[House Report 111-491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                111-491
_______________________________________________________________________


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 5136

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 21, 2010.--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 2011




111th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                111-491
_______________________________________________________________________




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 5136

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 21, 2010.--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
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas                 WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ADAM SMITH, Washington               W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        JEFF MILLER, Florida
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           ROB BISHOP, Utah
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia                TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania             MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          DUNCAN HUNTER, California
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
GLENN NYE, Virginia                  MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
LEONARD BOSWELL, Iowa
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia

                     Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director




                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose of the Legislation.......................................     2
Relationship of Discretionary Authorization to Appropriations....     2
Summary of Authorizations in the Bill............................     2
  Summary Table of Authorizations................................     4
Budget Authority Implication.....................................    14
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    18
Hearings.........................................................    21

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................    21

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    21
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    21
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    24
      Overview...................................................    24
      Items of Special Interest..................................    27
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unmanned aerial 
          vehicles...............................................    27
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    27
      Overview...................................................    27
      Items of Special Interest..................................    30
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team non-line-of-sight 
          launch system..........................................    30
        Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System.....................    30
        Javelin Block 1 command launch unit requirements.........    30
        Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Modifications..............    30
        Stinger missile service life enhancement program.........    31
        Surface launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile 
          system.................................................    31
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    31
      Overview...................................................    31
      Items of Special Interest..................................    36
        Modular handgun system...................................    36
        Paladin Integrated Management program....................    36
        Stryker vehicles.........................................    36
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................    37
      Overview...................................................    37
      Items of Special Interest..................................    41
        Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative..................    41
        MK281 target practice rounds.............................    41
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    41
      Overview...................................................    41
      Items of Special Interest..................................    52
        Defense Advanced GPS Receivers...........................    52
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team network integration 
          kits...................................................    52
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team small unmanned ground 
          vehicles...............................................    53
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team training/logistics/
          management.............................................    53
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground 
          sensors................................................    53
        Ground Soldier System acquisition strategy...............    54
        High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles.............    54
        High-resolution three dimensional topographic data.......    55
        Intelligent Munitions System remote control units........    55
        Joint Tactical Radio System hand-held radios.............    55
        Non-system training device program.......................    56
        Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2......    56
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................    57
      Overview...................................................    57
      Items of Special Interest..................................    59
        Joint counter remote control improvised explosive device 
          electronic warfare.....................................    59
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    59
      Overview...................................................    59
      Items of Special Interest..................................    65
        Department of Navy tactical aircraft inventory...........    65
        UH-1Y/AH-1Z rotorcraft upgrade program...................    66
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    66
      Overview...................................................    66
      Items of Special Interest..................................    69
        Littoral Combat Ship Module weapons......................    69
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............    69
      Overview...................................................    69
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    72
      Overview...................................................    72
      Items of Special Interest..................................    75
        U.S. Navy shipbuilding...................................    75
          Aircraft carriers......................................    75
          DDG 51 class destroyer.................................    75
          DDG 1000 class destroyer...............................    76
          Littoral Combat Ship...................................    76
          Maritime Landing Platform..............................    77
          Ohio-class replacement program.........................    77
        U.S. shipbuilding industrial base........................    78
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    79
      Overview...................................................    79
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    88
      Overview...................................................    88
      Items of Special Interest..................................    93
        Marine Corps communications switching and control systems    93
        Marine Corps joint tactical radio systems................    93
        Marine Corps M88A2 recovery vehicles.....................    93
        Marine Corps small unmanned ground vehicles..............    93
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    94
      Overview...................................................    94
      Items of Special Interest..................................   101
        F-35 modifications.......................................   101
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................   101
      Overview...................................................   101
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   103
      Overview...................................................   103
      Items of Special Interest..................................   106
        Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line...............   106
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   107
      Overview...................................................   107
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   112
      Overview...................................................   112
      Items of Special Interest..................................   118
        Advance procurement for AN/TPY-2 X-band radars...........   118
        Common data link.........................................   118
        Fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense interceptors.   119
        Lighter-than-air vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, 
          and reconnaissance.....................................   119
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   120
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   120
      Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations..........   120
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................   120
      Section 111--Procurement of Early Infantry Brigade Combat 
        Team Increment One Equipment.............................   120
      Section 112--Report on Army Battlefield Network Plans and 
        Programs.................................................   120
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   120
      Section 121--Incremental Funding for Procurement of Large 
        Naval Vessels............................................   120
      Section 122--Multiyear Procurement of F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and 
        EA-18G Aircraft..........................................   121
      Section 123--Report on Naval Force Structure and Missile 
        Defense..................................................   121
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................   122
      Section 131--Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling for 
        F-22 Fighter Aircraft....................................   122
    Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters...................   122
      Section 141--Limitation on Procurement of F-35 Lightning II 
        Aircraft.................................................   122
      Section 142--Limitations on Biometric Systems Funds........   122
      Section 143--Counter-Improvised Explosive Device 
        Initiatives Database.....................................   123
      Section 144--Study on Lightweight Body Armor Solutions.....   123

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............   123
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   123
    Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.............   125
      Overview...................................................   125
      Items of Special Interest..................................   136
        Abrams tank modernization................................   136
        Biometrics enabled intelligence..........................   136
        Bradley Fighting Vehicle modernization...................   136
        Cellulose nanocomposites for Army infrastructure and 
          troop protection.......................................   137
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team.......................   137
        Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground 
          sensors................................................   138
        Focus for Minerva research...............................   139
        Future Combat Systems system-of-systems engineering and 
          program management.....................................   139
        Ground Combat Vehicle program............................   139
        Maingate tactical network architecture...................   141
        Medium Extended Air Defense System.......................   141
        Military engineering advanced technology.................   142
        Non-line-of-sight launch system..........................   142
        Paladin Integrated Management program....................   142
        Self-inerting munitions technology development...........   143
        Social science research capacity.........................   143
        Stryker vehicle improvised explosive device mitigation 
          technology.............................................   143
        Tactical electronic surveillance systems.................   144
    Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.............   144
      Overview...................................................   144
      Items of Special Interest..................................   157
        Composite deckhouse design for DDG 51 flight III class 
          ships..................................................   157
        Development of hybrid multi-functional composites for 
          submarine structures...................................   157
        Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended 
          Range Munition.........................................   157
        Future integrated nuclear power systems..................   158
        High-Integrity Global Positioning System.................   158
        Marine Corps military fleet simulation computer co-
          simulation.............................................   158
        Marine operations, Scripps Institute.....................   159
        Marine personnel carrier.................................   159
        Navy non-line-of-sight launch system development.........   159
        Navy Unmanned Combat Air System..........................   160
        Next Generation Enterprise Network.......................   160
        Photonic digital beamforming systems.....................   160
        Small diameter bomb increment II.........................   161
        Ultra High Frequency Hosted Payloads program.............   161
        VH-(XX) acquisition program and VH-3D/VH-60N legacy fleet 
          sustainment............................................   162
    Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation........   162
      Overview...................................................   162
      Items of Special Interest..................................   174
        Conversion of excess ballistic missiles for space 
          transportation uses....................................   174
        Cyber Boot Camp..........................................   174
        Defense applications of commercial satellites............   175
        Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle common upper stage 
          engine.................................................   175
        F-35 aircraft............................................   175
        Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle and Broad Area 
          Maritime Surveillance system commonality...............   178
        Metals Affordability Initiative..........................   178
        National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 
          Satellite System.......................................   179
        Next-generation military satellite communications 
          technology development.................................   180
        Non-volatile hardened memory.............................   180
        Operationally Responsive Space...........................   180
        Space Based Space Surveillance...........................   181
        Star tracker technology..................................   181
        Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for Space....   181
    Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.....   182
      Overview...................................................   182
      Items of Special Interest..................................   196
        Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and defense against sea-
          based missile attacks..................................   196
        Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the 
          National Defense University............................   196
        Counter-ideology programs................................   197
        Cognitive computing efforts..............................   197
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency................   198
        Digital media study......................................   199
        Directed energy research programs........................   199
        Environmental management information systems.............   200
        Environmental Security Technical Certification Program...   200
        Federal Voting Assistance Program........................   201
        Ground combat uniform research and development...........   201
        Intergovernmental Value Added Network....................   202
        Investment review process for human dynamics activities..   202
        Israeli cooperative programs.............................   203
        K-12 education in computer sciences and mathematics......   203
        Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology Sharing............   204
        Management of defense basic research.....................   205
        Mechanism to provide funds for defense laboratories......   206
        Missile Defense Agency special programs..................   206
        Missile defense command, control, and communications.....   206
        Multi-Agency Collaboration Environment...................   207
        Over-the-horizon broadcast extension capability..........   207
        Regional missile defense plans...........................   207
        Role of non-lethal weapons...............................   208
        Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
          workforce..............................................   210
        Special Operations Technology Development................   211
        Test Resource Management Center budget certification 
          briefing...............................................   211
        Trusted computing in defense systems.....................   211
        Unmanned systems manning.................................   212
        Unmanned system technology development...................   212
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   212
      Overview...................................................   212
      Items of Special Interest..................................   214
        Joint test and evaluation program........................   214
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   214
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   214
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   214
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   214
      Section 211--Report Requirements for Replacement Program of 
        the Ohio-Class Ballistic Submarine.......................   214
      Section 212--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for F-35 
        Lightning II Aircraft Program............................   215
      Section 213--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 Aircraft....................   215
      Section 214--Separate Program Elements Required for 
        Research and Development of Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.   215
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................   216
      Section 221--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Missile Defenses in Europe...............................   216
      Section 222--Repeal of Prohibition of Certain Contracts by 
        Missile Defense Agency with Foreign Entities.............   216
      Section 223--Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense 
        in Europe................................................   217
      Section 224--Homeland Defense Hedging Policy...............   217
      Section 225--Independent Assessment of the Plan for Defense 
        of the Homeland against the Threat of Ballistic Missiles.   218
      Section 226--Study on Ballistic Missile Defense 
        Capabilities of the United States........................   218
      Section 227--Reports on standard missile system............   218
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   218
      Section 231--Report on Analysis of Alternatives and Program 
        Requirements for the Ground Combat Vehicle Program.......   218
      Section 232--Cost Benefit Analysis of Future Tank-Fired 
        Munitions................................................   218
      Section 233--Annual Comptroller General Report on the VH-
        (XX) Presidential Helicopter Acquisition Program.........   219
      Section 234--Joint Assessment of the Joint Effects 
        Targeting System.........................................   219
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   219
      Section 241--Escalation of Force Capabilities..............   219
      Section 242--Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection 
        Features During Research and Development of Defense 
        Systems..................................................   219
      Section 243--Pilot Program on Collaborative Energy Security   219

