehensive installation energy program that
sets policies and guidance for the services. The committee also
urges the Secretary to identify impediments that inhibit
installations in a region or across the nation from furthering
their renewable energy and energy security goals, and to make
recommendations for actions to address those impediments. In
doing so, the committee directs the Secretary to conduct an
assessment of the following installation energy issues:
(1) Whether a dedicated funding mechanism for
renewable energy projects on installations would enable
further development consistent with the Department's
installation energy strategy, or whether the existing
tools, such as ECIP and other appropriated efforts and
ESPC and other alternative financing mechanisms are
sufficient for the Department to meet its renewable
energy goals. It should include an estimate of the
total funding required to meet the Department's
renewable energy goals in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(Public Law 109-58), in Executive Order 13423, and in
section 2911(e) of title 10, United States Code;
(2) The costs, benefits, and feasibility of adopting
a policy requiring that new power generation projects
on installations include the electrical infrastructure
necessary to enable the project to provide power
directly to the installation, should the commercial
grid fail. If it is determined that this is not a
feasible policy, then an explanation of obstacles and
costs that need to be addressed to enable this policy;
(3) The degree to which state or regional laws,
regulations, and market structures serve as
opportunities and obstacles to developing renewable
energy projects on fixed installations. Considerations
may include renewable portfolio standards, incentives,
tariffs, and net metering. For instance, it could
address whether net metering is currently considered
and available for renewable energy projects, and if it
is not available or obstacles prevent its use at
installations where it would otherwise be used, the
reason for its unavailability;
(4) A proposal for modifying the system by which the
Department is allowed to calculate its progress towards
meeting federally-mandated renewable energy goals.
Currently, federal agencies can count the renewable
energy they purchase or produce towards these goals
only if the agency also owns or purchases the renewable
energy credits (REC) associated with that energy. The
Secretary of Defense should include an assessment of
the value of RECs to the Department beyond the paper
``credit'' and the feasibility of meeting the
Department's renewable energy goals with on-base
renewable energy production rather than with RECs;
(5) The building construction sustainable design
principles and whether the goals of the current design
standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design standards) are consistent with the overall goals
of the Secretary;
(6) The feasibility and cost of developing net-zero
energy installations and a detailed assessment, by
installation, of power production (including renewable
energy) measured against energy consumption. This
assessment should include: current and future energy
production and consumption; the utility of placing a
monetary value on the ability of the base to obtain
power from on-site renewable generation; and any
utility privatization issues that may arise if the
Department invests in additional transmission
infrastructure on its installations; and
(7) Whether a dedicated funding mechanism for
renewable energy projects for standalone facilities,
such as National Guard and Reserve centers, would
encourage greater use of renewable energy sources both
at existing facilities and in new construction.
Findings and recommendations resulting from the assessment
should be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2010. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the Secretary's report and submit a report on
the Comptroller General's findings within 180 days after
receipt of the Secretary's report. The Comptroller General may
conduct such independent analysis of these issues as necessary
in furtherance of this directive.
Installation Master Plans
The committee is concerned about the planning decisions at
military installations and the intent to advocate for low-
density developments that promulgate sprawl. The committee
understands that the Department of Defense's propensity for
low-density development is being driven primarily by a
facility-centric approach to anti-terrorism/force-protection
issues and requirements to insert 10- and 25-yard standoff
distances from roads and parking structures. Consequently, in
the use of the current anti-terrorism/force-protection
criteria, the value of land as a commodity has been lost.
The committee believes that a layered approach to anti-
terrorism/force-protection design is critical to defeating
threats against an installation threat and that effective
perimeter security serves as the primary defense. Furthermore,
the committee believes that stand-alone facilities should have
sufficient standoff distances. However, a military
installation, which is formed by the concentration of multiple
facilities, should be approached from a holistic view and the
development of anti-terrorism/force-criteria should be modified
to reflect an installation approach.
Buttressing this installation approach to anti-terrorism/
force-protection is the current public-sector approach to
sustainable design. The committee believes that it is important
to recognize that many communities are embracing a planning
approach that promotes efficient use of public spaces and de-
emphasizes vehicular travel.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2010, that reviews current anti-terrorism/force-
protection measures and considers alternative measures for
installations. In conducting this review, the Secretary should
consider current community-based, sustainable design techniques
that support better quality-of-life techniques and increase
working efficiencies.
Military Construction Future Years Defense Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
decided not to submit a Future Years Defense Program for
military construction for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. The
committee has used this document for many years as a method to
determine the validity of military construction projects. The
inability of the Department to produce this critical document
for consideration in this Act leads to a degradation of the
quality of the military construction program. The committee
encourages the Department to submit these documents to the
congressional defense committees, in concert with other budget
documents, for consideration in the annual budget request.
Report on Implementation of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design Standards
The committee is aware that each of the military services
has endorsed sustainable building principles for new
construction and commends the services for this effort. The
Department of the Army sustainable design and development (SDD)
policy, as updated April 27, 2007, requires that all new
construction projects achieve the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) silver standard for new
construction effective with the fiscal year 2008 military
construction program. Further, beginning in fiscal year 2008,
the Army policy states that ``all major renovation and repair
projects exceeding $7.5 million (requiring congressional
notification) shall incorporate sustainable design features
where lifecycle cost effective to achieve a minimum of the
Certified level of the LEED Existing Buildings rating
system.'' The Naval Facilities Engineering Command bulletin
issue number 2008-01 applies LEED silver-level performance
metrics beginning in fiscal year 2009 to all new construction
projects and major renovations where the work exceeds 50
percent of the building's plant replacement value. The
Department of the Air Force sustainable design and development
policy specifies that ``Beginning in FY09, 100% of each
MAJCOM's MILCON [(Major Command's Military Construction)]
vertical construction projects, with climate control, shall be
designed so that it is capable of achieving LEED Silver
certification'' beginning in fiscal year 2009. The committee
notes that section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) also requires application of
sustainable design principles to all new construction and major
renovations undertaken by federal agencies including the
Department of Defense.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with each of the military service secretaries, to
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services on whether, as of the end
of fiscal year 2009, each military construction project or
major renovation as defined by section 2811 of title 10, United
States Code, has achieved compliance with the respective
service's policy to apply the LEED silver standards. An
exceptions report for each project that has not obtained this
status and the reason for not obtaining compliance also should
be included. The committee directs this report to be submitted
by February 1, 2010.
Armed Forces Retirement Home--Gulfport 2003 Property Disposal
The committee is concerned with actions of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (AFRH) with respect to the acquisition and
subsequent disposal of property located adjacent to its
facilities in Gulfport, Mississippi. Based on information
provided to the committee, AFRH purchased 10.02 acres of
property adjacent to its facilities in Gulfport, Mississippi,
in 2003 for a sum of $5.7 million. Almost immediately
thereafter, AFRH sold what appears to be the most commercially
valuable portions of this acreage to private individuals for
well below its appraised market value. These beachfront
properties contained two large homes and totaled 3.81 acres.
The committee questions whether these transactions and
subsequent property boundary adjustments were within applicable
law and regulations and in the best of interests of the United
States.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Inspector General to prepare a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 31, 2009, on the following issues:
(1) The intent or purpose behind AFRH's decision to
acquire and subsequently sell the property within such
a short period of time;
(2) If appropriate procedures were followed in the
acquisition, modification of parcel boundaries, and
sale of the beachfront parcels, including an
examination of whether the appraisals, property
listings, surveys, and bid offerings followed generally
accepted practices; and
(3) Other issues related to the overall real estate
transaction.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Modification of Unspecified Minor Construction
Authorities
This section would amend section 2805 of title 10, United
States Code, to eliminate exercise-related project
restrictions. This section also would expand the authority to
receive funds provided in section 219(a) of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) for revitalization and recapitalization of the
defense laboratory complex.
Section 2802--Congressional Notification of Facility Repair Projects
Carried out Using Operation and Maintenance Funds
This section would amend section 2811 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that congressional notice of repair
projects in excess of $7.5 million include comparison of the
repair versus replacement cost of a specific project and to
require a description of the military construction contemplated
in the repair.
Section 2803--Authorized Scope of Work Variations for Military
Construction Projects and Military Family Housing Projects
This section would amend section 2853 of title 10, United
States Code, and authorize the Department of Defense to exceed
the scope of a military construction project after providing
notification to the appropriate committees of Congress.
Section 2804--Imposition of Requirement that Acquisition of Reserve
Component Facilities be Authorized by Law
This section would amend section 18233(a)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to require Reserve Components to have a
military construction authorization prior to initiating
construction.
Section 2805--Report on Department of Defense Contributions to States
for Acquisition, Construction, Expansion, Rehabilitation, or Conversion
of Reserve Component Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on disbursements made to states associated with
section 18233(a) of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2806--Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for
Construction Projects Inside the United States Central Command Area of
Responsibility
This section would amend section 2808 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B
of Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended by section
2806 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110-417) to extend the use
of operation and maintenance funds for construction projects at
locations in the United States Central Command for an
additional year. This section would eliminate the discretion of
the Secretary of Defense to expand the authority from $200.0
million to $500.0 million, provided in the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417). Finally, expanded authority to include an
additional $10.0 million would be provided to the Secretary of
Defense if the Secretary determines that additional funds are
required to complete contract closeouts.
Section 2807--Expansion of First Sergeants Barracks Initiative
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
implement the First Sergeants Barracks Initiative to improve
the quality of life for single soldiers and promote higher use
of barracks spaces. Furthermore, it would require the Secretary
of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 15, 2010, and February 15, 2011, on
efforts the Army has taken to achieve the goals stipulated in
the provision.
Section 2808--Reports on Privatization Initiatives for Military
Unaccompanied Housing
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on options to expand the privatization of
military unaccompanied housing authority associated with
section 2881a of title 10, United States Code. The Comptroller
General of the United States also would be required to submit a
concurrent report on the same subject.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Imposition of Requirement That Leases of Real Property to
the United States With Annual Rental Costs of More Than $750,000 be
Authorized by Law
This section would amend section 2661 of title 10, United
States Code, and require that leases to the United States, in
excess of $750,000, be specifically authorized by law.
Section 2812--Consolidation of Notice-and-Wait Requirements Applicable
to Leases of Real Property Owned by the United States
This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United
States Code, and require additional reporting requirements
associated with leases of real property owned by the United
States that were previously included in section 2667 of title
10, United States Code.
Section 2813--Clarification of Authority of Military Departments to
Acquire Low-Cost Interests in Land and Interests in Land When Need is
Urgent
This section would amend section 2664 of title 10, United
States Code, and clarify that the requirement to obtain an
authorization for land acquisition may be superseded when the
elements of section 2663 of title 10, United States Code are
met.
Section 2814--Modification of Utility Systems Conveyance Authority
This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United
States Code, to require, in the consideration of a utility
privatization proposal, a 10 percent preference to a government
proposal when the period of performance is less than 10 years
and a 20 percent preference to a government proposal when the
period of performance is more than 10 years and less than 50
years. Furthermore, this provision would restrict review under
this section when a similar review has been completed using the
authority of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code,
within the past five years.
Section 2815--Decontamination and Use of Former Bombardment Area on
Island of Culebra
This section would amend the Military Construction
Authorization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-166) and remove
restrictions to environmental remediation on the Island of
Culebra that were incorporated to protect the former
bombardment area on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, from
further development.
Section 2816--Disposal of Excess Property of Armed Forces Retirement
Home
This section would amend section 1511 of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 411) to require the
Secretary of Defense to dispose of excess property in
accordance with subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United
States Code. This type of property disposal method brings the
Armed Forces Retirement Home into alignment with the Department
of Defense on methods to dispose property.
Section 2817--Acceptance of Contributions to Support Cleanup Efforts at
Former Almaden Air Force Station, California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to accept contributions from the State of California that would
allow the demolition of property and to provide environmental
remediation at the former Almaden Air Force Station.
Section 2818--Limitation on Establishment of Navy Outlying Landing
Fields
This section would limit the Secretary of the Navy from
establishing an outlying landing field at a proposed location
if the Secretary determines that the governmental body of the
political subdivision of a state containing the proposed
location is formally opposed to the establishment of the
outlying landing field. This provision shall not apply if
Congress enacts a law authorizing the Secretary to proceed with
the outlying landing field notwithstanding the local government
action.
