[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.

                                  