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   219
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   219
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   247
    Budget Request Adjustments...................................   247
      Base Operations Support....................................   248
      C-130 Force Structure Adjustments..........................   248
      Corrosion Control and Prevention...........................   249
      Defense Contract Audit Agency General Counsel..............   249
      Environmental Restoration at Formerly Used Defense Sites...   250
      Execution of Readiness Funding.............................   250
      Industrial Base Fund.......................................   251
      Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis...   251
      Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative..........   251
      Training and Recertification of the Acquisition Workforce..   251
    Energy Issues................................................   252
      Department of Defense Alternative Fuel Use.................   252
      National Security Impacts of Petroleum Refining............   252
    Workplace and Depot Issues...................................   252
      Army Cooperative Arrangements..............................   252
      Contractor Support to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 
        Defeat Organization......................................   253
      Submarine Maintenance Workload.............................   253
      Use of Temporary Shipyard Workforce for Nuclear Maintenance   254
    Readiness Issues.............................................   254
      Air Force's Ability to Train on Core Mission Competencies..   254
      Analysis of the Use of Commercial F-5 Aggressor Aircraft 
        for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Pilot Training.....   255
      Availability of Full-Time Trainers in the Army.............   256
      Aviation Assets for National Guard.........................   257
      Completion of Annual Training Requirements for Army and 
        Marine Corps.............................................   257
      Criticality of Pre-Deployment Language Training............   258
      F-35 Lightning II Aircraft and National Guard..............   259
      Language, Cultural Awareness, and Regional Expertise.......   259
      Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting........   259
      Ship Maintenance Industrial Base Support...................   260
      Ship Material Readiness....................................   261
      Simulation Training for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter..........   262
      Surface Ship Life Cycle Management.........................   263
      Training for Global Ballistic Missile Defense..............   263
    Other Matters................................................   264
      Air Force Food Transformation Initiative...................   264
      Army Post Laundry Facilities...............................   265
      Army Reporting Requirements................................   266
      Human Terrain System.......................................   266
      National Guard Support for Charitable Organizations........   266
      Notification of Use of Authority to Expedite Background 
        Investigations...........................................   267
      Operation and Support Costs for Non-Standard Items of 
        Equipment................................................   267
      Private Security Guards Functions to Be Performed by 
        Civilian Employees.......................................   267
      Sale of Arsenal Products outside the Department of Defense.   268
      Security Clearance Reform..................................   268
      Supply Chain Management....................................   269
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   269
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   269
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   269
    Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions..............   270
      Section 311--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection 
        Agency for Certain Costs in Connection with the Twin 
        Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minnesota..................   270
      Section 312--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of 
        Stipulated Penalties in Connection with Naval Air 
        Station, Brunswick, Maine................................   270
      Section 313--Testing and Certification Plan for Operational 
        Use of an Aviation Biofuel Derived from Materials That Do 
        Not Compete with Food Stocks.............................   270
      Section 314--Report Identifying Hybrid or Electric 
        Propulsion Systems and Other Fuel-Saving Technologies for 
        Incorporation into Tactical Motor Vehicles...............   270
    Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   270
      Section 321--Technical Amendments to Requirement for 
        Service Contract Inventory...............................   270
      Section 322--Repeal of Conditions on Expansion of Functions 
        Performed under Prime Vendor Contracts for Depot-Level 
        Maintenance and Repair...................................   271
      Section 323--Pilot Program on Best Value for Contracts for 
        Private Security Functions...............................   271
      Section 324--Standards and Certification for Private 
        Security Contractors.....................................   272
      Section 325--Prohibition on Establishing Goals or Quotas 
        for Conversion of Functions to Performance by Department 
        of Defense Civilian Employees............................   272
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   272
      Section 331--Revision to Reporting Requirement Relating to 
        Operation and Financial Support for Military Museums.....   272
      Section 332--Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to 
        Corrosion Prevention Projects and Activities.............   272
      Section 333--Modification and Repeal of Certain Reporting 
        Requirements.............................................   273
      Section 334--Report on Air Sovereignty Alert Mission.......   273
      Section 335--Report on the SEAD/DEAD Mission Requirements 
        for the Air Force........................................   273
    Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority..........   274
      Section 341--Permanent Authority to Accept and Use Landing 
        Fees Charged for Use of Domestic Military Airfields by 
        Civil Aircraft...........................................   274
      Section 342--Improvement and Extension of Arsenal Support 
        Program Initiative.......................................   274
      Section 343--Extension of Authority to Reimburse Expenses 
        for Certain Navy Mess Operations.........................   274
      Section 344--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Army 
        Human Terrain System.....................................   275
      Section 345--Limitation on Obligation of Funds Pending 
        Submission of Classified Justification Material..........   275
      Section 346--Limitation on Retirement of C-130 Aircraft 
        from Air Force Inventory.................................   275
      Section 347--Commercial Sale of Small Arms Ammunition in 
        Excess of Military Requirements..........................   275
      Section 348--Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force 
        Structure Announcement Implementation....................   275
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   276
      Section 351--Expedited Processing of Background 
        Investigations for Certain Individuals...................   276
      Section 352--Adoption of Military Working Dogs by Family 
        Members of Deceased or Seriously Wounded Members of the 
        Armed Forces who Were Handlers of the Dogs...............   276
      Section 353--Revision to Authorities Relating to 
        Transportation of Civilian Passengers and Commercial 
        Cargoes by Department of Defense when Space Unavailable 
        on Commercial Lines......................................   276
      Section 354--Technical Correction to Obsolete Reference 
        Relating to Use of Flexible Hiring Authority to 
        Facilitate Performance of Certain Department of Defense 
        Functions by Civilian Employees..........................   277
      Section 355--Inventory and Study of Budget Modeling and 
        Simulation Tools.........................................   277
      Section 356--Sense of Congress regarding Continued 
        Importance of High-Altitude Aviation Training Site, 
        Colorado.................................................   277
      Section 357--Department of Defense Study on Simulated 
        Tactical Flight Training in a Sustained G Environment....   277
      Section 358--Study of Effects of New Construction of 
        Obstructions on Military Installations and Operations....   277

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   278
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   278
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   278
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   278
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   278
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 
        Minimum Levels...........................................   278
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   279
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   279
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserves..................................   279
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   279
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2011 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   280
      Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 
        to Be on Active Duty for Operational Support.............   281
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   281
      Section 421--Military Personnel............................   281

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   283
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   283
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   283
      Army Freedom Team Salute Program...........................   283
      Award of Prisoner-of-War Medal to Service Members Held at 
        Wauwilermoos, Switzerland................................   284
      Committee's Concerns with the DOD Report on Child Custody 
        and Database to Track the Number of Cases Involving Child 
        Custody Disputes of Members of the Armed Forces..........   284
      Fit, but Unsuitable Separations............................   285
      Military Leave for Training................................   285
      Report on Medal of Honor Award Process.....................   286
      Retention of Military Technicians who Lose Dual Status in 
        the Selected Reserve due to Combat-Related Disability....   286
      Review of Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients from 
        World War I..............................................   287
      Review of the House Committee on Armed Services Report on 
        Professional Military Education..........................   287
      Transferability of Individualized Education Programs.......   288
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   288
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally...............   288
      Section 501--Age for Health Care Professional Appointments 
        and Mandatory Retirements................................   288
      Section 502--Authority for Appointment of Warrant Officers 
        in the Grade of W-1 by Commission and Standardization of 
        Warrant Officer Appointing Authority.....................   288
      Section 503--Nondisclosure of Information from Discussions, 
        Deliberations, Notes, and Records of Special Selection 
        Boards...................................................   288
      Section 504--Administrative Removal of Officers from List 
        of Officers Recommended for Promotion....................   288
      Section 505--Eligibility of Officers to Serve on Boards of 
        Inquiry for Separation of Regular Officers for 
        Substandard Performance and Other Reasons................   289
      Section 506--Temporary Authority to Reduce Minimum Length 
        of Active Service as a Commissioned Officer Required for 
        Voluntary Retirement as an Officer.......................   289
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   289
      Section 511--Preseparation Counseling for Members of the 
        Reserve Components.......................................   289
      Section 512--Military Correction Board Remedies for 
        National Guard Members...................................   289
      Section 513--Removal of Statutory Distribution Limits on 
        Navy Reserve Flag Officer Allocation.....................   289
      Section 514--Assignment of Air Force Reserve Military 
        Technicians (Dual Status) to Positions outside Air Force 
        Reserve Unit Program.....................................   290
      Section 515--Temporary Authority for Temporary Employment 
        of Non-Dual Status Military Technicians..................   290
      Section 516--Revised Structure and Functions of Reserve 
        Forces Policy Board......................................   290
      Section 517--Merit Systems Protection Board and Judicial 
        Remedies for National Guard Technicians..................   290
    Subtitle C--Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements........   291
      Section 521--Technical Revisions to Definition of Joint 
        Matters for Purposes of Joint Officer Management.........   291
      Section 522--Changes to the Process Involving Promotion 
        Boards for Joint Qualified Officers and Officers with 
        Joint Staff Experience...................................   291
    Subtitle D--General Services Authorities.....................   291
      Section 531--Extension of Temporary Authority to Order 
        Retired Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty in 
        High-Demand, Low-Density Assignments.....................   291
      Section 532--Correction of Military Records................   292
      Section 533--Modification of Certificate of Release or 
        Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to Specifically 
        Identify a Space for Inclusion of Email Address..........   292
      Section 534--Recognition of Role of Female Members of the 
        Armed Forces and Department of Defense Review of Military 
        Occupational Specialties Available to Female Members.....   292
    Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters...............   292
      Section 541--Continuation of Warrant Officers on Active 
        Duty to Complete Disciplinary Action.....................   292
      Section 542--Enhanced Authority to Punish Contempt in 
        Military Justice Proceedings.............................   293
      Section 543--Limitations on Use in Personnel Action of 
        Information Contained in Criminal Investigative Report or 
        in the Index Maintained for Law Enforcement Retrieval and 
        Analysis.................................................   293
      Section 544--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for 
        Parents who Are Members of the Armed Forces Deployed in 
        Support of a Contingency Operation.......................   293
      Section 545--Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic 
        Violence Programs........................................   293
      Section 546--Public Release of Restricted Annex of 
        Department of Defense Report of the Independent Review 
        Related to Fort Hood Pertaining to Oversight of the 
        Alleged Perpetrator of the Attack........................   293
    Subtitle F--Member Education and Training Opportunities and 
        Administration...........................................   294
      Section 551--Repayment of Education Loan Repayment Benefits   294
      Section 552--Active Duty Obligation for Graduates of the 
        Military Service Academies Participating in the Armed 
        Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial 
        Assistance Program.......................................   294
      Section 553--Waiver of Maximum Age Limitation on Admission 
        to Service Academies for Certain Enlisted Members who 
        Served during Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
        Enduring Freedom.........................................   294
      Section 554--Report of Feasibility and Cost of Expanding 
        Enrollment Authority of Community College of the Air 
        Force to Include Additional Members of the Armed Forces..   294
    Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education....................   295
      Section 561--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local 
        Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members 
        of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees................................................   295
      Section 562--Enrollment of Dependents of Members of the 
        Armed Forces who Reside in Temporary Housing in 
        Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and 
        Secondary Schools........................................   295
    Subtitle H--Decorations, Awards, and Commemorations..........   295
      Section 571--Notification Requirement for Determination 
        Made in Response to Review of Proposal for Award of a 
        Medal of Honor Not Previously Submitted in Timely Fashion   295
      Section 572--Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses 
        of Members of the Armed Forces...........................   295
      Section 573--Department of Defense Recognition of Children 
        of Members of the Armed Forces...........................   296
      Section 574--Clarification of Persons Eligible for Award of 
        Bronze Star Medal........................................   296
      Section 575--Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans who 
        Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation................   296
      Section 576--Authorization for Award of Medal of Honor to 
        Certain Members of the Army for Acts of Valor during the 
        Civil War, Korean War, or Vietnam War....................   296
      Section 577--Authorization and Request for Award of 
        Distinguished-Service Cross to Jay C. Copley for Acts of 
        Valor during the Vietnam War.............................   296
      Section 578--Program to Commemorate 60th Anniversary of the 
        Korean War...............................................   297
    Subtitle I--Military Family Readiness Matters................   297
      Section 581--Appointment of Additional Member of Department 
        of Defense Military Family Readiness Council.............   297
      Section 582--Director of the Office of Community Support 
        for Military Families with Special Needs.................   297
      Section 583--Pilot Program of Personalized Career 
        Development Counseling for Military Spouses..............   297
      Section 584--Modification of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
        Program..................................................   297
      Section 585--Importance of Office of Community Support for 
        Military Families with Special Needs.....................   298
      Section 586--Comptroller General Report on Department of 
        Defense Office of Community Support for Military Families 
        with Special Needs.......................................   298
      Section 587--Comptroller General Report on Exceptional 
        Family Member Program....................................   298
      Section 588--Comptroller General Review of Department of 
        Defense Military Spouse Employment Programs..............   298
      Section 589--Report on Department of Defense Military 
        Spouse Education Programs................................   298
    Subtitle J--Other Matters....................................   299
      Section 591--Establishment of Junior Reserve Officers' 
        Training Corps Units for Students in Grades above Sixth 
        Grade....................................................   299
      Section 592--Increase in Number of Private Sector Civilians 
        Authorized for Admission to National Defense University..   299
      Section 593--Admission of Defense Industry Civilians to 
        Attend United States Air Force Institute of Technology...   299
      Section 594--Date for Submission of Annual Report on 
        Department of Defense STARBASE Program...................   299
      Section 595--Extension of Deadline for Submission of Final 
        Report of Military Leadership Diversity Commission.......   299
      Section 596--Enhanced Authority for Members of the Armed 
        Forces and Department of Defense and Coast Guard Civilian 
        Employees and their Families to Accept Gifts from Non-
        Federal Entities.........................................   299
      Section 597--Report on Performance and Improvements of 
        Transition Assistance Program............................   300
      Section 598--Sense of Congress regarding Assisting Members 
        of the Armed Forces to Participate in Apprenticeship 
        Programs.................................................   300