Section 2819--Prohibition on Outlying Landing Field at Sandbanks or
Hale's Lake, North Carolina, for Oceana Naval Air Station
This section prohibits the Sandbanks and Hale's Lake sites
in North Carolina from further consideration as an Outlying
Landing Field to support field carrier landing practice for
naval aircraft operating out of Naval Air Station Oceana,
Virginia.
Section 2820--Selection of Military Installations to Serve as Locations
of Brigade Combat Teams
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
consider the availability and proximity of training spaces when
selecting a military installation at which a brigade combat
team will be stationed.
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment
Section 2831--Role of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in
Management and Coordination of Department of Defense Activities
Relating to Guam Realignment
This section would amend section 134 of title 10, United
States Code, and delegate responsibility for coordinating the
Guam realignment activities of the Department of Defense, and
the activities of the Joint Guam Program Office, to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy. Programming authority would
remain the responsibility of the secretaries of the military
departments.
Section 2832--Clarifications Regarding Use of Special Purpose Entities
to Assist With Guam Realignment
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the proposed implementing guidance
associated with the special purpose enterprises that would be
used in the Guam realignment. This section also would apply the
United States Unified Facilities Criteria to all projects
supported by the ``Support for United States Relocation to Guam
Account'' established in section 2824 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B
of Public Law 110-417). Finally, this section would express the
sense of Congress that utility improvements on Guam should
incorporate military and civilian utilities on Guam into a
unified grid.
Section 2833--Workforce Issues Related to Military Construction and
Certain Other Transactions on Guam
This section would amend section 2824 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B
of Public Law 110-417) to require military construction
contracts to comply with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title
40, United States Code, and would require a construction wage
determination to be determined at the rate of the lowest wage
rate on a project of similar character for Hawaii. This section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to Congress by February 15 of each year, on an assessment of
the living standards of the construction workforce employed to
carry out military construction projects and the adequacy of
the contract standards and infrastructure that support
temporary housing for the construction workforce and their
medical needs.
Section 2834--Composition of Workforce for Construction Projects Funded
Through the Support for United States Relocation to Guam Account
This section would amend section 2824 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B
of Public Law 110-417) and provide a 30 percent limit to the
total hours worked per month by H2B visa holders on
construction projects that support the realignment of military
installations and the relocation of military personnel on Guam.
This authority expires for construction projects whose
groundbreaking extends beyond October 1, 2011. Furthermore, the
construction contractor shall be required to advertise and
solicit for construction workers in the United States.
Additionally, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by June 30, 2010, on
efforts to implement Executive Order 13502, entitled ``Use of
Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects''.
Finally, the Secretary of Labor shall submit a report to the
committees of jurisdiction by June 30, 2010, on efforts to
expand the recruitment of construction workers in the United
States to support this effort; on the ability of labor markets
to support the Guam realignment; and the sufficiency of efforts
to recruit United States construction workers.
Section 2835--Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for
Guam Realignment
This section would establish the Interagency Coordination
Group for Guam Realignment in order to provide independent and
objective oversight and a transparent and reliable source of
information relating to the programs and operations funded by
the Department of Defense for military construction activities
on Guam.
This section would require the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to serve as chairperson of the
Interagency Coordination Group and include the Inspector
General of the Department of the Interior and Inspectors
General of such other federal agencies as the chairperson
considers appropriate.
This section would require the Interagency Coordination
Group for Guam Realignment to submit to the congressional
defense committees an annual report summarizing Guam
realignment activities and activities under the programs and
operations funded by the Department for military construction
activities in Guam. The Interagency Coordination Group for Guam
Realignment shall terminate upon the expenditure of 90 percent
of all funds appropriated or otherwise made available for Guam
realignment.
Section 2836--Compliance With Naval Aviation Safety Requirements as
Condition on Acceptance of Replacement Facility for Marine Corps Air
Station, Futenma, Okinawa
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
certify to the congressional defense committees that the Marine
Corps Air Station Futenma Replacement Facility meets minimum
Naval Aviation Safety Requirements before final acceptance of
the facility.
Section 2837--Report and Sense of Congress on Marine Corps Training
Requirements in Asia-Pacific Region
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Guam
Program Office, to submit a report on the command structure
associated with the current and future locations of Marine
Corps units in the Pacific, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense
report would assess the training expectations associated with
the Marine Corps realignment to Guam and the overall training
requirements in the Northern Mariana Islands.
This section also would express the sense of Congress that
the Marine Corps training expansion should be completed as soon
as possible and should not impact the overall rebasing of
Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The committee supports a two-tiered approach to reviewing
training requirements for the Marine Forces Pacific. The upper
tier would include a comprehensive strategy that includes
transient forces that train Marine Corps elements up to and
including a Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The committee
understands that this effort will be reviewed in the context of
the Quadrennial Defense Review and may require a study per the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). The
lower tier would include elements associated with current
Marine Corps training capabilities available in Japan. The
committee understands that this review will be finalized when
the Guam Build-up Environmental Impact Study is concluded.
Subtitle D--Energy Security
Section 2841--Adoption of Unified Energy Monitoring and Management
System Specification for Military Construction and Military Family
Housing Activities
This section would create section 2867 of title 10, United
States Code, and require the Department of Defense to adopt a
single specification for an energy management and monitoring
system for use in military construction projects. The Secretary
concerned would be able to waive the requirements to adopt a
single specification if the Secretary determines that the
inclusion in a military construction project is not cost
effective over the lifecycle of the project. This section also
would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act on the items associated with the
adoption of a single specification for an energy management and
monitoring system.
Section 2842--Department of Defense Use of Electric and Hybrid Motor
Vehicles
This section would amend subchapter II of chapter 173 of
title 10, United States Code, by adding a new section that
would require that, when leasing or procuring motor vehicles
for use by a military department or defense agency, the head of
the military department or defense agency provide a preference
for electric or hybrid motor vehicles when lifecycle cost
effective. This section would not apply to tactical vehicles
designed for use in combat.
Section 2843--Department of Defense Goal Regarding Use of Renewable
Energy Sources to Meet Facility Energy Needs
This section would amend section 2911(e) of title 10,
United States Code, by changing the definition of ``renewable
energy source'' from the definition provided in section 203(b)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) to a new
definition that includes non-electric renewable energy such as
thermal energy. This change applies to the Department of
Defense goal to produce or procure renewable energy equivalent
to 25 percent of the total quantity of electric energy it
consumes within its facilities and in its activities during
fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter.
Section 2844--Comptroller General Report on Department of Defense
Renewable Energy Initiatives
This section would require the Comptroller General to
submit a report on renewable energy initiatives to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services within 90 days after enactment of this Act.
Section 2845--Study on Development of Nuclear Power Plants on Military
Installations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study on the feasibility of developing nuclear power
plants on military installations. The committee directs the
Secretary to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by June 1,
2010.
Subtitle E--Land Conveyances
Section 2851--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Port Chicago
Naval Magazine, California
This section would amend section 203 of the Port Chicago
National Memorial Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-562) to require
the Secretary of Defense to transfer five acres of land to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior if
the Secretary of Defense determines that the land is excess to
military needs and all environmental remediation has been
completed. The land would be used by the National Park System
for purposes of administering the Port Chicago Naval Magazine
National Memorial. The Secretary of Defense shall provide as
much public access as possible without interfering with
military needs.
Section 2852--Land Conveyances, Naval Air Station, Barbers Point,
Hawaii
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, six parcels of the former Naval
Air Station, Barbers Point to the Hawaii Community Development
Authority.
Section 2853--Modification of Land Conveyance, Former Griffiss Air
Force Base, New York
This section would amend section 2873 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B
of Public Law 108-375) and allow the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey a third parcel at the former Griffiss Air Force Base
to the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency.
Section 2854--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey the Army Reserve Center in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
without consideration, to the Chambersburg Area School District
for educational, education support, and community activities.
Section 2855--Land Conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey 2.4 acres at Naval Air Station Oceana to the City of
Virginia Beach for the purpose of permitting the City to expand
services to support the Marine Animal Care Center.
Section 2856--Land Conveyance, Haines Tank Farm, Haines, Alaska
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey 201 acres at the former Haines Fuel Terminal to the
Chilkoot Indian Association for industrial and commercial
development purposes.
Section 2857--Completion of Land Exchange and Consolidation, Fort
Lewis, Washington
This section would amend section 2837 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B
of Public Law 107-107), as amended by section 2852 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(division B of Public Law 108-375) and change the nature of the
land conveyance from the Secretary of the Army to the Nisqually
Tribe. Specifically, the conveyance would be modified by
striking ``may make the transfer'' and inserting ``shall make
the transfer''.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 2871--Revised Authority to Establish National Monument to Honor
United States Armed Forces Working Dog Teams
This section would amend section 2877 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) by authorizing the John Burnam Monument Foundation, Inc.,
to provide recurring maintenance of the monument authorized.
Section 2872--Naming of Child Development Center at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, in Honor of Mr. S. Lee Kling
This section would designate a child development center at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri as the ``S. Lee Kling Child
Development Center''.
Section 2873--Conditions on Establishment of Cooperative Security
Location in Palanquero, Colombia
This section would prohibit, in this division or otherwise,
funds being made available for military construction of a
cooperative security location (CSL) at German Olano Airbase in
Palanquero, Republic of Colombia, until 15 days from the date
on which the Secretary of Defense certifies to the
congressional defense committees that an agreement has been
entered into with the government of Colombia that permits the
establishment of the cooperative security location at the
German Olano Airbase in a manner that will enable the United
States Southern Command to execute its Theater Posture Strategy
in cooperation with the armed forces of Colombia. The committee
notes that in title 23 of this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would authorize the appropriation of $46.0
million, as requested by the Department of Defense, to
construct the CSL at Palanquero, under the working premise that
an agreement would be reached with the government of Colombia
during fiscal year 2010.
This section does not provide for, authorize, or establish
the permanent stationing of United States armed forces in
Colombia.
Section 2874--Military Activities at United States Marine Corps
Mountain Warfare Training Center
This section would amend section 1806 of the Omnibus Public
Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) by ensuring the
United States Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center is
not restricted or precluded by conducting activities at the
Bridgeport Winter Recreation Center, California.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZATIONS
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,404,984,000 for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,404,984,000 for military
construction.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $76,500,000 for 10 troop housing projects at various
locations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The budget request included $76,500,000 to support
construction of these projects.
The committee notes that these projects are projected to be
funded by other authorities in fiscal year 2009. Accordingly,
the committee recommends $0, a reduction of $76,500,000.
(2) $6,600,000 for a classified project.
The budget request included $6,600,000 to support planning,
design, and construction of this project.
The committee notes that these projects will be funded
using the operations and maintenance funds in fiscal year 2009.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of
$6,600,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize war-related military
construction projects for the Army. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Section 2902--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize war-related military
construction projects for the Air Force. The authorized amounts
are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Section 2903--Construction Authorization for Facilities for Office of
Defense Representative-Pakistan
Notwithstanding section 2801 of title 10, United States
Code, this section would authorize to be appropriated, up to
$25.0 million for the planning, design, and construction of
facilities on the United States Embassy Compound in Islamabad,
Islamic Republic of Pakistan for use by the Office of Defense
Representative-Pakistan (ODRP). This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs on the number of personnel and the
activities of the ODRP beginning with a report 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and continuing
semiannually thereafter. This section would allow the
submission of the report in classified form. The report would
terminate after two years.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $16.4 billion for atomic
energy defense activities. Of this amount, $9.9 billion is for
the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration
and $6.4 billion is for environmental and other defense
activities.
The committee believes that the budget request for
Department of Energy National Security Programs for fiscal year
2010 reflects more risk within National Nuclear Security
Administration programs than it does in Defense Environmental
Cleanup activities. Because the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) included $5.1
billion in additional funding for Defense Environmental
Cleanup, the committee believes these activities are well
positioned to address program challenges during fiscal year
2010. At the same time, the request for the National Nuclear
Security Administration does not adequately address the
recognized need for increased investment in the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
programs. The committee therefore recommends a shift in
resources from Defense Environmental Cleanup to the National
Nuclear Security Administration for the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, in order to more appropriately balance risk across
Department of Energy National Security Programs. The committee
further recommends increased funding for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation programs.
The committee recommends $16.5 billion, an increase of
$83.3 million to the amount of the request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request contained $9.9 billion for the programs
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year
2010. The committee recommends $10.5 billion, an increase of
$534.6 million to the budget request.