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   300
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   300
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   301
      Career Retention Bonus.....................................   301
      Critical Language and Cultural Training of Special 
        Operations Forces........................................   301
      Local Procurement of Fresh Meat, Poultry, Seafood, Fish, 
        and Produce by Commissary and Exchange Stores............   302
      Procurement of Locally Caught Seafood and Fresh-Water Fish 
        by Commissaries..........................................   303
      Reserve Retirement.........................................   303
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   303
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   303
      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2011 Increase in Military Basic 
        Pay......................................................   303
      Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing for Two-Member 
        Couples when One or Both Members Are on Sea Duty.........   304
      Section 603--Allowances for Purchase of Required Uniforms 
        and Equipment............................................   304
      Section 604--Increase in Amount of Family Separation 
        Allowance................................................   304
      Section 605--One-Time Special Compensation for Transition 
        of Assistants Providing Aid and Attendance Care to 
        Members of the Uniformed Services with Catastrophic 
        Injuries or Illnesses....................................   304
      Section 606--Expansion of Definition of Senior Enlisted 
        Member to Include Senior Enlisted Member Serving within a 
        Combatant Command........................................   304
      Section 607--Ineligibility of Certain Federal Civilian 
        Employees for Reservist Income Replacement Payments on 
        Account of Availability of Comparable Benefits under 
        Another Program..........................................   305
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   305
      Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces...............   305
      Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals....   305
      Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 
        Authorities for Nuclear Officers.........................   305
      Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and 
        Bonus Authorities........................................   305
      Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays.......   306
      Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Payment of Referral Bonuses..............................   306
      Section 617--Treatment of Officers Transferring between 
        Armed Forces for Receipt of Aviation Career Special Pay..   306
      Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Special Pay for 
        Duty Subject to Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger or for 
        Duty in Foreign Area Designated as an Imminent Danger 
        Area.....................................................   306
      Section 619--Special Payment to Members of the Armed Forces 
        and Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense 
        Killed or Wounded in Attacks Directed at Members or 
        Employees outside of Combat Zone, Including Those Killed 
        or Wounded in Certain 2009 Attacks.......................   306
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   307
      Section 631--Extension of Authority to Provide Travel and 
        Transportation Allowances for Inactive Duty Training 
        outside of Normal Commuting Distances....................   307
      Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for 
        Attendance of Designated Persons at Yellow Ribbon 
        Reintegration Events.....................................   307
      Section 633--Mileage Reimbursement for Use of Privately 
        Owned Vehicles...........................................   307
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits................   308
      Section 641--Elimination of Cap on Retired Pay Multiplier 
        for Members with Greater than 30 Years of Service who 
        Retire for Disability....................................   308
      Section 642--Equity in Computation of Disability Retired 
        Pay for Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action......   308
      Section 643--Elimination of the Age Requirement for Health 
        Care Benefits for Non-Regular Service Retirees...........   308
      Section 644--Clarification of Effect of Ordering Reserve 
        Component Member to Active Duty to Receive Authorized 
        Medical Care on Reducing Eligibility Age for Receipt of 
        Non-Regular Service Retired Pay..........................   308
      Section 645--Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for 
        Recipients of Pre-Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Affected 
        by Required Offset for Dependency and Indemnity 
        Compensation.............................................   308
      Section 646--Payment Date for the Retired and Retainer Pay.   309
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentality Benefits and Operations..................   309
      Section 651--Shared Construction Costs for Shopping Malls 
        or Similar Facilities Containing a Commissary Store and 
        One or More Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
        Activities...............................................   309
      Section 652--Addition of Definition of Morale, Welfare, and 
        Recreation Telephone Services for Use in Contracts to 
        Provide Such Services for Military Personnel Serving in 
        Combat Zones.............................................   309
      Section 653--Feasibility Study on Establishment of Full 
        Exchange Store in the Northern Mariana Islands...........   309
    Subtitle F--Alternative Career Track Pilot Program...........   310
      Section 661--Pilot Program to Evaluate Alternative Career 
        Track for Commissioned Officers to Facilitate an 
        Increased Commitment to Academic and Professional 
        Education and Career-Broadening Assignments..............   310
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   312
      Section 671--Participation of Members of the Armed Forces 
        Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 
        Program in Active Duty Health Profession Loan Repayment 
        Program..................................................   312
      Section 672--Retention of Enlistment, Reenlistment, and 
        Student Loan Benefits Received by Military Technicians 
        (Dual Status)............................................   312
      Section 673--Cancellation of Loans of Members of the Armed 
        Forces Made from Student Loan Funds......................   312

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   312
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   312
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   314
      Comparative Cognitive Test Study...........................   314
      Comparative Effectiveness of Neuroimaging Modalities on the 
        Detection of Traumatic Brain Injury......................   314
      Continuation of Health Insurance for Reservists on Active 
        Duty.....................................................   314
      Delays in Awarding New TRICARE Contracts...................   315
      Development of Non-Addictive Topical Pain Therapeutics.....   315
      Exposure Registry Feasibility Study........................   316
      Feasibility of TRICARE Prime in Certain Commonwealths and 
        Territories of the United States.........................   316
      Former Military Medics and Corpsmen........................   316
      Genitourinary Trauma in the Military.......................   316
      Health Information Technology Interoperability between the 
        Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs..................................................   316
      Medical Technology and Spectrum Sharing....................   317
      Medical Training for Chemical-Biological Casualties........   317
      Outreach Tools Using an Interactive Virtual Agent..........   317
      Pre-Deployment Counseling for Unmarried Service Members 
        with Dependent Children..................................   317
      Study on the Treatment of Service Members of the Active and 
        Reserve Component for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.....   318
      Suicide and the Individual Ready Reserve...................   318
      TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System..............   319
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   319
    Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits..................   319
      Section 701--Extension of Prohibition on Increases in 
        Certain Health Care Costs................................   319
      Section 702--Extension of Dependent Coverage under TRICARE.   319
      Section 703--Survivor Dental Benefits......................   319
      Section 704--Aural Screenings for Members of the Armed 
        Forces...................................................   319
      Section 705--Temporary Prohibition on Increase in 
        Copayments under Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy 
        Benefits Program.........................................   320
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   320
      Section 711--Adminisitration of TRICARE....................   320
      Section 712--Updated Terminology for the Army Medical 
        Service Corps............................................   320
      Section 713--Clarification of Licensure Requirements 
        Applicable to Military Health-Care Professionals who Are 
        Members of the National Guard Performing Duty while in 
        Title 32 Status..........................................   320
      Section 714--Annual Report on Joint Health Care Facilities 
        of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs.........................................   320
      Section 715--Improvements to Oversight of Medical Training 
        for Medical Corps Officers...............................   321
      Section 716--Study on Reimbursement for Costs of Health 
        Care Provided to Ineligible Individuals..................   321
      Section 717--Limitation on Transfer of Funds to Department 
        of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
        Facility Demonstration Project...........................   321
      Section 718--Enterprise Risk Assessment of Health 
        Information Technology Programs..........................   321
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   321
      Section 721--Improving Aural Protection for Members of the 
        Armed Forces.............................................   321
      Section 722--Comprehensive Policy on Neurocognitive 
        Assessment by the Military Health System.................   321
      Section 723--National Casualty Care Research Center........   322
      Section 724--Report on Feasibility of Study on Breast 
        Cancer among Female Members of the Armed Forces..........   322
      Section 725--Assesment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by 
        Military Occupation......................................   322
      Section 726--Visiting NIH Neuroscience Fellowship Program..   322

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   322
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   322
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   323
      Acquisition Oversight for TRICARE Management Agency........   323
      Acquisition Process for Information Technology.............   323
      Advanced Technology Clusters...............................   324
      Application of Berry Amendment to Tents and Related Items..   325
      Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan..   325
      Competition Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Federal 
        Prison Industries........................................   325
      Denial of Award Fees to Contractors for Jeopardizing 
        Government Personnel.....................................   326
      Employment Impact of Military Construction.................   327
      Matters Relating to the Common Database for Tracking 
        Contracts and Contractor Personnel in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan..............................................   327
      Titanium Supply for Defense Uses...........................   329
      Undefinitized Contractual Actions..........................   330
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   330
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   330
      Section 801--Disclosure to Litigation Support Contractors..   330
      Section 802--Designation of F135 and F136 Engine 
        Development and Procurement Programs as Major Subprograms   330
      Section 803--Conforming Amendments Relating to Inclusion of 
        Major Subprograms to Major Defense Acquisition Programs 
        under Various Acquisition-Related Requirements...........   331
      Section 804--Enhancement of Department of Defense Authority 
        to Respond to Combat and Safety Emergencies through Rapid 
        Acquisition and Deployment of Urgently Needed Supplies...   331
      Section 805--Prohibition on Contracts with Entities 
        Engaging in Commercial Activity in the Energy Sector of 
        Iran.....................................................   331
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
        Procedures, and Limitations..............................   332
      Section 811--Extension of Authority to Procure Certain 
        Fibers; Limitation on Specification......................   332
      Section 812--Small Arms Production Industrial Base Matters.   332
      Section 813--Additional Definition Relating to Production 
        of Specialty Metals within the United States.............   332
    Subtitle C--Studies and Reports..............................   332
      Section 821--Studies to Analyze Alternative Models for 
        Acquisition and Funding of Technologies Supporting 
        Network-Centric Operations...............................   332
      Section 822--Annual Joint Report and Comptroller General 
        Review on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan............   333
      Section 823--Extension of Comptroller General Review and 
        Report on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan............   333
      Section 824--Interim Report on Review of Impact of Covered 
        Subsidies on Acquisition of KC-45 Aircraft...............   333
      Section 825--Reports on Joint Capabilities Integration and 
        Development System.......................................   333
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   334
      Section 831--Extension of Authority for Defense Acquisition 
        Challenge Program........................................   334
      Section 832--Energy Savings Performance Contracts..........   334
      Section 833--Consideration of Sustainable Practices in 
        Procurement of Products and Services.....................   334
      Section 834--Definition of Materials Critical to National 
        Security.................................................   334
      Section 835--Determination of Strategic or Critical Rare 
        Earth Materials for Defense Applications.................   335
      Section 836--Review of National Security Exception to 
        Competition..............................................   335
      Section 837--Inclusion of Bribery in Disclosure 
        Requirements of the Federal Awardee Performance and 
        Integrity Information System.............................   336
      Section 838--Requirement for Entities with Facility 
        Clearances that are not under Foreign Ownership Control 
        or Influence Mitigation..................................   336