Weapons Activities
Stockpile Stewardship Program
The committee views execution of the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) as the core national
security mission of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The SSP utilizes data from previous nuclear
tests, unique experimental tools, unmatched advanced simulation
and computing capabilities, and the world's foremost nuclear
weapons scientists, engineers, and technicians to maintain the
safety and reliability of our weapons without nuclear tests.
After more than a decade of successful stewardship, the
effort is poised to move into a second major phase. In the
first phase, stockpile stewardship investments were largely
focused on developing advanced simulation and computing
capabilities and constructing world-class experimental tools,
such as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic-
Test facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Z
Machine at Sandia National Laboratory. These experimental
facilities, simulation and computing capabilities, and the
scientists, engineers, and technicians supporting the Stockpile
Stewardship Program, together form the pillars on which the
stewardship program is based.
In its second phase, the SSP aims to advance the science of
stewardship so that the performance of the stockpile can be
validated without direct reliance on historical underground
test data. The committee believes the Stockpile Stewardship
Program can only advance in this fashion if the experimental
capabilities that have been developed are exercised, and the
scientists, engineers, and technicians employed in the nuclear
security enterprise are actively engaged in challenging,
meaningful work. Such activity is imperative because specific
areas of remaining uncertainty about the performance of our
nuclear weapons can only be illuminated through experiments
facilitated by these capabilities.
As the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of
the United States noted in its final report, absent such
activity, the nation will not be able to sustain the
intellectual capital that is critical to maintaining its
deterrent forces. The committee notes that many of these same
scientists, engineers, and technicians provide the intellectual
capital for other critical national security priorities,
including nuclear nonproliferation, arms control verification,
and nuclear forensics.
The committee believes the continued success of the
science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program is all the more
critical as the Administration conducts the Nuclear Posture
Review required by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and as the nation
pursues negotiations with the Russian Federation on reducing
our respective nuclear arsenals.
In its final report, the Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States noted that the
intellectual infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex ``is
in serious trouble--perhaps more so than the physical complex
itself.'' The commission stated that it ``strongly recommends
that significant steps be taken to remedy the situation.'' The
committee shares this concern; elsewhere in this title, the
committee includes legislative provisions to strengthen and
sustain the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program and
recommends additional funding for key elements of the program.
Directed Stockpile Work--Stockpile Services--Research and Development
Certification and Safety
The budget request contained $831.1 million for Stockpile
Services, including $143.1 million for Research and Development
Certification and Safety, a reduction of $44.5 million from the
fiscal year 2009 appropriated level. The committee understands
the budget request would not fully support experimental tests
previously planned in support of the Science Campaign and the
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
The committee therefore recommends $841.1 million for
Stockpile Services, including $153.1 million for Research and
Development Certification and Safety, an increase of $10.0
million, to support dynamic plutonium experiments at the Nevada
Test Site.
Science Campaign--Advanced Certification
The budget request contained $316.7 million for the Science
Campaign, including $19.4 million for Advanced Certification.
The committee believes additional investment is needed to
support the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program as it
moves into its second phase. In particular, the committee
believes additional investment is needed to support analysis of
various approaches to stockpile stewardship and management.
The committee also believes that the continued success of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program requires thorough and
rigorous scientific review processes to maintain the strategic
deterrent without nuclear testing. Experts, including the JASON
scientific advisory panel, have urged enhanced peer review
within the stewardship program. Elsewhere in this title, the
committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to
establish a dual validation approach as part of the annual
weapons assessment and certification process.
The committee recommends $326.7 million for the Science
Campaign, including $29.4 million for Advanced Certification,
an increase of $10.0 million. From within this recommended
increase, the committee recommends $4.0 million to initiate
dual validation of the B61 and B83 bombs, and the W78 and W87
warheads.
Engineering Campaign
The budget request contained $150.0 million for the
Engineering Campaign, including $42.0 million for Enhanced
Surety. The committee supports these activities, but
understands that the request is insufficient to fully support
analysis of options for increasing the surety of existing
legacy stockpile systems.
The committee therefore recommends $155.0 million for the
Engineering Campaign, including $47.0 million for Enhanced
Surety, an increase of $5.0 million.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
The budget request contained $436.9 million for the
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign.
The committee supports the National Ignition Campaign and
believes the successful execution of this campaign is critical
to the success of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program. The committee understands the fiscal year 2010 budget
request does not fully fund the risk reduction measures
recommended by the National Ignition Campaign Baseline
Execution Plan, and believes that additional resources are
necessary. The committee is also concerned that the budget
request would not adequately support pulsed power activities
within the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign
during fiscal year 2010.
The committee therefore recommends $468.9 million, an
increase of $32.0 million, for the Inertial Confinement Fusion
Ignition and High Yield Campaign. Specifically, the committee
recommends: $111.7 million for Ignition, an increase of $5.0
million; $77.3 million for NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and
Experimental Support, an increase of $5.0 million; $15.0
million for Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion, an
increase of $10.0 million; and $260.9 million for Facility
Operations and Target Production, an increase of $12.0 million.
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
The budget request contained $556.1 million for the
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign.
The committee notes that the ASC Campaign funds the
principal means of validating the performance of nuclear
weapons absent nuclear explosive tests. As the major
experimental tools of the Stockpile Stewardship Program are
brought on line, more data will be available to inform these
advanced simulations. Such simulations will be more robust than
past efforts, and should yield greater confidence in the
nation's enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. But such
simulations will also require more advanced computing
capabilities.
The committee therefore recommends $586.1 million for the
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign, an increase of
$30.0 million, specifically to support planned transitions to
the Sequoia and Zia platforms.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of Facilities--
Pantex Plant
The budget request contained $131.6 million within
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of
Facilities for the Pantex Plant. The committee understands that
the budget request was not sufficient to fully address mission
needs at Pantex, in support of weapons dismantlement, stockpile
life extension program work, and surveillance.
The committee recommends $146.6 million, an increase of
$15.0 million, for Operations of Facilities for the Pantex
Plant to address National Nuclear Security Administration
facility maintenance requirements.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of Facilities--
Sandia National Laboratories
The budget request contained $104.1 million within
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of
Facilities for Sandia National Laboratories. The committee
notes that budget request was $19.8 million below the fiscal
year 2009 funded level, and further understands that the
request was not sufficient to support mission needs.
The committee recommends $114.1 million for Operations of
Facilities for Sandia National Laboratories, an increase of
$10.0 million.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of Facilities--
Y-12 National Security Complex
The budget request contained $210.8 million within
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of
Facilities for the Y-12 National Security Complex. The
committee understands that the budget request was not
sufficient to fully address mission needs at Y-12 in support of
weapons dismantlement, refurbishment, and other national
security missions. The committee believes these needs are
important, given the age and condition of the existing uranium
processing facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex.
The committee therefore recommends $225.8 million, an
increase of $15.0 million, for Operations of Facilities for the
Y-12 National Security Complex to reduce safety risks and
security vulnerabilities.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities--Construction
The budget request contained $203.4 million for Readiness
in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) Construction, but
contained: no funding for Project 09-D-007, Los Alamos Neutron
Science Center Refurbishment at Los Alamos National Laboratory;
no funding for Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities
Revitalization II at Sandia National Laboratories; no funding
for Project 08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment Project at Los Alamos
National Laboratory; and no funding for Project 08-D-802, High
Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex Plant.
The RTBF program provides funding for the physical
infrastructure of the nuclear security complex of laboratories,
plants, and facilities. The committee is concerned that
inadequate funding for such projects will undermine successful
execution of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. However, the
Government Accountability Office has identified up to $42.1
million in prior year unobligated balances associated with
Project 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex
Plant, that should be available due to cancellation of that
project. The committee understands that a portion of these
unobligated funds will be needed for project closeout, but the
committee believes that reallocation of a portion of these
prior year balances to other active projects is appropriate
given the priorities left unmet by the budget request.
The committee therefore recommends $208.4 million for
RTBF--Construction, an increase of $5.0 million. Specifically,
the committee recommends: $15.0 million for Project 09-D-007,
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center Refurbishment at Los Alamos
National Laboratory; $5.0 million for Project 09-D-404, Test
Capabilities Revitalization II at Sandia National Laboratories;
and $5.0 million for Project 08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment
Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The committee
further recommends a decrease of $20.0 million from within
prior year unobligated balances associated with Project 08-D-
802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex Plant.
National Nuclear Security Administration Budget Categories
The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) executes a broad range of nuclear
security programs, but its program and budget category
descriptions do not accurately reflect this breadth. The
committee notes that the largest budget category, Weapons
Activities, includes activities that would be more accurately
described as providing nuclear security or supporting the
infrastructure of the nuclear laboratory and production
complex.
The committee believes that additional clarity in the NNSA
budget presentation would better reflect the breadth of
programs administered by the NNSA. The committee therefore
encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security to consider
creating additional budget categories that would be equivalent
in stature to Weapons Activities and would include those
activities whose purposes extend beyond direct weapons
stockpile work. The committee believes additional detail in the
budget request would more accurately reflect the range of
programs administered by the NNSA.
National Nuclear Security Administration Governance
For more than a decade, the committee has been concerned
with the organization and management of the Department of
Energy's national security programs. These concerns prompted
the committee to lead the effort in 1999 to enact the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act of 1999, which was included
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65). A chief concern, both then and now, is
that officials and employees responsible for the nuclear and
national security programs executed by the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) should not be subject to
direction from the staff offices of the Department of Energy in
executing those responsibilities.
As noted in the conference report (H. Rept. 106-301)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000, ``. . . each officer or employee of a contractor of
the Administration would not be responsible to, or subject to
the authority, direction, or control of any other officer,
agent, or employee of the Department of Energy who is not an
employee of the Administration, with the exception of the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Energy.''
However since the establishment of the NNSA 10 years ago,
various studies and examinations have concluded that the
Department of Energy has not afforded the NNSA the intended
autonomy, including 2 expert reviews completed this year.
The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of
the United States concluded in its final report, issued on May
6, 2009, that ``the governance structure of the NNSA is not
delivering the needed results.'' The commission further noted
that, ``The leadership of all three weapons laboratories
believes that the regulatory burden is excessive, a view
endorsed by the Commission.'' The Stimson Center Task Force on
Leveraging the Scientific and Technological Capabilities of the
NNSA National Laboratories for 21st Century National Security,
which issued its report on March 4, 2009, found that, ``The
Laboratories and Nevada Test Site need more federal leadership
and less federal management to be effective and efficient.''
The committee is aware that the Office of Management and
Budget has directed an organizational assessment of NNSA to be
conducted jointly by the Department of Energy and the
Department of Defense. The committee understands the assessment
will include an examination of how NNSA supports the defense
strategy and force structure that is being developed in the
Quadrennial Defense Review and Nuclear Posture Review.
The committee encourages the Office of Management and
Budget, the Department of Energy, and the Department of
Defense, in conducting this review, to place a high priority on
realizing the original intent of the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act of 1999. Providing the NNSA with the ability
to effectively and efficiently carry out its critical national
security missions should be among the Administration's top
priorities.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The budget request contained $2.1 billion for Department of
Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation programs.
The committee fully supports the goals of the NNSA's
nonproliferation programs and continues to believe that such
programs are critical to U.S. national security and must be a
top national security priority. In recent years, the committee
has expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance
and leadership, as well as programmatic and funding
constraints, have limited the progress of NNSA and other
nonproliferation programs. The committee has also noted that
despite the significant achievements of NNSA nonproliferation
programs over the last 15 years, much remains to be done, and
has emphasized the need for a strong national commitment to
reinvigorate these programs.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) addressed these
concerns by increasing funding for NNSA nonproliferation
programs, including the International Nuclear Materials and
Cooperation (MPC&A) Program and the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative (GTRI). Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-417
also: required a report by the President on nuclear terrorism
prevention; required reports by the Secretary of Energy on
strengthening and expanding the NNSA International Radiological
Threat Reduction, MPC&A, and Global Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) programs; authorized a
nonproliferation and national security scholarship and
fellowship program; provided the Secretary of Energy with
authority to accept international contributions for the NNSA
Russian Plutonium Disposition and MPC&A programs; and included
other provisions to ensure that wherever possible, NNSA
nonproliferation programs address threats involving nuclear and
radiological weapons and weapons-related materials,
technologies, and expertise.