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   336
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   336
      Advisory Panel on Improving Interagency National Security 
        Coordination.............................................   336
      Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage................   337
      Augmentation of Army Brigade Combat Teams to Advise and 
        Assist Foreign Security Forces...........................   337
      Certification and Accreditation Process for Information 
        Technology Programs......................................   338
      Common Alignment of World Regions in the Internal 
        Organization of Departments and Agencies with 
        International Responsibilities...........................   339
      Intelligence Information Sharing...........................   339
      Personnel Management Policy and Plans Affecting Special 
        Operations Forces........................................   340
      Senior Workforce in the Business Transformation Agency.....   340
      Strategic Management Plan..................................   341
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   341
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   341
      Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as 
        the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps..............   341
      Section 902--Realignment of the Organizational Structure of 
        the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Carry Out the 
        Reduction Required by Law in the Number of Deputy Under 
        Secretaries of Defense...................................   341
      Section 903--Unified Medical Command.......................   342
    Subtitle B--Space Activities.................................   342
      Section 911--Integrated Space Architectures................   342
    Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters.....................   343
      Section 921--5-Year Extension of Authority for Secretary of 
        Defense to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security 
        for Intelligence Collection Activities...................   343
      Section 922--Space and Counterspace Intelligence Analysis..   343
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   344
      Section 931--Revisions to the Board of Regents for the 
        Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.....   344
      Section 932--Increased Flexibility for Combatant Commander 
        Initiative Fund..........................................   344
      Section 933--Two-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Temporary Waiver of Reimbursement of Costs of Activities 
        for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of Defense 
        Regional Centers for Security Studies....................   344
      Section 934--Additional Requirements for Quadrennial Roles 
        and Missions Review in 2011..............................   344
      Section 935--Codification of Congressional Notification 
        Requirement before Permanent Relocation of Any United 
        States Military Unit Stationed outside the United States.   344

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   345
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   345
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   345
    Counterterrorism.............................................   345
      Counterterrorism Initiatives...............................   345
      Countering Extremist Use of the Internet...................   348
      Countering Network-Based Threats...........................   348
      Defense Threat Reduction Agency Mission and Resourcing.....   349
      Rotary-Wing Assets for United States Special Operations 
        Forces...................................................   349
      Strategies for Countering Irregular Warfare Challenges.....   350
    Interagency Coordination.....................................   351
      Center for Strategic Communications and Public Diplomacy...   351
      Force Protection Policies..................................   352
      Funding of National Security Requirements..................   352
      Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center.....................   352
      Policy and Guidance for Defense Support of Civil 
        Authorities..............................................   353
      Report on the Potential Use of Joint Improvised Explosive 
        Device Defeat Organization Initiatives to Support 
        Humanitarian Mine Action.................................   354
      Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base.........................   354
    Other Matters................................................   355
      Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program.............   355
      Feasibility Study for Transfer of Aircraft to Non-Federal 
        Entities.................................................   357
      Impact Assessment of Cybersecurity Standards...............   358
      Knowledge Management for Information Operations Programs...   359
      Military Liaison Elements..................................   359
      Rebalancing of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Force.......   360
      Report on Acquisition Strategy for Organizational Clothing 
        and Individual Equipment.................................   361
      Report on Department of Defense Support to State Defense 
        Forces...................................................   361
      Study on the Feasibility of the Democratic Republic of 
        Georgia as a Transportation Base.........................   361
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   362
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   362
      Section 1001--General Transfer Authority...................   362
      Section 1002--Authorization of Additional Appropriations 
        for Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti for Fiscal 
        Year 2010................................................   362
      Section 1003--Budgetary Effects of this Act................   362
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   362
      Section 1011--Unified Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism 
        Campaign in Colombia.....................................   362
      Section 1012--Joint Task Forces Support to Law Enforcement 
        Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism Activities..........   362
      Section 1013--Reporting Requirement on Expenditures to 
        Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities..................   363
      Section 1014--Support for Counter-Drug Activities of 
        Certain Foreign Governments..............................   363
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   363
      Section 1021--Requirements for Long-Range Plan for 
        Construction of Naval Vessels............................   363
      Section 1022--Requirements for the Decommissioning of Naval 
        Vessels..................................................   363
      Section 1023--Requirements for the Size of the Navy Battle 
        Force Fleet..............................................   364
      Section 1024--Retention and Status of Certain Naval Vessels   364
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   364
      Section 1031--Extension of Certain Authority for Making 
        Rewards for Combating Terrorism..........................   364
      Section 1032--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the 
        Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United 
        States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...............   364
      Section 1033--Certification Requirements Relating to the 
        Transfer of Individuals Detained at United States Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and 
        Other Foreign Entities...................................   365
      Section 1034--Prohibition on the Use of Funds to Modify or 
        Construct Facilities in the United States to House 
        Detainees Transferred from United States Naval Station, 
        Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.....................................   366
      Section 1035--Comprehensive Review of Force Protection 
        Policies.................................................   367
      Section 1036--Fort Hood Follow-On Review Implementation 
        Fund.....................................................   367
      Section 1037--Inspector General Investigation of the 
        Conduct and Practices of Lawyers Representing Individuals 
        Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba..........   367
    Subtitle E--Studies and Reports..............................   367
      Section 1041--Department of Defense Aerospace-Related 
        Mishap Safety Investigation Reports......................   367
      Section 1042--Interagency National Security Knowledge and 
        Skills...................................................   368
      Section 1043--Report on Establishing a Northeast Regional 
        Joint Training Center....................................   368
      Section 1044--Comptroller General Report on Previously 
        Requested Reports........................................   368
      Section 1045--Report on Nuclear Triad......................   369
      Section 1046--Cybersecurity Study and Report...............   369
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   369
      Section 1051--National Defense Panel.......................   369
      Section 1052--Quadrennial Defense Review...................   369
      Section 1053--Sale of Surplus Military Equipment to State 
        and Local Homeland Security and Emergency Management 
        Agencies.................................................   370
      Section 1054--Department of Defense Rapid Innovation 
        Program..................................................   370
      Section 1055--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   370
      Section 1056--Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 
        Force Structure Announcement Implementation..............   370
      Section 1057--Budgeting for the Sustainment and 
        Modernization of Nuclear Delivery Systems................   371
      Section 1058--Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions.......   371
      Section 1059--Sense of Congress on the Nuclear Posture 
        Review...................................................   372
      Section 1060--Strategic Assessment of Strategic Challenges 
        Posed by Potential Competitors...........................   372
      Section 1061--Electronic Access to Certain Classified 
        Information..............................................   372
      Section 1062--Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism.   372
      Section 1063--Policy regarding Appropriate Use of 
        Department of Defense Resources..........................   373
      Section 1064--Executive Agent for Preventing the 
        Introduction of Counterfeit Microelectronics into the 
        Defense Supply Chain.....................................   373

TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   373
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   373
      Civilian Personnel Authorizations..........................   373
      Conversion of Department of Defense Civilian Positions to 
        General Schedule.........................................   374
      Deployed Civilians.........................................   374
      Retirement Eligibility for Department of Defense Fire 
        Fighters.................................................   375
      Scholarship Program for Civilians in the Mental Health 
        Profession...............................................   375
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   376
      Section 1101--Authority for the Department of Defense to 
        Approve an Alternate Method of Processing Equal 
        Employment Opportunity Complaints within One or More 
        Component Organizations under Specified Circumstances....   376
      Section 1102--Clarification of Authorities at Personnel 
        Demonstration Laboratories...............................   376
      Section 1103--Special Rule Relating to Certain Overtime Pay   377
      Section 1104--One-Year Extension of Authority to Waive 
        Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation 
        on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas...   377
      Section 1105--Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations............   377
      Section 1106--Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators....   378
      Section 1107--Authority to Waive Maximum Age Limit for 
        Certain Appointments.....................................   378
      Section 1108--Sense of Congress regarding Waiver of 
        Recovery of Certain Payments Made under Civilian 
        Employees Voluntary Separation Incentive Program.........   379
      Section 1109--Suspension of DCIPS Pay Authority Extended 
        for a Year...............................................   379

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   380
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   380
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   381
      Air Force Requirements for Light Air Support Aircraft......   381
      Annual Report on Security Developments Involving the 
        People's Republic of China...............................   382
      Concerns Regarding Iraqi Contractor Employees..............   382
      Countering Narcotics in Afghanistan........................   382
      Counterinsurgency Efforts in Pakistan......................   383
      Cyber Attacks Involving China..............................   383
      Future Agreements with the Government of Iraq..............   384
      Non-Standard Rotary-Wing Study.............................   384
      Realignment of U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam.............   385
      Resources for Success in Afghanistan and Policy against 
        Arbitrary Limitations on Deployed Personnel..............   385
      Security Concerns Involving North Korea....................   386
      Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for 
        Afghanistan..............................................   386
      Support for United States Special Operations Forces during 
        the Redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.   388
      Transition in Iraq.........................................   388
      United States Africa Command Intelligence and Knowledge 
        Development Directorate..................................   389
      U.S. Forces Korea Transfer of Wartime Operational Control 
        of Republic of Korea Forces..............................   389
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   390
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   390
      Section 1201--Expansion of Authority for Support of Special 
        Operations to Combat Terrorism...........................   390
      Section 1202--Addition of Allied Government Agencies to 
        Enhanced Logistics Interoperability Authority............   390
      Section 1203--Modification and Extension of Authorities 
        Relating to Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign 
        Military Forces..........................................   390
      Section 1204--Air Force Scholarships for Partnership for 
        Peace Nations to Participate in the Euro-NATO Joint Jet 
        Pilot Training Program...................................   391
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
      Pakistan...................................................   391
      Section 1211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Certain Purposes Relating to Iraq........................   391
      Section 1212--Commanders' Emergency Response Program.......   391
      Section 1213--Modification of Authority for Reimbursement 
        to Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to 
        United States Military Operations........................   392
      Section 1214--Modification of Report on Responsible 
        Redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.....   392
      Section 1215--Modification of Reports Relating to 
        Afghanistan..............................................   392
      Section 1216--No Permanent Military Bases in Afghanistan...   393
      Section 1217--Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration 
        Activities in Afghanistan................................   393
      Section 1218--One-Year Extension of Pakistan 
        Counterinsurgency Fund...................................   393
      Section 1219--Authority to Use Funds to Provide Support to 
        Coalition Forces Supporting Military and Stability 
        Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.......................   394
      Section 1220--Requirement to Provide United States Brigade 
        and Equivalent Units Deployed to Afghanistan with the 
        Commensurate Level of Unit and Theater-Wide Combat 
        Enablers.................................................   394
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   394
      Section 1231--NATO Special Operations Coordination Center..   394
      Section 1232--National Military Strategic Plan to Counter 
        Iran.....................................................   394
      Section 1233--Report on Department of Defense's Plans to 
        Reform the Export Control System.........................   394
      Section 1234--Report on the United States Efforts to Defend 
        against Threats Posed by the Advanced Anti-Access 
        Capability of Potentially Hostile Foreign Countries......   395
      Section 1235--Report on Force Structure Changes in 
        Composition and Capabilities at Military Installations in 
        Europe...................................................   395
      Section 1236--Sense of Congress on Missile Defense and New 
        START Treaty with Russian Federation.....................   396

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   396
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   396
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   397
      Biological Threat Reduction................................   397
      Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and Military Contacts 
        Program..................................................   398
      Metrics for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.......   398
      New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Program..................................................   398
      Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project............   399
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   399
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   399
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   399

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   399
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   399
      Department of Defense Inspector General Growth Plan........   399
      Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, Restoration, and 
        Modernization............................................   400
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   400
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   400
      Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................   400
      Section 1402--Study on Working Capital Fund Cash Balances..   400
      Section 1403--Modification of Certain Working Capital Fund 
        Requirements.............................................   401
      Section 1404--Reduction of Unobligated Balances within the 
        Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund..........   402
      Section 1405--National Defense Sealift Fund................   402
      Section 1406--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 
        Defense..................................................   402
      Section 1407--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities, Defense-Wide.................................   402
      Section 1408--Defense Inspector General....................   402
      Section 1409--Defense Health Program.......................   402
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   403
      Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 
        Funds....................................................   403
      Section 1412--Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for 
        Previously Authorized Disposals from the National Defense 
        Stockpile................................................   403
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   403
      Section 1421--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed 
        Forces Retirement Home...................................   403
      Section 1422--Plan for Funding Fuel Infrastructure 
        Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization Requirements.   403

TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
    CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.......................................   408
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   408
  SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS................................   408
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   443
      F-35A Aircraft.............................................   443
      Force Protection Measures on United States Forward 
        Operating Bases in Afghanistan...........................   443
      H-60 Modifications.........................................   444
      Iraq Security Forces Fund..................................   444
      Marine Corps Radio Systems.................................   445
      Special Operations Funding for Overseas Operations.........   445
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   446
      Section 1501--Purpose......................................   446
      Section 1502--Army Procurement.............................   446
      Section 1503--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund   446
      Section 1504--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement............   446
      Section 1505--Air Force Procurement........................   446
      Section 1506--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement..........   446
      Section 1507--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program.   446
      Section 1508--National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........   447
      Section 1509--Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund.   447
      Section 1510--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..   447
      Section 1511--Operation and Maintenance....................   447
      Section 1512--Limitations on Availability of Funds in 
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.........................   447
      Section 1513--Limitations on Iraq Security Forces Fund.....   447
      Section 1514--Military Personnel...........................   448
      Section 1515--Working Capital Funds........................   448
      Section 1516--Defense Health Program.......................   448
      Section 1517--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities, Defense-Wide.................................   448
      Section 1518--Defense Inspector General....................   448
      Section 1519--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United 
        States Funds for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq.....   448
      Section 1520--Availability of Funds for Rapid Force 
        Protection in Afghanistan................................   448
      Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations.......   449
      Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority...................   449

TITLE XVI--IMPROVED SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE IN THE 
    ARMED FORCES.................................................   449
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   449
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   449
      Improved Coordination between Military and Civilian Law 
        Enforcement in Response to Sexual Assaults Involving a 
        Service Member...........................................   449
      Inclusion of Community Organizations.......................   450
      Reduced Delays for Convening Courts-Martial Involving 
        Charges of Sexual Assault................................   450
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   450
      Section 1601--Definition of Department of Defense Sexual 
        Assault Prevention and Response Program and Other 
        Definitions..............................................   450
    Subtitle A--Immediate Actions to Improve Department of 
        Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program...   450
      Section 1611--Specific Budgeting for Department of Defense 
        Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program...........   450
      Section 1612--Consistency in Terminology, Position 
        Descriptions, Program Standards, and Organizational 
        Structures...............................................   450
      Section 1613--Guidance for Commanders......................   451
      Section 1614--Commander Consultation with Victims of Sexual 
        Assault..................................................   451
      Section 1615--Oversight and Evaluation.....................   451
      Section 1616--Sexual Assault Reporting Hotline.............   451
      Section 1617--Review of Application of Sexual Assault 
        Prevention and Response Program to Reserve Components....   451
      Section 1618--Review of Effectiveness of Revised Uniform 
        Code of Military Justice Offenses regarding Rape, Sexual 
        Assault, and Other Sexual Misconduct.....................   452
      Section 1619--Training and Education Programs for Sexual 
        Assault Prevention and Response Program..................   452
      Section 1620--Use of Sexual Assault Forensic Medical 
        Examiners................................................   452
      Section 1621--Sexual Assault Advisory Board................   452
      Section 1622--Department of Defense Sexual Assault Advisory 
        Council..................................................   452
      Section 1623--Service-Level Sexual Assault Review Boards...   453
      Section 1624--Renewed Emphasis on Acquisition of 
        Centralized Department of Defense Sexual Assault Database   453
    Subtitle B--Sexual Assault Prevention Strategy and Annual 
        Reporting Requirement....................................   453
      Section 1631--Comprehensive Department of Defense Sexual 
        Assault Prevention Strategy..............................   453
      Section 1632--Annual Report on Sexual Assaults Involving 
        Members of the Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Prevention 
        and Response Program.....................................   453
    Subtitle C--Amendments to Title 10...........................   454
      Section 1641--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office   454
      Section 1642--Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and 
        Sexual Assault Victim Advocates..........................   454
      Section 1643--Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal 
        Counsel and Victim Advocate Services.....................   455
      Section 1644--Notification of Command of Outcome of Court-
        Martial Involving Charges of Sexual Assault..............   455
      Section 1645--Copy of Record of Court-Martial to Victim of 
        Sexual Assault Involving a Member of the Armed Forces....   455
      Section 1646--Medical Care for Victims of Sexual Assault...   455
      Section 1647--Privilege against Disclosure of Certain 
        Communications with Sexual Assault Victim Advocates......   456
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   456
      Section 1661--Recruiter Selection and Oversight............   456
      Section 1662--Availability of Services under Sexual Assault 
        Prevention and Response Program for Dependents of 
        Members, Military Retirees, Department of Defense 
        Civilian Employees, and Defense Contractor Employees.....   456
      Section 1663--Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and 
        Response Program in Training Environments................   456
      Section 1664--Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and 
        Response Program in Remote Environments and Joint Basing 
        Situations...............................................   457

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   457
  PURPOSE........................................................   457
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW..............   457
      Section 2001--Short Title..................................   489
      Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to Be Specified by Law..........................   489
      Section 2003--Effective Date...............................   489
      Section 2004--General Reduction across Division............   489

TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   489
  SUMMARY........................................................   489
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   489
      Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, Land Disposal..................   489
      Fort Bragg Parking Concerns due to BRAC Force Structure....   490
      Quarters #1, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois.................   490
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   490
      Planning and Design, Army..................................   492
      Unspecified Minor Construction, Army.......................   492
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   492
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   492
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   492
      Section 2103--Use of Unobligated Army Military Construction 
        Funds in Conjunction with Funds Provided by the 
        Commonwealth of Virginia to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 
        2002 Project.............................................   492
      Section 2104--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2009 Project.........................   493
      Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project.........................   493
      Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Projects.......................................   493

TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   493
  SUMMARY........................................................   493
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   493
      Defense Access Road Assessment to Support Naval Support 
        Activity, Northwest Annex, Virginia......................   493
      Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range...................   493
      Planning and Design, Navy..................................   494
      Silver Strand Training Complex, California.................   494
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   494
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   494
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   495
      Section 2203--Technical Amendment to Reflect Multi-
        Increment Fiscal Year 2010 Project.......................   495
      Section 2204--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Project........................................   495

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   495
  SUMMARY........................................................   495
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   495
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   495
      F-22 Raptor Basing.........................................   496
      Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah......   496
      Planning and Design, Air Force.............................   496
      Unspecified Minor Construction, Air Force..................   496
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   497
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   497
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   497
      Section 2303--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2007 Project........................................   497

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   497
  SUMMARY........................................................   497
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   497
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   497
      Planning and Design, Defense-Wide..........................   498
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   498
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   498
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of 
        Appropriations...........................................   498
      Section 2402--Family Housing...............................   498
      Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects.................   498
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   498
      Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
        Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide..............   498
      Section 2412--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Project.........................   499

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
    PROGRAM......................................................   499
  SUMMARY........................................................   499
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   499
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   499
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   499

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   499
  SUMMARY........................................................   499
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   499
      Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station..........................   499
      Planning and Design, Air National Guard....................   500
      Planning and Design, Army National Guard...................   500
      Stratton Air National Guard Base...........................   501
      Unspecified Minor Construction, Air National Guard.........   501
      Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard........   501
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   501
      Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of 
        Appropriations...........................................   501
      Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   502
      Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
        Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and 
        Authorization of Appropriations..........................   502
      Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of 
        Appropriations...........................................   502
      Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of 
        Appropriations...........................................   502
      Section 2606--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Projects.......................................   502

TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   503
  SUMMARY........................................................   503
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   503
      Defense Access Roads Assessment............................   503
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   504
    Subtitle A--Authorizations...................................   504
      Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990..........   504
      Section 2702--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure 
        Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 
        Closure Account 2005.....................................   504
      Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005..........   504
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   504
      Section 2711--Transportation Plan for BRAC 133 Project 
        under Fort Belvoir, Virginia, BRAC Initiative............   504

TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   504
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   504
      Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques to 
        Achieve Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities.............   504
      Carbon Fiber Grid Precast Concrete.........................   505
      Collaborative Efforts to Address Installation Encroachment.   505
      Department of Defense Policy Regarding Installation Energy 
        Management...............................................   506
      Disposal Plans for Excess and Obsolete Facilities..........   506
      East Coast Homeport Cost Assessment........................   507
      Enhanced Use Leases........................................   507
      Ensuring Realistic Air-to-Air Training for Fifth-Generation 
        Aircraft Units...........................................   508
      Future Unmanned Aerial Systems Training, Operations, and 
        Sustainability...........................................   509
      Guam Civilian Infrastructure Requirements to Support and 
        Sustain Realignment of Military Installations and the 
        Relocation of Military Personnel on Guam.................   509
      Naval Air Station North Island Transportation Improvements.   510
      Naval Station Mayport, Florida, Homeporting Alternatives...   510
      Report on Workforce Housing and Medical Needs of Guest 
        Workers on Guam..........................................   511
      Sensors Center of Excellence--Wright-Patterson Air Force 
        Base, Ohio...............................................   512
      Technologies to Achieve Progressive Collapse Resistance....   513
      Vulnerability of Defense Critical Infrastructure to 
        Electromagnetic Pulse Attack.............................   513
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   514
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   514
      Section 2801--Availability of Military Construction 
        Information on Internet..................................   514
      Section 2802--Authority to Transfer Proceeds from Sale of 
        Military Family Housing to Department of Defense Family 
        Housing Improvement Fund.................................   514
      Section 2803--Enhanced Authority for Provision of Excess 
        Contributions for NATO Security Investment Program.......   514
      Section 2804--Duration of Authority to Use Pentagon 
        Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund for Construction 
        and Repairs at Pentagon Reservation......................   514
      Section 2805--Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance 
        Funds for Construction Projects inside the United States 
        Central Command Area of Responsibility...................   514
      Section 2806--Veterans to Work Pilot Program for Military 
        Construction Projects....................................   515
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   515
      Section 2811--Notice-and-Wait Requirements Applicable to 
        Real Property Transactions...............................   515
      Section 2812--Treatment of Proceeds Generated from Leases 
        of Non-Excess Property Involving Military Museums........   515
      Section 2813--Repeal of Expired Authority to Lease Land for 
        Special Operations Activities............................   515
      Section 2814--Former Naval Bombardment Area, Culebra 
        Island, Puerto Rico......................................   515
    Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment...........   515
      Section 2821--Sense of Congress regarding Importance of 
        Providing Community Adjustment Assistance to Government 
        of Guam..................................................   515
      Section 2822--Department of Defense Assistance for 
        Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of Military 
        Installations and Relocation of Military Personnel on 
        Guam.....................................................   516
      Section 2823--Extension of Term of Deputy Secretary of 
        Defense's Leadership of Guam Oversight Council...........   516
      Section 2824--Utility Conveyances to Support Integrated 
        Water and Wastewater Treatment System on Guam............   516
      Section 2825--Report on Types of Facilities Required to 
        Support Guam Realignment.................................   516
      Section 2826--Report on Civilian Infrastructure Needs for 
        Guam.....................................................   517
      Section 2827--Comptroller General Report on Planned 
        Replacement Naval Hospital on Guam.......................   517
    Subtitle D--Energy Security..................................   517
      Section 2831--Consideration of Environmentally Sustainable 
        Practices in Department Energy Performance Plan..........   517
      Section 2832--Plan and Implementation Guidelines for 
        Achieving Department of Defense Goal regarding Use of 
        Renewable Energy to Meet Facility Energy Needs...........   517
      Section 2833--Insulation Retrofitting Assessment for 
        Department of Defense Facilities.........................   517
    Subtitle E--Land Conveyances.................................   518
      Section 2841--Conveyance of Personal Property Related to 
        Waste-to-Energy Power Plant Serving Eielson Air Force 
        Base, Alaska.............................................   518
      Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Whittier Petroleum, Oil, and 
        Lubricant Tank Farm, Whittier, Alaska....................   518
      Section 2843--Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky.........   518
      Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Naval Support Activity (West 
        Bank), New Orleans, Louisiana............................   518
      Section 2845--Land Conveyance, Former Navy Extremely Low 
        Frequency Communications Project Site, Republic, Michigan   518
      Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Marine Forces Reserve 
        Center, Wilmington, North Carolina.......................   518
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   519
      Section 2851--Requirements Related to Providing World Class 
        Military Medical Facilities..............................   519
      Section 2852--Naming of Armed Forces Reserve Center, 
        Middletown, Connecticut..................................   519

TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION   519
  SUMMARY........................................................   519
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   524
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   524
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   524
    Subtitle A--Fiscal Year 2010 Projects........................   524
      Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   524
      Section 2902--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   524
    Subtitle B--Fiscal Year 2011 Projects........................   524
      Section 2911--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   524
      Section 2912--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   524
      Section 2913--Authorized Defense-Wide Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations.   525
      Section 2914--Construction Authorization for National 
        Security Agency Facilities in a Foreign Country..........   525
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   525
      Section 2921--Notification of Obligation of Funds and 
        Quarterly Reports........................................   525

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   525

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   525
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   525
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   539
    National Nuclear Security Administration.....................   539
      Overview...................................................   539
      Weapons Activities.........................................   539
          Stockpile Stewardship..................................   539
          Stockpile Management...................................   540
        Directed Stockpile Work..................................   541
          Stockpile Surveillance.................................   541
          B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Life Extension Study................   541
        Science Campaign.........................................   542
        Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
          Campaign...............................................   542
        Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign...............   542
        Readiness Campaign.......................................   542
        Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities...............   543
        Use of prior year balances...............................   543
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................   544
        Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
          Development............................................   545
          Radiation detection technology.........................   545
        Nonproliferation and International Security..............   545
          Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention........   546
          Global Nuclear Energy Partnership......................   546
        International Nuclear Materials Protection and 
          Cooperation............................................   547
          Second Line of Defense.................................   547
        Fissile Materials Disposition............................   547
          United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition....   547
          Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition..........   547
        Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......................   548
      Report on Securing Vulnerable Nuclear Materials............   548
      Naval Reactors.............................................   548
      Office of the Administrator................................   549
    Environmental and Other Defense Activities...................   549
      Overview...................................................   549
      Defense Environmental Cleanup..............................   549
        Execution of Funding Provided for Defense Environmental 
          Cleanup by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act..   549
        Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.................   550
      Other Defense Activities...................................   550
      Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................   551
      Report on Defense Repository at Yucca Mountain.............   551
      Closing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository...........   551
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   552
    Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations.........   552
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   552
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................   552
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   552
      Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................   552
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   552
      Section 3111--Extension of Authority Relating to the 
        International Materials Protection, Control, and 
        Accounting Program of the Department of Energy...........   552
      Section 3112--Energy Parks Initiative......................   552
      Section 3113--Establishment of Technology Transfer Centers.   552
      Section 3114--Aircraft Procurement.........................   553
    Subtitle C--Reports..........................................   553
      Section 3121--Comptroller General Report on NNSA Biennial 
        Complex Modernization Strategy...........................   553
      Section 3122--Report on Graded Security Protection Policy..   553

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   553
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   553
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   553
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   553

TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   553
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   553
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   553

TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   554
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   554
      Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National 
        Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 
        2011.....................................................   554
      Section 3502--Extension of Maritime Security Fleet Program.   554
      Section 3503--United States Merchant Marine Academy 
        Nominations of Residents of the Northern Mariana Islands.   554
      Section 3504--Administrative Expenses for Port of Guam 
        Improvement Enterprise Program...........................   554
      Section 3505--Vessel Loan Guarantees: Procedures for 
        Traditional and Nontraditional Applications..............   554
Departmental Data................................................   555
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   555
Committee Position...............................................   563
Communications from Other Committees.............................   563
Fiscal Data......................................................   576
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   576
  Committee Cost Estimate........................................   577
Compliance with House Rule XXI...................................   577
Oversight Findings...............................................   590
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   590
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   591
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act...............   591
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   591
Federal Advisory Committee Statement.............................   591
Applicability to the Legislative Branch..........................   592
Record Votes.....................................................   592
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   601
Additional Views.................................................   602
  Additional views of Mr. Marshall...............................   602
  Additional views of Mr. McKeon, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Thornberry, 
    Mr. Akin, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Miller, Mr. Wilson, Mr. LoBiondo, 
    Mr. Bishop, Mr. Turner, Mr. Kline, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Franks, 
    Mr. Shuster, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Lamborn, 
    Mr. Wittman, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Hunter, Dr. Fleming, Mr. 
    Coffman, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Platts..............................   604
  Additional views of Mr. Turner.................................   609



111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-491

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



 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                _______
                                

  May 21, 2010.--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 VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5136]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 5136) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
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. 5136. 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 2011 for procurement and for research, development, test 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2011 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2011: (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 2011 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for overseas 
contingency operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2011 for the Department of Energy national security 
programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2011 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 
$725.9 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the 
Armed Services Committee for fiscal year 2011. Of this amount, 
$548.9 billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense 
programs, $159.3 billion was requested for the overseas 
contingency operations requirements covering the entire fiscal 
year, and $17.7 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 $725.9 billion in fiscal year 2011, including 
$159.3 billion for overseas contingency operations. The base 
committee authorization of $566.6 billion is a $16.4 billion 
increase above the levels provided for in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
    The committee also recognizes the request from the 
Department of Defense for additional authorization in fiscal 
year 2010 for increases in overseas contingency operations and 
for humanitarian and disaster assistance to assist victims 
following the earthquake in Haiti. The committee recommends an 
additional $33.7 billion in supplemental authorizations in 
fiscal year 2010.
    The following table summarizes the committee's recommended 
discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for 
fiscal year 2011 and compares these amounts to the President's 
request.


                      BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

    The President's total request for the national defense 
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2011 is $739.3 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 2011, and mandatory programs.
    The following table details changes to all aspects of the 
national defense budget function.


                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011, 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 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 DOD, and the Department of 
Energy's (DOE) 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, and relief operations in the Republic 
of Haiti. 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: enhancing authorities and capabilities 
for counterterrorism; strengthening and modernizing missile 
defenses; enhancing efforts to reduce and secure nuclear 
materials around the world; taking care of our troops and their 
families; restoring military readiness: resourcing the 
President's counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan; 
enhancing support for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 
transitioning in Iraq; eliminating waste and recovering savings 
through acquisition reform; and maintaining robust oversight.
    H.R. 5136 authorizes $566.6 billion in budget authority for 
the DOD and the national security programs of the DOE. The 
committee also authorizes $159.3 billion to support overseas 
contingency operations during fiscal year 2011, and authorizes 
$33.7 billion for fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations 
for overseas contingency operations. The committee provides the 
resources necessary to support a 21st century military 
strategy; sustain the armed forces in the two wars they are 
fighting today; and prepare for the threats of tomorrow, 
whatever and wherever they may be.
    The committee makes counterterrorism a priority, providing 
the armed forces with the additional tools they need to 
disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qa'ida and its 
extremist allies. The committee includes funds to implement the 
initial recommendations of the Fort Hood Follow-on Review 
conducted by the Department of Defense in the wake of the 
shooting at Fort Hood. It also builds upon past efforts and 
creates new initiatives to discredit extremist ideology. The 
committee increases funds for research and for taking 
additional steps to counter the use the Internet by extremists. 
It also addresses urgent force protection needs in Afghanistan, 
allowing the Department to cut through red tape by expanding 
rapid acquisition authority to deliver the resources needed to 
protect our troops. The committee enhances the capacity of the 
armed forces, specifically special operations forces, to act 
directly against terrorist organizations.
    Recognizing the important role that foreign nations play in 
the fight against terrorists, the committee expands funding to 
build the partnership capacity of foreign military forces to 
participate in support of military and stability operations and 
authorizes a joint Department of Defense and Department of 
State effort to train and equip non-military security forces in 
the Republic of Yemen. It authorizes coalition support funds to 
reimburse nations providing support in connection with the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan and with the broader counterterrorism 
and counterinsurgency mission in Pakistan to fight against al 
Qa'ida, the Pakistan Taliban, and other violent extremists. The 
committee also extends the authorization of the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund to ensure the success of efforts to 
build the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan's security 
forces.
    The committee supports the President's new 
counterinsurgency strategy in the war in Afghanistan. To better 
reflect the new strategy, the committee requires a new semi-
annual report on trends and developments in Afghanistan and 
requires reporting on progress in stopping the momentum of the 
Taliban and their allies, building the capacity of the Afghan 
National Security Forces, and building the capacity of the 
Afghan Government. The committee bill also continues close 
congressional oversight of operations in Iraq, requiring 
reports focused on the redeployment of U.S. troops and their 
equipment over the next few months, and on the development of 
military capabilities that are necessary for the Government of 
Iraq to stand on its own.
    The committee prepares America to deal with 21st century 
threats such as weapons of mass destruction. The committee 
provides $10.3 billion, an increase of $361.6 million above the 
budget request, for ballistic missile defense and in support of 
the Administration's Phased Adaptive Approach, which addresses 
immediate needs. To prevent the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction and to reduce the risk that these weapons could 
fall into terrorists' hands, the committee fully funds the DOD 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and DOE's nonproliferation 
program, which includes funding for the President's plan to 
secure and remove all known vulnerable nuclear materials that 
can be used for weapons.
    The men and women that make up the armed forces are the 
heart and soul of our national security. The committee makes 
sure that our troops and their loved ones are receiving the 
first class benefits that they deserve. To improve the quality 
of life for our forces and their families, the committee 
provides a 1.9 percent pay raise for all service members, 
continuing efforts to reduce the pay raise gap between the 
uniformed services and the private sector. The committee bill 
increases the maximum amount of hostile fire and imminent 
danger pay for the first time since 2004, and increases family 
separation allowance for service members whose deployment or 
temporary duty requires them to live away from their families. 
The committee allows TRICARE beneficiaries to extend coverage 
to their dependent children until age 26, the same benefit that 
was afforded to individuals with private insurance policies in 
separate health care legislation passed earlier this year. 
Other initiatives to support military families include $345.0 
million to modernize DOD schools, $65.0 million for Impact Aid 
education programs, and the creation of a new career 
development pilot program for military spouses.
    The strain of two wars has taken a toll on military 
readiness. To boost readiness and reduce the strain on our 
forces, the committee increases the size of the military by 
7,000 Army troops and 500 Air Force personnel, which supports 
the President's budget request. The committee significantly 
increases operation and maintenance funding to support the 
daily operations, training, and administration of U.S. military 
forces at home and abroad. The committee also provides critical 
funds to restore equipment stocks, including $9.9 billion for 
Army and Marine Corps equipment reset and depot maintenance, 
$4.5 billion for depot maintenance of active and reserve Air 
Force aircraft, and $109.0 million for Navy ship and aircraft 
depot maintenance. To address national guard and reserve 
equipment shortfalls, the committee authorizes $7.2 billion to 
provide aircraft missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, 
ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, and other equipment.
    To help prepare the armed forces for future military 
requirements, the committee authorizes major weapon programs 
and platforms that will protect our national security in the 
years ahead. Demonstrating the committee's commitment to 
reverse the decline in the size of the Navy fleet, the 
committee authorizes 9 new ships, including 2 Virginia-class 
submarines, 2 DDG 51 destroyers, and 2 Littoral Combat Ships. 
The committee also authorizes the F-35 competitive engine 
program, a necessary insurance policy for the F-35 Lightning II 
aircraft program that will generate long-term savings for 
taxpayers and also reduce the national security risk of 
depending on a single engine for ultimately 95 percent of our 
nation's fighter fleet.
    In keeping with the committee's interest and longstanding 
defense policy oversight, the committee seeks to improve the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process. The committee 
replaces the QDR Independent Review Panel appointed by the 
Secretary of Defense with a National Defense Panel consisting 
of ten members, with the Secretary of Defense appointing two 
panel co-chairs, and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the 
House and Senate Armed Services Committees each appointing two 
members. To assist the Department in maximizing the value of 
the next Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review, the committee 
directs the Department to include a particular focus on 
counterterrorism missions, including in the area of information 
operations, strategic communications, and interrogation and 
detention. In the area of acquisition reform, the committee's 
legislative efforts this year were primarily focused on 
separate legislation, H.R. 5013, the Implementing Management 
for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every 
Acquisition Act of 2010, which separately passed the House of 
Representatives. The committee includes a variety of other 
acquisition related provisions with a particular focus on 
reducing or eliminating the Department's vulnerability in the 
area of strategic materials, and on oversight of contracting in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 results from hearings 
that began on January 13, 2010, and that were completed on May 
5, 2010. The full committee conducted 16 sessions. In addition, 
a total of 38 sessions were conducted by 7 different 
subcommittees and 1 special oversight panel.