In addition, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53), passed in the 110th
Congress by both the House and Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly
known as ``the 9/11 bill,'' included a number of provisions and
authorized funding to accelerate, strengthen, and expand NNSA
nonproliferation programs. Provisions include the establishment
of both a presidential coordinator and a congressional-
executive commission on the prevention of weapons of mass
destruction proliferation and terrorism. However, the committee
believes there are additional opportunities for NNSA
nonproliferation programs to address the wide variety of global
threats arising from the proliferation of nuclear and
radiological weapons and weapons-related materials,
technologies, and expertise. The committee welcomes the
President's commitment to reinvigorate nonproliferation
programs and ensure that they are a top priority going forward.
This Act specifically supports the President's goals and
objectives for NNSA nonproliferation programs, and encourages
these programs to maintain a particular focus on securing
nuclear and radiological weapons and weapons-related materials
and technologies at the source wherever possible.
Moreover, the committee continues to welcome actions by the
NNSA to eliminate impediments to timely obligation and
execution of authorized and appropriated funds for NNSA
nonproliferation programs. In recent years, such actions have
enabled the NNSA to achieve a level of uncommitted uncosted
balances for most NNSA nonproliferation programs that is below
the acceptable levels established by the NNSA in close
coordination with the Government Accountability Office. The
committee encourages the NNSA to continue its efforts to
eliminate any remaining impediments to timely obligation and
execution of funds for NNSA nonproliferation programs.
The committee authorizes $2.5 billion, an increase of
$402.6 million. This includes an increase of $223.5 million for
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and $179.1 million for
the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
program.
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
The budget request contained $297.3 million for
Nonproliferation Research and Development (R&D). The committee
fully supports the goals of the R&D program, and continues to
note that the program is the sole remaining U.S. Government
capability for long-term nuclear nonproliferation research and
development. The committee also continues to emphasize the
importance of expanding U.S. scientific skills and resources
and improving U.S. Government capabilities relating to both
short- and long-term innovative nonproliferation research and
development that will maintain U.S. technological advantage in
this area.
The committee recommends $297.3 million, the amount of the
budget request.
Radiation detection technology
The committee continues to encourage the National Nuclear
Security Administration to work closely with the Department of
Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office on the
research and development of radiation detection technology to
ensure there is no duplication of research efforts, but rather
a collaborative complementary approach to research in areas of
common interest.
Nonproliferation and International Security
The budget request contained $207.2 million for
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS). The
committee fully supports the goals of the NIS program.
The committee recommends $207.2 million, the amount of the
budget request.
Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
In recent years, the committee has been conducting vigorous
oversight of the Global Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (GIPP) program. In section 3116 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
the committee required a comprehensive review of the GIPP
program and reports on: the goals of the program; criteria for
partnership projects under the program; the plans for existing
and new projects; and project funding. The committee
appreciates the information provided by the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) on the GIPP program in response
to this reporting requirement. The committee particularly
welcomes the completion of an interagency risk assessment of
project institutes and facilities in the former Soviet Union
(FSU) and the decision to focus on high priority institutes for
engagement in this region. The committee also welcomes the new
cost-sharing goal for GIPP projects in the FSU.
The committee recognizes that the GIPP program's engagement
activities with former weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
scientists continue to serve important U.S. nonproliferation
interests, in part by helping to impede transfers of WMD
expertise and know-how to states of concern or terrorist
entities.
The committee encourages the NNSA to continue strengthening
the management, implementation and oversight of the GIPP
program as necessary to ensure the program achieves its
intended nonproliferation objectives and in no way undermines
U.S. national security interests. The committee also encourages
the NNSA to consult with the committee regarding continued
program improvements, and to keep the committee fully informed
of significant program developments.
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the
National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee
expressed its concerns regarding the proliferation risks
associated with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
The committee addressed these concerns in section 3117 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417). The committee notes the budget request did not
include any funding for GNEP activities from within any NNSA
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program line, and welcomes
this positive development.
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
The budget request contained $552.3 million for
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
(MPC&A). The committee fully supports the goals of the MPC&A
program.
The committee recommends $731.4 million, an increase of
$179.1 million as follows: $30.0 million to secure vulnerable
nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material located outside the
United States; and $149.1 million to deploy radiation detection
equipment and related capabilities at high-threat border
crossings and ports of transit to deter, detect, and interdict
illicit transfers of materials that could be used in weapons of
mass destruction or a radiological dispersion device, known as
a ``dirty bomb.''
Second Line of Defense
The committee continues to encourage the National Nuclear
Security Administration to closely coordinate its Second Line
of Defense efforts to deter, detect, and interdict illicit
transfers of nuclear and radioactive materials at border
crossings and ports with the efforts of any other relevant U.S.
agency or department, including the Department of Defense and
the Department of Homeland Security.
Fissile Materials Disposition
United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
The budget request contained $700.9 million for the United
States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
The committee fully supports the goals of the United States
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program. The committee
also continues to support execution of program activities and
functions relating to disposition of U.S. surplus weapons-grade
plutonium and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX
project), including management and direction of the MOX
project, from within the National Nuclear Security
Administration Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program, given
the important nonproliferation objectives, benefits, and
national security goals associated with these activities.
The committee recommends $700.9 million for U.S. Fissile
Materials Disposition, the amount of the budget request.
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
The budget request contained $1.0 million for the Russian
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
The committee fully supports the goals of the Russian
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, which include
disposition of the Russian Federation's surplus weapons-grade
plutonium. The committee continues to emphasize the importance
of nonproliferation cooperation with the Russian Federation to
U.S. nonproliferation objectives and national security goals.
The committee supports the President's efforts to strengthen
and expand such cooperation.
The committee also continues to urge the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to resolve any outstanding
issues with Russia relating to the Russian Surplus Fissile
Materials Disposition program and to move the program forward
in a manner that is consistent with the program's
nonproliferation objectives. Moreover, the committee continues
to emphasize its concern with the use of fast reactors under
the program and expects the NNSA to pursue a disposition path
for Russia's surplus weapons-grade plutonium which ensures that
any reactors used under the program do not produce plutonium
and include necessary monitoring and inspection controls.
The committee encourages the NNSA to keep the committee
fully informed of significant program developments and any
funding needs to continue program activities during fiscal year
2010.
The committee recommends $1.0 million, the amount of the
budget request.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
The budget request contained $353.5 million for the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee fully
supports the goals of the GTRI program.
The committee recommends $577.0 million, an increase of
$223.5 million, as follows: (1) $126.5 to support the
President's four-year plan to secure and remove all known,
vulnerable, weapons-usable nuclear material around the world by
2012; (2) $35.0 million to accelerate conversion of domestic
and international research reactors from the use of weapons-
usable highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium; (3)
$2.0 million to accelerate removal of vulnerable high-priority
radiological sources located outside the United States; (4)
$5.0 million to accelerate removal of excess and unwanted
radiological sources within U.S. borders; (5) $10.0 million to
accelerate efforts to secure sites with vulnerable high-
priority nuclear and radiological sources located outside the
United States; and (6) $45.0 million to accelerate efforts to
secure U.S. research and test reactors and sites with high-
priority radiological sources.
Office of the United States Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons
of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism
The committee notes that the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53), passed
in the 110th Congress by both the House of Representatives and
the Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly known as ``the 9/11 bill,''
established a presidential coordinator on the prevention of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation and terrorism.
The committee welcomes the President's appointment of a
government-wide coordinator on WMD issues, and encourages the
coordinator to keep the committee informed of developments with
respect to U.S. efforts in this critical area.
Office of the Administrator
The budget request contained $420.8 million for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of the
Administrator. The committee encourages the Office of the
Administrator to address any issues of limited staff capacity,
capabilities, and resources related to implementation of
critical NNSA nonproliferation programs and to advise the
committee of any funding needs in this regard.
The committee recommends $420.8 million, the amount of the
budget request.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $6.4 billion for environmental
and other defense activities. The committee recommends $6.0
billion, a decrease of $451.3 million.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Defense Environmental Cleanup program funding
The budget request contained $5.5 billion for Defense
Environmental Cleanup, a decrease of $161.4 million from the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2009.
The committee is aware that the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) provided an
additional $5.1 billion in funding for Defense Environmental
Cleanup. The committee is also aware that, according to a
report issued by the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management in January 2009, pursuant to the
requirement established by section 3130 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181),
the cost to complete the current remaining work scope for the
Department of Energy's Environmental Management program is
between $205 billion and $260 billion. At current funding
rates, the cleanup will take decades. The committee believes
that the additional resources provided for the program in
Public Law 111-5 were needed, particularly following the trend
from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, during which time the
program's annual budgets were decreasing while program
lifecycle costs and work scope were increasing. The committee
is supportive of the Department of Energy's expressed intent to
focus the additional funding on reducing the footprint of
contamination and on accelerating cleanup efforts while
creating thousands of new jobs. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Energy to maintain the momentum gained through the
provision of the Public Law 111-5 funding by robustly funding
Defense Environmental Cleanup in future years.
The committee is aware that the Department of Energy
Inspector General broadly observed in a March 2009 report that
the ``infusion of these [Public Law 111-5] funds and the
corresponding increase in effort required to ensure that they
are properly controlled and disbursed in a timely manner will,
without doubt, strain existing resources.'' At the same time,
as mentioned elsewhere within this title, the committee
recognizes the need for additional resources for the National
Nuclear Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship
Program. The committee therefore recommends a decrease from the
amount of the budget request for Defense Environmental Cleanup
for fiscal year 2010 equivalent to two percent of the funding
provided in Public Law 111-5, or $102.5 million. The committee
recommends that the Secretary of Energy derive the decrease
from among sites that are at greatest risk of being unable to
execute Public Law 111-5 and fiscal year 2010 funding as
planned in fiscal year 2010, or that are projected to meet
regulatory milestones ahead of schedule in fiscal year 2010.
However, the committee urges the Secretary to ensure that the
distribution does not put any regulatory milestones at risk.
The committee recommends the Secretary re-allocate these funds
to the National Nuclear Security Administration to address
Stockpile Stewardship Program funding shortfalls identified
elsewhere in this title.
In addition, the committee believes that the need to
sustain the F-22 production line warrants an additional
transfer from Defense Environmental Cleanup of $368.8 million.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of Energy also
derive this decrease from among sites that are projected to
meet regulatory milestones ahead of schedule in fiscal year
2010, or that are at greatest risk of being unable to execute
Public Law 111-5 and fiscal year 2010 funding as planned in
fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommends $5.0 billion for Defense
Environmental Cleanup, a decrease of $471.3 million from the
amount of the budget request.
Consideration of lifecycle cleanup costs during definition phase of new
nuclear facilities
The committee is aware that Department of Energy (DOE)
order 413.3A, approved July 28, 2006, requires DOE elements,
including the National Nuclear Security Administration, to
consider lifecycle costs during the definition phase of the
process for acquisition of capital assets. As defined in the
order, lifecycle costs include ``direct, indirect, recurring,
nonrecurring, and other related costs incurred or estimated to
be incurred in the design, development, production, operation,
maintenance, support, long-term stewardship (if applicable),
and final disposition of a project/system over its anticipated
useful life span.'' The committee is supportive of the
requirement to consider lifecycle costs during the definition
phase for new capital assets, and wants to ensure that costs
associated with safely addressing decontamination,
decommissioning, and potential future environmental liabilities
are considered as a part of the critical decision process for
nuclear facilities.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to: (1) conduct a review of policies and guidance for
consideration of final disposition costs and requirements,
including for decontamination, decommissioning, and
environmental cleanup, during the definition phase or
subsequent phases of the acquisition process for new nuclear
facility construction projects; and (2) assess the degree to
which, pursuant to DOE order 413.3A or other relevant policies,
potential environmental liabilities and cleanup costs are
currently being considered during each of the acquisition
project phases for new nuclear facilities under the purview of
any DOE element. The committee directs the Comptroller General
to submit a report on the results of the assessment, including
any recommendations deemed necessary, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
April 1, 2010.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
The budget request contained $98.4 million for defense
nuclear waste disposal.
The committee is aware that the President has indicated
that he does not believe Yucca Mountain is a ``suitable'' site
for a permanent high-level waste repository. The committee
notes that approximately $7.7 billion has been invested into
the Yucca Mountain site since Congress designated Yucca
Mountain as the sole repository site in 1987. The committee
also notes that Yucca Mountain remains designated as the sole
repository site by law as set forth in section 10134 of title
42, United States Code.