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $111.4 
billion for procurement. This represents a $6.3 billion 
increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2010.
    The committee recommends authorization of $111.2 billion, a 
decrease of $131.5 million from the fiscal year 2011 request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
procurement program are identified in the table below.


                       Aircraft Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $6.0 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $6.0 billion, an increase of $9.5 
million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unmanned aerial vehicles

    The budget request contained $44.2 million for Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) unmanned aerial vehicles 
(UAV).
    The committee notes that, despite six years of system 
development work, 2009 limited user test results for Class I 
UAV found significant performance, reliability, and operational 
concept problems with the Class I UAV. Specifically, test 
reports indicate the Class I UAV is too loud and has too short 
a range to be tactically useful in many operations. Also, the 
Class I is intended to be transported and operated at the 
platoon level, but during the test proved unreliable and 
difficult to support and use by platoons, resulting in 
consolidation of the UAVs at the battalion level. The committee 
also notes that sufficient funds have already been provided by 
Congress for the Army to procure the first two brigade sets of 
Class I UAVs, and additional test assets. Based on test results 
to date and the availability of other funds, the committee 
believes that investment in additional brigade sets of Class I 
UAVs is premature.
    The committee recommends $34.7, a decrease of $9.5 million, 
for EIBCT Class I UAVs.

                       Missile Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $1.9 
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.6 billion, a decrease of $256.0 million, 
for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team non-line-of-sight launch system

    The budget request contained $350.6 million for the non-
line-of-sight launch system (NLOS-LS).
    The committee notes that the Army terminated the NLOS-LS 
program in April 2010. As a result, the requested procurement 
funds are not needed.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $350.6 
million, for NLOS-LS procurement.

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System

    The budget request contained $291.0 million for procurement 
of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets.
    The committee supports the GMLRS, which is seeing extensive 
use in Operation Enduring Freedom. However, the committee 
understands that foreign military sales should provide 
production efficiency savings.
    The committee recommends $266.0 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, for GMLRS rockets.

Javelin Block 1 command launch unit requirements

    The committee is concerned that many Army National Guard 
units will not receive the upgraded ``Block 1'' Javelin command 
launch units (CLU), under current fielding plans, even as the 
entire active-duty Army transitions to Block 1 CLUs. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2011, detailing the Block 1 fielding plan, by component, and 
the estimated cost to pure-fleet the entire Army with Block 1 
CLUs.

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Modifications

    The budget request contained $57.2 million for Patriot 
Modifications, but included no funds to outfit an additional 
battalion with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) equipment.
    The U.S. Army Patriot force is on schedule to reach 15 
battalions by 2012. Patriot remains the Department of Defense 
High Demand/Low Density land-based air and missile defense 
capability called upon to support our forces on a global scale. 
In 2007, the Army was authorized to grow the force from 13 to 
15 battalions. Since then, the deployment requirements and 
operational tempo have dramatically increased to include, 
starting in April 2010, open-ended rotations to our North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, the Republic of Poland. 
Patriot soldiers and equipment are deployed today in the United 
States Central Command, United States European Command, and 
United States Pacific Command areas of operation; more than 50 
percent of the force is deployed at any given time. The Army 
has assessed an operational need for further force structure 
but has not programmed the manpower spaces or funding to 
upgrade a 16th existing battalion set of equipment and add it 
to the deployable force structure. Considering the growing 
demand for regional missile defense assets, the committee 
believes further force structure is necessary.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
assess the adequacy of the Patriot force structure to meet 
current and projected global threats to our forces and submit a 
report on the assessment to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2011.
    The committee is also aware that the Army's unfunded 
requirements letter included a request for $133.6 million to 
repair and recertify PAC-3 missiles and to upgrade 24 
additional Patriot launchers to the PAC-3 capability. The 
additional missile procurement funds would provide the depot 
engineering support to shorten the time that some PAC-3 
missiles will be out of the inventory awaiting recertification. 
The additional launcher upgrades would provide operational 
Patriot forces a second PAC-3 capable launcher. Many of the 
PAC-3 capable units ready for deployment have only a single 
PAC-3 capable launcher today (deployed units were provided the 
second launcher as a higher priority requirement). The second 
launcher provides a commander the ability to have more missiles 
ready to fire; an additional launch point; or increased 
confidence and reliability at the unit level compared to a 
single launcher.
    The committee recommends $190.8 million, an increase of 
$133.6 million, for Patriot Modifications.

Stinger missile service life enhancement program

    The committee is concerned that most Stinger missiles could 
exceed their storage life by the end of 2015. The committee 
understands that the Army and Marine Corps are evaluating the 
feasibility of a service life enhancement program (SLEP) as a 
way of mitigating the risk of the aging inventory. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 
2011, that specifies the schedule and cost estimates for the 
proposed SLEP. The report should also contain a cost and 
schedule estimate for lethality enhancements including, but not 
limited to, a proximity fuze.

Surface launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile system

    The budget request contained $116.7 million for the surface 
launched medium range air-to-air missile (SLAMRAAM) system.
    The committee notes that the budget request provides 
procurement funds to acquire six SLAMRAAM launch vehicles and 
nine fire control vehicles. The committee believes that the 
numbers of different vehicles requested should better align 
with fielding and operational plans, which do not require fire 
control vehicles in excess of available launch platforms.
    The committee recommends $102.7 million, a decrease of 
$14.0 million, for SLAMRAAM procurement.

               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $1.7 
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.6 billion, a 
decrease of $107.3 million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


Modular handgun system

    The budget request contained $3.4 million for 5,000 new 
modular handgun systems to replace the M9 pistol.
    This is a new start program for fiscal year 2011. The 
committee notes that neither the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council nor the Army Requirements Oversight Council have 
approved this requirement. Without a validated requirement, the 
committee believes this request lacks the necessary 
justification to proceed.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $3.4 
million, for the modular handgun system.

Paladin Integrated Management program

    The budget request contained $105.3 million for procurement 
of upgraded M109A6 Paladin artillery systems.
    The committee supports the Paladin Integrated Management 
(PIM) program. The committee understands that with the 
cancelation of the Non-Line of Sight Cannon system that the PIM 
program is the Army's only mobile artillery development 
program. However, the committee expects the PIM program to be 
delayed an additional six to eight months, based on technology 
integration challenges. As a result, the expected commencement 
of low-rate initial production is expected to slip into fiscal 
year 2012, obviating the need for procurement funds in fiscal 
year 2011.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $105.3 
million, for PIM vehicle procurement.

Stryker vehicles

    The budget request contained $299.6 million for 83 new 
Stryker vehicles and $591.4 million for Stryker vehicle 
upgrades.
    The committee supports the Stryker vehicle program, and 
believes that Stryker brigades provide the Army with a flexible 
and mobile force with combat capability between light brigades 
and heavy brigades, as originally planned by the Army. The 
committee also supports efforts to evaluate the double-V hull 
upgrade to select Stryker vehicles for service in Operation 
Enduring Freedom. If testing demonstrates the value of the 
double-V hull upgrade, the committee expects the Army to move 
forward quickly with these reconfigured vehicles.
    However, the committee is concerned that the Army's future 
plans for upgrading Stryker vehicles and adding Stryker 
brigades are not clear. Specifically, the committee notes that 
prior year funding appears adequate to equip the eight planned 
Stryker brigades while also providing funds for additional 
maintenance float and training vehicles, yet the Army is 
requesting an additional $299.6 million for new vehicles in 
fiscal year 2011. The committee also understands that as of 
April 2010, the Army has in excess of $850.0 million in 
unobligated Stryker procurement funds dating back to fiscal 
year 2008 funding. While the Army claims to have plans to 
expend these funds on Stryker vehicles, the committee remains 
concerned, given the many other urgent needs in the Army's 
budget, that constant changes in requirements by the Army have 
delayed use of these funds for this long. The committee expects 
the Army to rapidly clarify its force structure and upgrade 
plans for Stryker vehicles and execute the funding on hand. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver a report 
to the congressional defense committees by February 5, 2011, 
that provides a detailed explanation of changes in Stryker 
force structure, new requirements for upgrades and maintenance 
fleets, and the associated procurement and development funding 
through fiscal year 2017 needed to achieve these requirements.
    The committee recommends $891.0 million, the full amount 
requested, for Stryker vehicle procurement and upgrades.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $2.0 
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1.9 billion, a decrease of $32.5 
million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative

    The budget request contained $216.5 million for 120mm 
mortar, all types, of which $98.6 million was for the 
Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) program.
    The APMI program would provide precision guided mortar 
capability to address a Joint Urgent Operational Needs 
Statement (JUONS) from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The 
committee understands the APMI program has completed a down-
select process that resulted in substantially lower unit costs 
than had been originally budgeted for by the Army in the budget 
request for fiscal year 2011. The Army indicates that it will 
only require $19.9 million in fiscal year 2011 procurement 
funds to address the JUONS requirement from OEF.
    The committee recommends a total reduction of $78.7 million 
for the APMI program, a reduction of $28.6 million in the base 
request, and a reduction of $50.1 million in the Overseas 
Contingency Operations budget request, as part of title 15 of 
this Act.