Although the Department of Energy assesses that a ``delayed
repository opening has no significant near-term impacts'' on
the Environmental Management program, the committee is
nonetheless concerned about the impact on Defense Environmental
Cleanup activities. The committee is also concerned about the
Department's ability to comply with existing laws and
regulatory agreements in the mid-term and long-term. The
committee is aware that the Secretary of Energy intends to
designate a blue-ribbon panel of experts to provide an
assessment of potential alternative disposition options. The
committee is concerned that defense waste, which accounts for
approximately 10 percent of the total material planned for
disposition at the Yucca Mountain site, might be overlooked.
The committee expects that the Secretary's panel will dedicate
time and thought to challenges and solutions that may be unique
to defense waste.
The committee recommends $98.4 million for defense nuclear
waste disposal, the amount of the budget request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear
Security Administration for fiscal year 2010, including funds
for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation
programs, naval reactor programs, and the Office of the
Administrator.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup
This section would authorize funds for defense
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2010.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for other defense
activities for fiscal year 2010, including funds for Health,
Safety, and Security, the Office of Legacy Management, and
Nuclear Energy.
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal for fiscal year 2010.
Section 3105--Energy Security and Assurance
This section would authorize funds for energy security and
assurance programs for fiscal year 2010.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3111--Stockpile Stewardship Program
This section would make four changes to section 4201 of the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521), which codifies the
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
First, this section would clarify that the Stockpile
Stewardship Program has two broad objectives. The first
objective, as previously codified, would be to ensure the
preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons, including
weapons design, system integration, manufacturing, security,
use control, reliability assessment, and certification. This
section would also codify a second broad objective to assure
that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and
reliable without underground testing.
Second, this section would clarify that advanced simulation
and computing capabilities are needed, not only for simulating
the detonation of nuclear weapons, but also for understanding
the performance over time of those weapons.
Third, this section would add a new provision to section
4201, clarifying that execution of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program requires material support for the full use of the
advanced experimental capabilities and facilities in the
nuclear security complex, including the National Ignition
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Dual
Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic-Test facility at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the Z Machine at Sandia National
Laboratory.
Fourth, this section would also add a new provision that
requires material support for the sustainment and modernization
of facilities with production and manufacturing capabilities
that are necessary for the safety, security, and reliability of
the nuclear weapons stockpile, including: the Pantex Plant; the
Y-12 National Security Complex; the Kansas City Plant; and the
Savannah River Site.
Section 3112--Stockpile Management Program
This section would strike section 4204a of the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2524), which codifies the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program. This section would also
amend section 4204, which establishes the Stockpile Life
Extension Program, with a new provision establishing a
Stockpile Management Program.
This section would establish that the objectives of the
Stockpile Management Program are to: increase the reliability,
safety, and security of the United States' nuclear weapons
stockpile; further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of
underground nuclear weapons testing; achieve reductions in the
future size of the nuclear weapons stockpile; reduce the risk
of accidental detonation; and reduce the risk that an element
of the stockpile could ever be used by a person or entity
hostile to the United States, its vital interests, or allies.
This section would also provide guidelines for stockpile
management, requiring that changes may only be made to the
stockpile in pursuit of these identified objectives. This
section would further require that any changes must be
consistent with basic design parameters, and must use
components that are well understood or are certifiable without
the need to resume underground nuclear weapons testing.
Additionally, this section would provide that any such changes
shall adhere to the design, certification, and production
expertise resident in the nuclear security complex to fulfill
current mission requirements of the existing stockpile.
The Stockpile Management Program would support and
complement the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program,
which focuses on sustaining the scientific and technical
expertise and the experimental tools and capabilities needed to
ensure that the nuclear stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable
without nuclear testing. The Stockpile Management Program, in
turn, would provide a framework for the activities associated
with actual work on the weapons that comprise the stockpile,
including limitations on any changes to the stockpile.
Section 3113--Plan for Execution of Stockpile Stewardship and Stockpile
Management Programs
This section would amend section 4203 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2523) to modify existing requirements
for annual plans to support execution of the Stockpile
Stewardship and Stockpile Management Programs.
Specifically, this section would require the Secretary of
Energy, working through the Administrator for Nuclear Security,
to prepare and annually update a plan for achieving the
objectives of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, including the
Stockpile Management Program.
With respect to the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the plan
would include: (1) a description of the key technical
challenges to the program, and strategies for addressing these
challenges without resorting to nuclear tests; (2) a plan for
using the laboratories' experimental tools, including advanced
simulation and computing capabilities, to ensure the nuclear
weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear
testing; (3) development of clear and specific criteria for
judging whether the science-based tools being used to determine
the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile are
adequate to certify that the stockpile is safe and reliable;
and (4) an assessment of the core scientific and technical
competencies required to achieve the objectives of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and to execute other weapons and
weapons-related activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration and the Department of Energy.
This section would amend existing requirements for
submission of an annual plan for stockpile management, to
clarify that the plan should describe the process used to
recertify the safety, security, and reliability of each warhead
type in the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing.
This section would also require the Secretary of Energy to
submit a report describing these plans to the congressional
defense committees by February 1, 2010, and updated reports
each year thereafter.
Finally, this section would repeal section 2522 of title
50, United States Code, which requires that the Secretary of
Energy develop ``clear and specific criteria for judging
whether the science-based tools being used by the Department of
Energy for determining the safety and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile are performing in a manner that will
provide an adequate degree of certainty that the stockpile is
safe and reliable.'' This requirement would be made part of the
plan and report required by the amended section 2523 of the
Atomic Energy Defense Act.
Section 3114--Dual Validation of Annual Weapons Assessment and
Certification
This section would amend section 4205 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2525) to modify existing requirements
for annual assessments and reports to the President and
Congress regarding the condition of the United States' nuclear
weapons stockpile.
The committee notes that while the science-based Stockpile
Stewardship Program has been successful, continued success
depends on a thorough and rigorous scientific review process.
Experts, including the JASON scientific advisory panel, have
urged enhanced peer review within the stewardship program.
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to establish a dual validation component of the annual
assessment and certification process. Dual validation would
provide each of the two primary nuclear weapons design
laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los
Alamos National Laboratory, with an independent evaluation of
the condition of each warhead for which it has lead
responsibility.
This section would also require the Administrator to ensure
that all surveillance and underground test data for all
stockpile systems be accessible to both laboratories for use in
the independent evaluations. This section would further require
that each laboratory dual validation team utilize all available
data to conduct its independent calculations, and be able to
pursue independent experiments to support its evaluation.
This section would require the Administrator to submit to
the congressional defense committees a plan for implementing
dual validation, including a schedule for such implementation,
by March 1, 2010.
Section 3115--Annual Long-Term Plan for the Modernization and
Refurbishment of the Nuclear Security Complex
This section would establish as United States policy that
sustainment, modernization, and refurbishment of the nuclear
security complex is mandatory for maintaining the future
viability of the United States nuclear deterrent and a
prerequisite for any reductions to the nuclear weapons
stockpile of the United States.
This section would also require the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to submit an annual plan for the modernization
and refurbishment of the nuclear security complex, and a
certification that the budget for that fiscal year and the
future years' nuclear security program provide funding for
modernization and refurbishment sufficient to support the
National Security Strategy of the United States and the nuclear
posture of the United States as set forth in the most recent
Nuclear Posture Review. The annual plans would include a
program and schedule for funding the modernization and
refurbishment of the nuclear security complex over the next 30
years, and a description of the necessary modernization and
refurbishment measures to meet the requirements of the National
Security Strategy.
This section would further require that if the budget for a
fiscal year is insufficient to sustain the requirements of the
annual nuclear security complex modernization plan, the
Administrator for Nuclear Security must include in that year's
plan a description of the risks to the ability of the nuclear
security complex to support the annual certification process
and to maintain the long-term viability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
Subtitle C--Reports
Section 3121--Comptroller General Review of Management and Operations
Contract Costs for National Security Laboratories
This section would require the Comptroller General to
assess the costs associated with the transition to new
management and operations (M&O) contracts which took place at
Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2006 and at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in 2007.
Specifically, this section would require the analysis to
include: (1) a description of the costs associated with
replacing the management of each lab from the University of
California to Los Alamos National Security, LLC and Lawrence
Livermore National Security, LLC, respectively; (2) a
description of any continuing differences in the cost structure
of the M&O contract under the University of California and the
cost structure of the M&O contracts under Los Alamos National
Security, LLC and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC,
respectively; (3) an assessment of the impact of such cost
differences on the resources available to support scientific
and technical programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and (4) an assessment
of the effects of the transition on the laboratories'
management of other important laboratory functions, including
safety, security, and environmental management.
This section would further require the Comptroller General
to submit a report on the results of the assessment to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2010.
Section 3122--Plan to Ensure Capability to Monitor, Analyze, and
Evaluate Foreign Nuclear Weapons Activities
This section would require the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the
Secretary of Defense, to prepare a plan to ensure that the
national laboratories overseen by the Department of Energy
maintain a robust technical capability to monitor, analyze, and
evaluate foreign nuclear weapons activities.
On May 6, 2009, the final report of the Congressional
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States
recommended that, ``The United States . . . reverse the decline
of focus and resources of the Intelligence Community devoted to
foreign nuclear weapons capabilities, programs, and intentions.
With some important exceptions, this subject has not attracted
high-level attention since the end of the Cold War.'' The
report went on to state that ``the weapons laboratories have an
important role to play here.'' The commission's report is only
the most recent indicator that analysis of foreign nuclear
weapons activities has atrophied over the past decade.
This section would also require a report by February 28,
2010, describing the plan for maintaining a robust nuclear
weapons intelligence capability within the national
laboratories and the resources necessary to implement it.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $26.1 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2010. The
committee recommends $26.1 million, the amount of the request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2010.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $23.7 million for fiscal year
2010 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2010
This section would authorize a total of $401.9 million for
the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation
for fiscal year 2010. Of the funds authorized, $152.9 million
would be available for operations and training activities,
$174.0 million would be available for the Maritime Security
Program, $15.0 million for the program to dispose of obsolete
vessels, and $60.0 million for the loan guarantee program
authorized by chapter 537 of title 46, United States Code,
commonly referred to as the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program.
Section 3502--Liquidation of Unused Leave Balance at the United States
Merchant Marine Academy
This section would authorize the Administrator of the
Maritime Administration to make lump-sum payments to personnel
previously employed by non-appropriated fund instrumentalities
at the United States Merchant Marine Academy for unused leave
balances when the personnel were either terminated or
transferred to the general schedule of the United States Civil
Service in accordance with section 3506 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417).
Section 3503--Adjunct Professors
This section would amend section 3506 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to make permanent the authority granted the
Administrator of the Maritime Administration to hire adjunct
professors at the United States Merchant Marine Academy for a
period of not longer than one year. Additionally, this section
would require that any use of the authority to hire adjunct
professors would require notification to the House Committee on
Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Section 3504--Maritime Loan Guarantee Program
This section would express the findings of Congress that it
is in the national security interest of the United States to
foster commercial shipbuilding, that the maritime guarantee
loan program has a long history of facilitating successful
construction projects, that strengthening the industrial base
enhances sealift capabilities for the Department of Defense,
and that revitalizing the maritime loan guarantee program would
increase construction rates of commercial vessels in domestic
shipyards.
Section 3505--Defense Measures Against Unauthorized Seizures of
Maritime Security Fleet Vessels
This section would amend section 53107(b) of title 46,
United States Code to require that vessels operating under
agreements with the United States under that section and
operating in areas designated by the Coast Guard or
International Maritime Bureau of the International Chamber of
Commerce as areas of high risk of piracy, are equipped with
appropriate non-lethal defense measures to protect the vessel
from acts of piracy.
Section 3506--Technical Corrections to State Maritime Academies Student
Incentive Program
This section would amend section 53107(b) of title 46,
United States Code, and allow the Secretary of Transportation
to disburse Student Incentive Payments for midshipmen and
cadets with agreements pursuant to the section, in installments
over the course of the academic year, vice a lump sum payment
at the beginning of the academic year.
Section 3507--Limitation on Disposal of Interest in Certain Vessels
This section would require that Maritime Administrator to
notify the Secretary of the Navy if, as a result of default on
a loan guaranteed under chapter 537 of title 46, United States
Code, the United States gains financial interest in the motor
vessels Huakai and Alakai, currently owned by the Hawaiian
Superferry company. The section would require the Maritime
Administrator to wait 180 days after such notification prior to
disposing of the financial interest of the United States in the
vessels.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization
Bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
In the coming weeks, the Department will propose a few
additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same
bill.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposal as part of
the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
The purpose of the proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of this legislative proposal for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposal as part of
the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
The purpose of the proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of this legislative proposal for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, May 29, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposal as part of
the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
The purpose of this proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of this legislative proposal for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, May 29, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposal as part of
the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
The purpose of this proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of this legislative proposal for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposals as part
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2010.
The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposals as part
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2010.
The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposals as part
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2010.
The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying
section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
Enclosure: As stated.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On June 16, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 2647, as amended, by a vote of 61-
0.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review
the text of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010, for provisions which are within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources. Among these
provisions are those dealing with compensation and benefits for
the NOAA Corps, transfer of administrative jurisdiction over
the Port Chicago Naval Magazine, Guam realignment issues, and
reauthorization of Title I of the Sikes Act, among others.
Because of the continued cooperation and consideration that
you have afforded me and my staff in developing these
provisions, I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 2647
based on their inclusion in the bill. Of course, this waiver is
not intended to prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over
these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right
to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Natural
Resources on these provisions, and request your support if such
a request is made.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
2647 and the Congressional Record during consideration of the
measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and
others between our respective committees.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely,
Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting
consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Natural
Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning the jurisdictional
interest of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in
matters being considered in H.R. 2647, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2647 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has valid
claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request
a sequential referral. My decision to waive further
consideration of H.R. 2647 is conditional on our mutual
understanding that no part of this legislation waives, reduces
or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
I respectfully request that a copy of this letter and your
response acknowledging this Committee's jurisdictional interest
will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the
House.
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also asks
that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions
over which we have jurisdiction during any conference between
the House and the Senate.
I thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Silvestre Reyes,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up of this
bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that
by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the
bill, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not
waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and
Technology in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2647 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intent to request a sequential referral. This, of course,
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science and Technology, and that a copy of this
letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional
interest will be included in the Committee Report and as a part
of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill
by the House.
The Committee on Science and Technology also asks that you
support our request to be conferees on the provisions over
which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bart Gordon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Bart Gordon,
Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Science and Technology has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest
of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee
on Science and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction over
these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing about H.R. 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which
the Committee on Armed Services ordered reported on June 17,
2009.
I appreciate your effort to consult with the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of
H.R. 2647 that fall within the Oversight Committee's
jurisdiction. These provisions involve the federal civil
service and federal acquisition policies.
In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 2647,
the Oversight Committee will not request a sequential referral
of this bill. I would, however, request your support for the
appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee should
H.R. 2647 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference
with the Senate. Moreover, this letter should not be construed
as a waiver of the Oversight Committee's legislative
jurisdiction over subjects addressed in H.R. 2647 that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee.
Finally, I request that you include our exchange of letters
on this matter in the Committee Report on the bill and in the
Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation
on the House floor.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to consult the
Committee on these matters.
Sincerely,
Edolphus Towns,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Edolphus Towns,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest
of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform is not waiving its
jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. There are certain provisions in the legislation which
fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs agrees not to request a
sequential referral. By waiving consideration of H.R. 2647, the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim over any subject matter contained in the
bill which falls within its jurisdiction. The Committee on
Veterans' Affairs reserves its right to seek conferees on any
provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in a
House-Senate conference, and requests your support if such a
request is made.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
2647 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked with the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs regarding this matter and others between our respective
committees.
Sincerely,
Bob Filner,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting
consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which
was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. As you know,
this legislation contains subject matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.
Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly,
I do not intend to request the sequential referral of H.R. 2647
to the Committee on Education and Labor. I do so, however, only
with the understanding that this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional
interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar
legislation. In addition, should this bill or similar
legislation be considered in a conference with the Senate, I
request your support for members of the Committee on Education
and Labor to be appointed to the conference committee.
Finally, I ask that you include a copy of our exchange of
letters in your committee's report on H.R. 2647 and in the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the
House Floor. If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Education and Labor has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest
of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee
on Education and Labor is not waiving its jurisdiction over
these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the
subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the
appointment of conferees from the Committee on Education and
Labor.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you regarding H.R. 2647, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010''.
H.R. 2647 contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring
this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,
accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill.
However, I agree to waive consideration of this bill with the
mutual understanding that my decision to forgo a sequential
referral of the bill does not waive, reduce, or otherwise
affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure over H.R. 2647.
Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees during
any House-Senate conference convened on this legislation on
provisions of the bill that are within the Committee's
jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to support any request
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the
appointment of conferees on H.R. 2647 or similar legislation.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Committee
Report on H.R. 2647 and in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the measure in the House.
I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
James L. Oberstar,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up of this
bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that
by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the
bill, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not
waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you regarding H.R. 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
introduced on June 2, 2009.
H.R. 2647 contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize
and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the
House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not
seek a sequential referral of the bill. However, agreeing to
waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as the
Committee on Homeland Security waiving, altering, or otherwise
affecting its jurisdiction over subject matters contained in
the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction.
Further, I request your support for an appropriate number
of members of the Committee on Homeland Security be appointed
conferees on any House-Senate conference convened on this or
similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and
your response be included in the legislative report on H.R.
2647 and in the Congressional Record during floor consideration
of this bill.
I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Homeland Security has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting
consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Homeland
Security is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you concerning the bill,
H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010.
This bill contains provisions within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In the
interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously
to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to
waive this Committee's right to mark up this bill. I do so with
the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill,
the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the
bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction.
Further, I request your support for the appointment of
Foreign Affairs Committee conferees during and House-Senate
conference convened on this legislation. I would ask that you
place this into the Committee Report on H.R. 2647.
I look forward to working with you as we move this
important measure through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Howard Berman,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Howard Berman,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting
consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Foreign
Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. As you
know, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdictional
interest in several provisions of this bill.
In light of the interest in moving this bill forward
promptly, I do not intend to exercise the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce by seeking sequential referral
of H.R. 2647. I do this, however, only with the understanding
that forgoing consideration of H.R. 2647 at this time will not
be construed as prejudicing this Committee's jurisdictional
interests and prerogatives on the subject matter contained in
this or similar legislation. In addition, we reserve the right
to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to
any House-Senate conference named to consider such provisions.
I would appreciate your including this letter in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the
House floor. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest
of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee
on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction over
these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 2647, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of Committee on
Financial Services, specifically regarding actions under the
Defense Production Act. However, in order to expedite floor
consideration of this important legislation, the committee
waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Financial Services takes this action only
with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional
interests over this and similar legislation are in no way
diminished or altered.
The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the committee report
or in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R.
2647 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these
matters.
Sincerely,
Barney Frank,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest
of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee
on Financial Services is not waiving its jurisdiction over
these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to advise you that, as a result
of your having consulted with us on provisions in 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, that
fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Judiciary, we are able to agree to waive seeking a formal
referral of the bill, in order that it may proceed without
delay to the House floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the
understanding that by forgoing further consideration of H.R.
2647 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over
subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. We
reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number
of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this
important legislation, and request your support if such a
request is made.
I would appreciate your including this letter in your
committee report, or in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the bill on the House floor. Thank you for
your attention to our requests, and for the cooperative
relationship between our two committees.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting
consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on the
Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2010
and each of the following five fiscal years. The results of
such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate,
which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by
the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as
follows:
Congressional Budget Office Preliminary Cost Estimate
June 18, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending effects
of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed
Services on June 16, 2009. CBO's complete cost estimate for
H.R. 2647, including discretionary costs, will be provided
shortly.
Based on legislative language for H.R. 2647 that was
provided to CBO on June 15 and June 16, CBO estimates that only
one provision would significantly affect direct spending.
Section 422 would repeal section 1002 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), which shifted 1 percent of military retirement
payments scheduled to occur in September of 2013 to October of
2013. CBO estimates that repeal of section 1002 would shift $43
million in outlays from fiscal year 2014 back to fiscal year
2013. That change would have no net effect on budget authority
or outlays over the 2010-2014 period, or the 2010-2019 period.
Enactment of the bill would not affect revenues.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Schmit, who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
Enclosure.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the preliminary estimate as contained in the report of the
Congressional Budget Office.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of
Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, which
are in the bill or the report. The following table provides the
list of such provisions which are included in the bill and the
report:
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are
reflected in the body of this report.
With respect to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation would address
several general and outcome-related performance goals and
objectives. The general goal and objective of this legislation
is to provide the necessary resources and authorities to
restore military readiness, take care of service members and
their families, focus on our strategy in Afghanistan and
Pakistan and on redeployment from Iraq, eliminate waste and
recover savings through acquisition reform, and maintain robust
oversight of the Department of Defense, all of which further
the national security interests of the United States.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of restoring
military readiness and reducing strategic risk, the objective
of this legislation is to:
(1) Address manpower needs with an increase of 15,000
personnel in the Army, 8,000 in the Marine Corps,
14,650 in the Air Force, and 2,477 in the Navy in 2010.
This would bring end strength levels to 547,400 for the
Army, 202,000 for the Marine Corps, 331,700 for the Air
Force, and 328,800 for the Navy;
(2) Authorize $11 billion for the Army and $2 billion
for the Marine Corps to fully fund equipment reset
requirements; and
(3) Authorize $6.9 billion to address equipment
shortfalls in the National Guard and Reserves; and
(4) Provide $762 million to fully fund Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization accounts to keep defense
facilities in good working order and to address urgent
issues such as dilapidated military barracks.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of taking care of
service members and their families, the objective of this
legislation is to:
(1) Provide a 3.4 percent across the board pay raise
for our men and women in uniform. The raise would
reduce the pay gap between the military and private
sector pay to 2.4 percent;
(2) Expand TRICARE health coverage to reserve
component members and their families for 180 days prior
to mobilization;
(3) Improve benefits available to wounded warriors by
providing travel and transportation for three
designated persons to visit hospitalized service
members and enabling seriously injured service members
to use a non-medical attendant for help with daily
living or during travel for medical treatment; and
(4) Meet the needs of today's service members and
their families by providing $2.1 billion for family
support programs, providing $1.95 billion for family
housing programs, providing $50 million for Impact Aid
for local education agencies and an additional $15
million for schools heavily impacted by force structure
changes and BRAC, and establishing an internship pilot
program for military spouses.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing
focus on our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and on
redeployment from Iraq, the objective of this legislation is
to:
(1) Ensure our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan
is effective and achieves the intended goals by
requiring the President to assess U.S. efforts and
report on progress;
(2) Build partnership capacity by providing funds to
train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces
(ANSF) and authorizing the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund to improve the counterinsurgency capabilities of
Pakistan's security forces;
(3) Improve accountability and oversight of U.S.
assistance by requiring the President to establish a
system to register and track all U.S. defense articles
provided to the governments of Afghanistan and
Pakistan;
(4) Ensure our plans to redeploy forces from Iraq and
build up forces in Afghanistan are sound by requiring
the Department of Defense to report on its efforts to
prioritize resources and capabilities between Iraq and
Afghanistan; and
(5) Help Congress monitor the redeployment of U.S.
forces from Iraq by requiring the Department of Defense
to develop a detailed plan for the disposition of U.S.
military equipment in Iraq.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of eliminating
waste and recovering savings through acquisition reform, the
objective of this legislation is to:
(1) Support the Secretary of Defense's plan to
increase the size of the civilian acquisition workforce
and to reduce the Department of Defense's reliance on
contractors for critical acquisition functions; and
(2) Improve the Department of Defense's process for
acquiring new information technology systems.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of maintaining
robust oversight of the Department of Defense, the objective of
this legislation is to:
(1) Encourage the Department of Defense to follow the
requirements written in law as it prepares the report
of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which was
established to help Congress develop our national
security priorities;
(2) Direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
to assess the degree to which the Department of Defense
has complied with the requirements written in the law
creating the QDR and to require the Secretary of
Defense to report on any shortcomings;
(3) Create a Congressionally-appointed National
Defense Panel to conduct an independent review of the
QDR's effectiveness and issue recommendations on how to
improve the decision making process for determining
national security objectives; and
(4) Require the Department of Defense to report to
Congress on the force structure requirements used to
guide the QDR process so that Congress may better
understand the foundation of the QDR's analysis.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
RECORD VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 2647. The
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
The committee ordered H.R. 2647 to be reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 61-0, a quorum
being present.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The committee has taken steps to make available the
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as
soon as possible.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
We support H.R. 2647, but write to express our concern
about the reduction of $368.8 million from Department of Energy
Defense Environmental Cleanup accounts approved during full
committee consideration of the draft bill.
This reduction resulted from an amendment offered by Mr.
Bishop that used Environmental Management (EM) program funding
to offset another activity. An assertion was made during the
debate on the amendment that the Department of Energy will be
unable to execute American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or
``stimulus'') funding. The argument was based on information
indicating that $2.8 billion of EM's stimulus funds remained
unobligated as of May 2009. We disagree with the premise of
that argument.
In fact, the ability of the EM program to obligate over
half of its stimulus funding in only three months is strong
evidence that the balance of the stimulus funds will be
obligated within the next few months.
The Department of Energy should be applauded for acting so
quickly to obligate and execute their stimulus funding to meet
validated cleanup requirements. By so doing, the EM program is
accomplishing what the stimulus bill enabled it to accomplish.
We would also like to rebut an additional assertion made
during the course of the debate on the amendment: that the $369
million cut taken by the amendment is no different than an
adjustment made by the Strategic Forces subcommittee mark. The
subcommittee mark, which included a modest reduction to Defense
Environmental Cleanup, was based on a thorough review of the
budget request for fiscal year 2010 and stimulus funds. We
found that there is very limited overlap between activities
funded by the stimulus and those to be funded by the fiscal
year 2010 request. The mark had only a modest reduction to
Defense Environmental Cleanup, because deeper cuts, such as
those made by the Bishop amendment, will jeopardize the high
priority cleanup activities funded by the FY10 request.
We believe that it is our legal and moral obligation to
clean up the legacy of environmental contamination left behind
from the Cold War, and we are optimistic about the progress
that may result from a robustly funded cleanup program in the
future.
Rick Larsen.
James R. Langevin.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Brad Ellsworth.
Larry Kissell.
Chellie Pingree.
Joe Sestak.
Hank Johnson.
Loretta Sanchez.
Martin Heinrich.
Niki Tsongas.
Susan A. Davis.
Jim Cooper.
John Spratt.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Adam Smith.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Robert Andrews.
Gene Taylor.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
We support H.R. 2647 and feel that it reflects our
committee's strong and continued support for the brave men and
women of the United States armed forces. In many ways, this
bill is a good bill. It authorizes the President's request for
$550.5 billion for the Fiscal Year 2010 base budget of the
Department of Defense and national security programs of the
Department of Energy. Additionally, it includes $130 billion to
fund Fiscal Year 2010 war costs.
As proud as we are of this legislation, we also recognize
that this bill is not a perfect bill.
Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan
In regards to Afghanistan, it acknowledges that the United
States has a vital national security interest in ensuring that
Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven to
terrorists, supports a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy
that is adequately resourced and funded by Congress, and calls
on the President to provide our U.S. military commanders with
the military forces they request to succeed. With regard to
Pakistan, the bill provides for necessary and prudent oversight
of the transfer of funds from the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund of the Department of State to the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund of the Department of Defense to ensure
the Commander, U.S. Central Command has the tools and
flexibility needed to assist Pakistan's security forces in
building their counterinsurgency capabilities and to respond to
emerging requirements in a timely manner. In Iraq, the
committee ensures that the Congress will support a responsible
redeployment of combat forces while providing our Commanders on
the ground the flexibility to hold hard fought security gains
and ensure the safety of our forces.
Top line defense spending
We are concerned that the President's Budget did not
adequately increase defense spending. After taking into account
the migration into the base budget of items previously funded
in the supplemental the net effect is less than 2% real growth.
As a result, the committee had limited headroom in which to
address many of the programmatic cuts that accompanied
Secretary Gates' so-called ``reform budget.'' While the
committee included a number of measures in the mark that
redress some of the shortcomings found in the Administration's
request, including adopting an amendment which authorized much
of the Army and Marine Corps Unfunded Requirements, we question
some of the spending priorities of the committee. Most notably,
this committee provides for an additional $402.6 million above
the President's Budget request for the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA's) defense nuclear
nonproliferation program which was already increased from the
previous year's request. We are concerned that this funding was
provided without a formal request by the Secretary of Energy or
the Administrator of NNSA and without an integrated,
interagency plan for securing nuclear materials. We will
carefully monitor NNSA's execution of these funds in the coming
year.
Missile defense
We believe that such additional funding could have been
used to address other priorities such as missile defense.
Congress, and particularly the Armed Services Committees in
both chambers, has the unmistakable obligation to ensure that
the Department of Defense develops and deploys defensive
capabilities that protect the American people, our forward-
deployed forces, and our allies. This includes promising
programs in the area of missile defense.
On the same day in which President Obama acknowledged that
a nuclear-armed North Korea posed a ``grave threat'' to the
world, the committee chose to sustain the Administration's $1.2
billion cut to missile defense. In a year where Iran and North
Korea have demonstrated the capability and intent to pursue
long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapon programs, and
a track record for widespread proliferation--elements of a
genuine national security threat--the committee endorsed
reductions to capabilities that would provide a comprehensive
missile defense system to protect the U.S. homeland, our
forward-deployed troops, and allies.
The committee sustained the Administration's 35% reduction
to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program. This national
missile defense system, located in Alaska and California, is
designed to protect the U.S. homeland from long-range ballistic
missiles fired either in anger or by accident. We are deeply
disappointed that the committee rejected an amendment to
restore funding to the program. The amendment provided a modest
increase of funds to complete a partially constructed missile
interceptor field in Alaska where all the equipment had already
been purchased. It sought to pay for this program with funds
set aside to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. After
witnessing Kim Jong Il walk away from the Six-Party talks, kick
out U.S. and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and
vow to be recognized as a nuclear weapons state, it is
unrealistic to expect that there will be any dismantlement of
North Korea's nuclear program within the fiscal year. We
believe that those resources could have been better spent on
real, near-term capabilities to protect the United States.
Should progress be made in negotiations with North Korea such
that dismantling their nuclear complex becomes possible, funds
could be reprogrammed at that time.
It is equally troubling that the committee did not enact
amendments to reverse the Administration's decision to reduce
and terminate pioneering missile defense programs like the
Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, Multiple Kill
Vehicle, and Space Tracking and Surveillance System, or restore
their funding. The Department of Defense has yet to deliver to
the committee any analysis or new requirements to justify these
sweeping decisions. Furthermore, we cannot reconcile the simple
fact that as the missile threat is increasing--substantiated by
our own intelligence agencies--funding for our missile defense
capabilities is decreasing.
The committee supported increased funding for theater
missile defenses, which are important capabilities in
protecting our forward-deployed troops and allies from shorter-
range missiles. However, with a net $1.2 billion cut, we have
been forced to trade national missile defense for more theater
missile defense. Setting up such a false choice between the
defense of our homeland and defense of our forward-deployed
troops and allies is neither smart nor sound policy. Both are
necessary and both could have been adequately funded without
such deep cuts.
Allies and partners: building collective security
We commend the inclusion of provisions taken from the
bipartisan NATO FIRST bill that was introduced earlier in the
year by Representatives Turner and Marshall. A strong
commitment to transatlantic security is necessary as the
Administration engages in a reset policy with Russia. We regret
that the committee did not adopt the Administration's proposals
relating to building the capacity of partners in order to
increase coalition partner nation participation in Afghanistan.
These proposals are necessary to be able to quickly implement
the new Afghanistan policy. Without these authorities we miss
an opportunity to reduce the burden on our deployed forces in
Afghanistan.
We are pleased the committee endorsed an amendment that
sought to increase support for a European missile defense
system proposed to be located in the Czech Republic and Poland.
As the amendment noted, ``Missile defense promotes the
collective security of the United States and NATO and improves
linkages among member nations of NATO by defending all members
of NATO against the full range of missile threats.'' Though the
committee rejected authorizing additional resources, it did
support the creation of a framework to evaluate alternatives,
should they be pursued by the Administration. However, we would
note that based on independent analysis requested by the
committee, we have seen no alternative that provides a more
cost-effective and operationally available solution to protect
the U.S. and Europe than the current proposal.
We appreciate the Chairman's commitment to work with us to
address an amendment that would establish binding legislation
to ensure that any treaty or agreement with Russia that seeks
bilateral reductions in our strategic nuclear forces does not
include limitations on U.S. missile defenses, space, or
advanced conventional weapons capabilities. These important
conventional capabilities continue to remain vital to our
military forces and the defense of the American people and our
allies, and are not collateral for U.S. negotiators to trade
away to persuade Russia to reduce its nuclear forces.
Major weapons programs
H.R. 2647 makes a number of policy and funding decisions
with respect to major weapons programs. We had concerns about
the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the relief that was
being provided to the cost cap in the subcommittee mark.
Current law caps LCS end costs at $460 million per vessel,
beginning in fiscal year 2010, with the fifth and follow-on
ships. The committee has now raised the cap or delayed
implementation of the cap for three years in a row. This
program was proposed to Congress on the basis of affordability,
but the price tag of the latest ships is approximately 250%
greater than the original price estimate. We have increased
congressional oversight of this program; but, particularly in
light of the passage of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 in May, the first legislative act of this committee
should not be approving a unilateral increase to the end cost
of this program. This is especially true since the Navy has not
officially requested a change to the current legislation.
Therefore, we were pleased that the committee agreed to support
an amendment to strengthen section 121, regarding the LCS cost
cap. The bipartisan amendment imposes additional requirements
before any changes to the cost cap may go into effect. This
amendment is intended to send the signal that this committee is
serious about controlling costs, does not adjust cost caps
lightly, and is determined that the Navy make a knowledge-based
decision prior to procuring additional Flight 0 LCS vessels.
Additionally, we were concerned that the Administration
seeks to terminate F-22 fighter aircraft production at 187
despite General Norton Schwartz's (Chief of Staff of the Air
Force) public statement that 243 F-22 aircraft are necessary to
support the National Military Strategy with moderate risk. We
are pleased that the committee adopted an amendment to provide
$368.8 million advance procurement funding for twelve
additional F-22s. We believe that continuing F-22 production is
not only necessary to meet military requirements, but also
sustains a critical sector of the defense industrial base and
provides over 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at a time when
our economy is struggling through recession.
We are disappointed that the committee carried a $327
million reduction to the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS)
program. This represents the fifth consecutive funding cut to
the FCS program totaling over $1 billion. While the committee
has scrutinized the FCS program in a bipartisan manner since
2004, including looking at the survivability of the Manned
Ground Vehicles, we have never questioned the validity of the
need for the Army to modernize and replace a combat vehicle
fleet that is in excess of 30 years old. Our concern is that
there is still much information that the committee needs from
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) so that we can
make informed decisions. We believe that OSD has not provided
the appropriate level of information to justify another funding
reduction to the program. We believe that if the committee's
assumptions about unobligated balances are incorrect, or if OSD
has already targeted those funds for higher priorities, then
the Army will be forced to cover termination liability out of
the core FCS program. This would further delay future
capabilities that our war-fighters need. Now that OSD has
decided to provide proper oversight of the program, we expect
to receive all the required information and analysis so that we
can support and fully fund the program in the future.
Military personnel
As a nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave
men and women in uniform and their families, past and present,
for the sacrifices they make to protect our freedom.
Republicans tried to honor that commitment during consideration
of H.R. 2647.
However, for the second year in a row the Democrats failed
to enact a Republican amendment to increase payments to
military surviving spouses and children, which would have
repealed the Survivor Benefit Plan-Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (SBP-DIC), or ``widow's tax,'' and would have
provided for concurrent receipt of retirement pay and Veterans
Affairs disability benefits for all military retirees. The
amendment would also have extended TRICARE to Guard and Reserve
members who are already receiving early retirement.
Our disappointment extends further to when the Chairman
immediately ruled the amendment out of order, and the majority
quickly moved to table a challenge of the ruling of the Chair.
We do, however, appreciate that the chairman subsequently
allowed a meaningful discussion on this important issue.
We are outraged that in the ``Year of the Military
Family,'' where the House leadership has spent over $1 trillion
on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wasteful spending in the
Stimulus Package, and bailouts of failed corporations such as
GM and AIG, this same House leadership working through the
Budget Committee did not see funding $36 billion on concurrent
receipt and the repeal of SBP-DIC as a priority. As a result,
the use of the reserve fund established in the concurrent
budget resolution to provide for concurrent receipt and the
SBP-DIC repeal was an empty promise to our veterans and their
families.
Detainees and the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
The committee has no greater responsibility than providing
for the safety of our forces and the protection of the
homeland. With respect to detainee affairs, the committee could
have done more to meet these responsibilities. We appreciate
the Chairman's commitment to work with us to include an
amendment that prohibits the release of detainee photos subject
to the Freedom of Information Act, which the President
determined--if released--would risk the safety of U.S. forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the committee should do
everything possible to see that these pictures are not
released. While the committee did adopt an amendment that would
require the Secretary of Defense to report on how providing
detainees in Afghanistan Miranda rights will affect the safety
of our forces and impact U.S. operations in Afghanistan, the
committee failed to adopt language that would prohibit
detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from being transferred or
released into the United States. The committee also failed to
include an amendment that would require the approval of State
legislatures and Governors prior to the release or transfer of
Guantanamo detainees into the United States. We believe the
American people do not want these detainees brought to the
sovereign territory of our country. We are disappointed that
the committee chose not to give Congress the power to carry out
the will of the people.
Transparency and Defense oversight
Finally, we believe that to carry out our constitutional
mandate to raise and support the armed forces, the committee
expects a transparent and open relationship with the Department
of Defense where the independent views of the Service Chiefs
are represented to the Congress by the civilian senior
leadership in a timely manner. That is why we are disappointed
that the committee did not fully adopt an amendment that would
have provided a statutory framework for the Service Chiefs to
provide their independent view to the Congress.
As a nation, we face a multitude of threats to our way of
life and our national security interests. As legislators, we
must accept that it is our duty to ensure that our men and
women in uniform, who have bravely volunteered to serve our
nation, have the best available tools at their disposal to
combat those threats and protect those interests. This bill
goes a considerable way in demonstrating this committee's
resolve, but we can--and should--improve it.
We owe that much to our men and women, who answer the call
in defense of our nation.
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon.
Roscoe G. Bartlett.
Mac Thornberry.
W. Todd Akin.
J. Randy Forbes.
Jeff Miller.
Joe Wilson.
Frank A. LoBiondo.
Rob Bishop.
Michael Turner.
John Kline.
Michael Rogers.
Trent Franks.
Bill Shuster.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
K. Michael Conaway.
Doug Lamborn.
Rob Wittman.
Mary Fallin.
Duncan Hunter.
John Fleming.
Mike Coffman.
Tom Rooney.
Todd Russell Platts.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE SILVESTRE REYES
I strongly support H.R. 2647, and I am particularly pleased
that the measure included important provisions which affect our
nation's civil servants. As reported by the Committee, the
measure would roll back both the National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) and the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS).
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(HPSCI) shares jurisdiction with the House Committee on Armed
Services over Department of Defense (DOD) civilian intelligence
employees and DCIPS. As chair of the HPSCI, I wanted to provide
additional comments about DCIPS and the rationale behind the
provisions included in H.R. 2647.
In a joint letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, the Committee
on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence expressed their concern about the implementation
of the DCIPS pay system. DCIPS would replace the existing
General Schedule pay scale with a system of pay bands. This
pay-banded system has been misleadingly named ``pay-for-
performance.''
For the past three years, the HPSCI has expressed concerns
that this compensation system lacks transparency and
accountability, and could have an adverse impact on minorities.
The HPSCI is also concerned that the system was developed
without sufficient consultation with employees in the
Intelligence Community. Further, the pay system is being
implemented across the Intelligence Community without regard to
the needs of different career fields or mission needs of the
various intelligence agencies. In 2003, the HPSCI objected to
the implementation of a similar program at the Central
Intelligence Agency out of concern that it would have an
undesirable impact on the workforce.
The HPSCI continues to be concerned that the implementation
of such a system has been rushed and that there has not been
adequate time to ensure managers are properly trained. Human
resources personnel have raised concerns that they do not have
final policy guidance and that they will not have sufficient
time prior to implementation to ensure all employees receive
training. Recent training events have demonstrated that
managers need more practice and guidance in determining
performance objectives under the systems.
I support the idea of rewarding performance but believe
that the current performance bonus system has not been
effectively used. As someone who worked under the current civil
service system, I know all too well that it has flaws and needs
improvement. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
has indicated his intent to reform the civilian personnel
system across the entire federal government. As such, I believe
that the most prudent course of action would be to delay the
implementation of DCIPS while a new, government-wide system is
developed.
Silvestre Reyes.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE ROB BISHOP
It has become readily apparent in this year's defense
budget and authorization process that the Obama Administration
has taken a haphazard approach to cutting several important
defense programs, such as missile defense programs, and the F-
22 fighter. At a time when the Administration is spending
upwards of a trillion dollars on everything else BUT defense, I
feel compelled to raise a voice of warning.
Missile Defense Cuts (GMD and KEI): I strongly oppose the
cuts proposed by Secretary Gates and President Obama to missile
defense programs such as Ground Midcourse Defense (GMD) and
Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). It seems that the ``savings''
from these cuts, at $1.8 billion, are rather small in
comparison to the lost opportunities for further research and
development in improving our defense of the homeland against
emerging and future missile threats which will have
implications on our ability to adequately defend our homeland a
decade and two decades from now. These cuts will also have a
devastating impact on the defense industrial base, particularly
with regard to large defense solid rocket booster production.
If these decisions are allowed to stand, practically every
program associated with solid booster production will be
decimated with significant negative long-term implications for
our future defense readiness. It seems as if no one at DoD has
been paying attention to the cumulative impact of these
different programmatic budget decisions on the solid rocket
booster industrial base as a whole. It also seems wasteful and,
frankly, ridiculous that DoD and the Missile Defense Agency
will not proceed with a planned booster test firing in
September of this year with the KEI program when the booster
has already been produced and delivered to the test site at
Vandenberg AFB. Even if KEI termination is upheld, it makes
perfect sense to move forward with this test that has already
been bought and paid for by U.S. taxpayer investment since
2004, and which could result in a significant harvest of
scientific data for use on future defense projects.
F-22 Program: Defense Secretary Robert Gates' decision to
terminate this next-generation fighter program at 187 aircraft
is simply not supported by any objective military analysis.
When the F-22 program requirement was first established, it was
based on procurement of 750 aircraft. That number has been
constantly whittled away until Secretary Gates asserts that 187
are sufficient. We have repeatedly requested that the
Department provide the Committee and members with analysis upon
which this budget decision was based. That analysis has not yet
been provided, leading to a strong indication that it is a
budget drill, pure and simple. I am pleased that a majority of
Committee members supported an amendment to restore F-22 long-
lead procurement funding for 12 additional aircraft in FY10.
There were strong indications during markup that many members,
a good majority on both sides of the political aisle, would
like to have supported additional F-22 production, and some
members otherwise disposed to support the amendment voted no
due to concerns about the offset to defense environmental
accounts.
It is also ironic that, at a time when the Obama
Administration is spending hundreds of billions in tax dollars
to create jobs and put people back to work, that it would be so
intent on cutting the F-22 program which is responsible for
approximately 95,000 direct and indirect jobs in most of the 50
states. These are good jobs that are producing a vital defense
weapons system to protect our homeland as well, which will now
be lost unless funding is restored.
One of the most disturbing recent developments on the F-22
is the release of a letter signed by Air Force Combat
Commander, General John D. W. Corley, USAF, in answer to
questions asked of him by U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, which
authoritatively states that there are NO studies which support
Secretary Gates' number of 187 aircraft. In this letter, a copy
of which I include following these remarks, General Corley
maintains that 250 aircraft are necessary to ensure U.S. Air
Superiority at a ``moderate risk'' level. The Secretary of
Defense also apparently developed his F-22 termination plan
without consulting with Air Combat Command, as further outlined
in the letter. It is only common sense that the Secretary
should at least have consulted with and seriously considered
the professional and technical views of the very operational
command tasked with air superiority requirements both during
peace and wartime operations.
I have included a copy of this letter so that the public
will have access to this information. I urge Secretary Gates
and my colleagues to work cooperatively on an F-22 termination
plan that is reasoned and based on real military requirements
and analysis; not budget drills. There is nothing more
fundamental to the future prosperity and very survival of
America than the United States military. Everything else is a
corollary to that fundamental principle. It is my profound hope
that we work together over the next 3 to 4 years to build the
additional F-22s until we reach the 240-250 numbers that Air
Force planners have repeatedly stated are absolutely necessary.
Enclosure.
Rob Bishop.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for the National
Guard and Reserve was signed into law by President Bush on
January 28, 2008. Section 582 of the 08 NDAA designated the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the
executive agent for the program. The Guard and Reserve
components have continued to expand their reintegration
programs--taking full advantage of, and collaborating with,
other federal, state, and local agencies and volunteer
organizations to provide a robust set of services and support
at locations, to the extent possible, where the military member
resides. However, additional improvements are necessary.
The funding requirements as directed through DoD policy
must continue to be obligated as long as the National Guard and
Reserve remain an Operational Reserve and not a Strategic
Reserve.
Existing service-specific limitations also preclude
individuals from full access to reintegration assistance in
certain geographic locations. For example, a Marine reservist
from Minnesota coming off of mobilization orders and returning
home may not have access to a Marine Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration event in his or her home state. In these
circumstances it would be beneficial for every service or
component to be able to administer the program to members of
any service or component, and receive adequate funding to cover
any cost overruns.
The promotion of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration program
has improved, but there is still room for growth. It is
understood that the office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness is developing media to promote the
program, including a website, pamphlets, and standalone
briefings. In addition, the office is also developing a web-
based Decision Support Tool, which will provide interested
personnel the ability to find the date, locations, and types of
reintegration events. It is imperative these programs are seen
through to fruition.
John Kline.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
In the last week, we have heard the clearest statements yet
on the intent of the Air Force and Defense Department to use
the QDR as a mechanism for reducing the size of the fighter
force. Despite past promises to provide a solid plan to sustain
the current requirement for 2,200 fighters and pledges that the
proper analysis would be done before making a decision, last
week's comments by the Chief of the Air Force were very clear.
Without a shred of analysis being provided to Congress or
any evidence that shows current plans meet current reality, the
Air Force dismissed the idea of providing real life aircraft to
real life Airmen. Instead, we have been asked, once again, to
hold our breath and wait.
As two wars are being fought and the security of our
homeland remains vital, the Department planned to retire 253
aircraft and invest in new aircraft that will be, in the words
of the Air Guard's top officer, ``late to need.''
Congressman LoBiondo and I have continued to work with the
Chairman and Ranking Member and the great staff here to get
answers from DoD. Unfortunately, the silence has been
deafening.
And now, without analysis and based on flawed assumptions
of expectations that cannot be met, the Air Force has dismissed
out of hand the only clear solution to our impending fighter
gap.
The amendment from Congressman LoBiondo and I make certain
that a full and thorough examination is performed by the
Department. The analysis must be done outside of the vacuum of
the QDR and based in the reality of the world we live in today,
not the one we hope will be here ten years down the road.
I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for all of his
hard work on the fighter gap issue. And I look forward to
continuing to work with him to find the right solution for the
fighter shortfall.
Gabrielle Giffords.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
This is a landmark bill for DoD energy legislation that
builds upon last year's successes and sets a more clear road to
a renewable, responsible energy future.
This year's bill will enhance reporting requirements,
speed-up development of bio-fuels, grow the fleet of hybrid and
electric vehicles, encourage the continued use of geothermal
energy, and kick-start the office of operational energy.
For too long, we as a nation have approached energy
security strictly through the prism of environmental detriment.
However, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown clearly
the real-life human cost of our dependence on a long and
insecure energy supply line. We have learned the hard way that
we need to be lighter and faster on the battlefield as well as
off.
As we continue to move forward on smarter, enterprise-wide
solutions for energy security, we take convoys off the road and
reduce our dependence on foreign fossil-based fuels. This
progress saves lives and saves money.
I am proud to have worked with Congressman Andrews on a
bio-fuels provision in this bill and with Chairman Ortiz on a
number of other vital pieces of language that will help move
DoD and the country toward a responsible energy future. They
understand as well as I do the importance of this issue.
I also want to thank Eryn Robinson on the Committee staff
for allowing us the opportunity to forward this important
priority.
I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Ortiz
and the other Members of this Committee to pass some truly
comprehensive reforms in DoD energy.
Gabrielle Giffords.