MK281 target practice rounds

    The budget request contained $230.3 million for Ctg, 40mm, 
all types, of which $24.8 million was for the MK281, Mod 0 
target practice round and $89.4 million was for the MK281, Mod 
1 target practice round.
    The committee recognizes MK281 target practice rounds are a 
non-dud producing, eco-friendly round which enables its use for 
fire and maneuver engagement training with the MK19 weapon 
system during the day and night at Joint National Training 
Centers. The committee also notes the MK19 is being used 
extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom.
    Therefore, the committee would encourage the Army to 
continue the procurement of MK281 target practice rounds as 
specified in the supporting budget documentation to support 
current target practice round requirements.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $9.8 
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $9.4 billion, a decrease of $367.1 million, 
for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


Defense Advanced GPS Receivers

    The budget request contained $32.2 million for acquisition 
of 8,297 Defense Advanced GPS Receivers (DAGR).
    To date, approximately 220,000 DAGR units have been 
delivered to the Army, replacing the need to purchase jamming-
susceptible commercial GPS receivers. The Army acquisition 
objective is to purchase 462,288 units. Approximately 60 
percent of the currently fielded DAGRs thus far 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 is aware that purchase of additional DAGRs was the 
third item in the Army's unfunded requirements letter to 
Congress.
    The committee recommends $83.4 million, an increase of 
$51.2 million, for procurement of additional DAGRs.

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team network integration kits

    The budget request contained $176.6 million for Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) network integration kits 
(NIK).
    The committee understands that the NIKs and the 
connectivity that they enable are the heart of the EIBCT 
program, and is what could eventually distinguish the EIBCT 
network from current Army network capabilities. However, the 
committee has numerous concerns with the performance and cost 
of this critical element of the EIBCT. The committee notes that 
2009 limited user test (LUT) results for the EIBCT vehicle 
network integration kits found significant performance, 
reliability, and operational concept problems. In addition, the 
committee notes that these poor test results occurred while the 
NIKs were tested in a very small network of just a few nodes, 
which was operating in an unencrypted format and not subject to 
jamming or other network interference. The results of the test 
raise serious questions about the ability of the program to 
develop a network large enough and secure enough to achieve 
program requirements on its current schedule. While the program 
claims that fixes will be in place by the September 2010 LUT, 
the committee remains concerned that the LUT will feature a 
very limited number of network nodes that will still be 
operating in an unencrypted format.
    The committee also notes that even if the NIKs perform as 
planned, they may provide little additional capability to EIBCT 
units and will likely be very expensive. Despite the per-
vehicle unit price for a NIK of approximately $1.0 million, the 
only functionality it brings is transmitting limited sensor 
data, such as still images and icons, for display on an 
existing Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below terminal. 
The committee is not confident that this limited network 
capability justifies spending almost $1.0 million per vehicle 
kit, when the Army has lower cost alternatives available for 
providing enhanced network capability down to the platform 
level.
    Finally, the committee understands that sufficient funds 
have already been provided by Congress through fiscal year 2010 
for the Army to procure the first two brigade sets of network 
integration kits, and additional test assets. Based on test 
results to date and the availability of other funds, the 
committee believes that investment in additional brigade sets 
of network integration kits is premature.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $176.6 
million, for procurement of EIBCT network integration kits.

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team small unmanned ground vehicles

    The budget request contained $20.1 million for Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) small unmanned ground 
vehicles (SUGV).
    The committee notes that despite six years of system 
development work, 2009 limited user test results for the SUGVs 
found significant performance and reliability problems. 
Specifically, test reports indicated that SUGVs were 
overweight, allowed insufficient range between each SUGV and 
its operator to keep the operator safe, and have limited 
utility at night due to sensor limitations. The committee also 
notes that sufficient funds have already been provided by 
Congress for the Army to procure the first two brigade sets of 
SUGVs, and additional test assets. Based on test results to 
date and the availability of other funds, the committee 
believes that investment in additional brigade sets of SUGVs is 
premature.
    The committee recommends $21.3 million, an increase of $1.3 
million, for EIBCT SUGVs.

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team training/logistics/management

    The budget request contained $61.6 million for Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) training/logistics/
management fielding support.
    The committee understands that the requested funds are for 
support of fielding of other EIBCT equipment. Because of 
reductions to EIBCT procurement funds elsewhere in this title 
1, the committee does not believe that the $61.6 million in 
associated fielding support funding that was requested will be 
necessary.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $61.6 
million, for EIBCT training/logistics/management support.

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors

    The budget request contained $29.7 million for Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) unattended ground sensors.
    The committee notes that, despite six years of system 
development work, 2009 limited user test results for the EIBCT 
urban-unattended ground sensors (U-UGS) and tactical-unattended 
ground sensors (T-UGS) found significant performance, 
reliability, and operational concept problems. Specifically, 
test reports indicated that the sensors were difficult to 
emplace, fell well below reliability requirements, and 
contributed ``little to unit situational awareness'' due to 
poor image quality and slow image transmission over the 
network. The committee also notes that sufficient funds have 
already been provided by Congress for the Army to procure the 
first two brigade sets of U-UGS and T-UGS, and additional test 
assets. Based on test results to date and the availability of 
other funds, the committee believes that investment in 
additional brigade sets of U-UGS or T-UGS is premature.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $29.7 
million, for procurement of EIBCT U-UGS and T-UGS.

Ground Soldier System acquisition strategy

    The budget request contained $110.5 million for the Ground 
Soldier System (GSS) Increment I program to support the low-
rate initial production of 4,598 GSS units.
    The committee understands that the GSS program would 
provide situational awareness and understanding to the 
dismounted leader, allowing for faster and more accurate 
decisions in the tactical fight while also reducing fratricide. 
The committee notes GSS Increment I would primarily focus on 
providing the ground soldier with improved situational 
awareness, command and control, hands-free color display, and 
improved hearing protection/enhancement and voice and position 
location information. The committee is aware that GSS Increment 
I would use technologically mature systems, including radios 
and communication software, with program risk found in the 
integration of these systems.
    The committee believes the current acquisition strategy for 
GSS Increment I is high risk, and has concerns regarding the 
proposed schedule to move the program from milestone A to 
milestone C, effectively bypassing milestone B, within 21 
months of the initial development contract award. The committee 
notes that the schedule does not account for any major 
obstacles which might surface due to the complexities involved 
with systems integration.
    The committee expects all developmental testing to be 
completed and analyzed before any decision is made prior to 
beginning Milestone C. The committee also expects that the Army 
will fully comply with section 2366a of title 10, United States 
Code, prior to any Milestone B or milestone C decision. The 
committee recommends $96.0 million, a reduction of $14.5 
million, for the Ground Soldier System Increment I program.

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles

    The committee understands the high mobility multi-purpose 
wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) has provided a proven capability for a 
light tactical vehicle (LTV) for the armed forces for over 25 
years. The committee notes that through congressional support 
and significant investment during Operation Enduring Freedom 
and Operation Iraqi Freedom, over 40,000 HMMWVs have been 
recapitalized through an extensive recapitalization program 
that provided additional performance and survivability 
capabilities to HMMWVs. In addition, over 50,000 new Up-Armored 
HMMWVs (UAH) have been procured during this period.
    The committee is aware that the fiscal year 2011 Overseas 
Contingency Operations budget request contained $1.3 billion in 
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund for new production of 
HMMWVs and UAHs, and the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental budget 
request for ongoing military operations contained $318.9 
million for new production of HMMWVs and UAHs. The committee 
supports the President's request to utilize these funds for the 
procurement of new HMMWVs as specified in the supporting budget 
documentation. The committee also recognizes that HMMWV and UAH 
requirements may exist beyond these purposes, particularly for 
the Army National Guard. The committee encourages the military 
services and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to 
adequately resource and effectively address any unmet LTV 
requirements in future budget submissions.

High-resolution three dimensional topographic data

    The committee understands that there is a requirement for 
high-resolution three dimensional (3D) topographic terrain data 
with co-collected high resolution color imagery to meet 
warfighter requirements in planning and executing operations in 
urban terrain in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The 
committee also understands that tactical commanders have 
provided Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statements (JUONS) to 
the Department of Defense for high-resolution 3D topographic 
terrain data with co-collected high-resolution color imagery, 
but that these JUONS have not been resourced.
    The committee is concerned about the lack of the high-
resolution 3D topographic terrain data needed by commanders and 
warfighters to conduct population-centric operations over the 
complex and urban terrain that characterize today's hybrid-
multi-modal warfare.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the executive agent for high-
resolution 3D topographic terrain data for U.S. ground forces 
and special operations forces, to conduct a study regarding the 
extent of the shortfall of high-resolution 3D topographic 
terrain data, to include resources required to meet this 
requirement. The report should also address whether 
organizational changes are required to ensure day-to-day 
visibility of the importance of this capability within the 
intelligence community. The committee directs the Commander, 
USACE to provide this report to the congressional defense 
committees by July 1, 2010.
    The committee further directs the Director of the Joint 
Staff to request the combat commands to provide their views on 
the importance of high-resolution 3D topographic terrain data, 
and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 
transmitting the responses from the combatant commands by 
September 1, 2010.

Intelligent Munitions System remote control units

    The budget request contained $6.6 million for procurement 
of Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) remote control units.
    The committee notes that the low-rate initial production 
decision for the IMS remote control units has slipped to fiscal 
year 2012 due to technological challenges that emerged during 
development testing. Therefore, the committee does not believe 
that the amount requested is needed in fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $6.6 
million, for IMS remote control units.

Joint Tactical Radio System hand-held radios

    The budget request contained $209.6 million for procurement 
of various models of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radios.
    The committee supports the goals of the JTRS program. In 
particular, the committee supports the program's innovative 
acquisition model that seeks to maintain multiple vendors for 
each class of JTRS radios and annual competition throughout the 
life of the JTRS program. However, the committee notes that the 
JTRS small form factor ``c'' (SFF-C) radio, also referred to as 
a ``rifleman radio,'' has been delayed for at least a year. In 
addition, the committee notes that the Army received $25.3 
million in fiscal year 2010 for more than 2,700 early-model 
SFF-C radios, which is more than enough for testing and initial 
low-rate production. Therefore, the committee believes that no 
procurement funds are needed in fiscal year 2011 for JTRS SFF-C 
radios.
    The committee recommends $199.4 million, a decrease of 
$10.2 million, for JTRS radio procurement.

Non-system training device program

    The budget request contained $297.2 million to continue the 
non-system training device (NSTD) program, but included no 
funds to procure the following NSTD programs: Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected Vehicle Virtual Trainers (MRAP-VVT) for the 
California National Guard, MRAP-VVTs for the Alabama National 
Guard, and Tabletop Trainers, Individual Gunnery Trainers (IGT) 
for the California National Guard.
    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 for tasks and missions 
that would be unsafe or too resource intensive to conduct with 
actual weapons, weapons systems, and/or ammunition. The 
committee supports this initiative and believes these programs 
could significantly improve soldier survivability and 
performance.
    The committee recommends $308.9 million for the NSTD 
program for a total increase of $11.7 million, including: an 
increase of $6.0 million for MRAP-VVTs for the California 
National Guard, $5.0 million for MRAP-VVTs for the Alabama 
National Guard, and $0.7 million for Tabletop Trainers, IGTs 
for the California National Guard.

Warfighter Information Network--Tactical Increment 2

    The budget request contained $421.8 million for procurement 
of Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T) equipment.
    The committee supports the Army's WIN-T program and 
understands that it is a critical element of the Army's overall 
effort to provide advanced networking capabilities in its 
tactical formations. The committee notes that the three 
increments of the WIN-T program are now programs of record that 
conform to Department of Defense acquisition policies, and 
therefore believes that adequate oversight mechanisms are in 
place to ensure proper testing of WIN-T equipment. However, the 
committee notes that WIN-T Increment 2 received only partial 
approval for low-rate initial production, and that as a result 
execution of funds already provided will be slower than 
planned.
    The committee recommends $396.8 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, for WIN-T equipment procurement.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $215.9 
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 
The committee recommends a transfer of this funding to title XV 
of this Act.


                       Items of Special Interest


Joint counter remote control improvised explosive device electronic 
        warfare

    The committee is aware that there are several thousand 
military vehicles in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom that are equipped with legacy counter remote 
control improvised explosive device electronic warfare (CREW) 
systems. The committee has continually urged the Secretary of 
Defense to expeditiously upgrade or replace these legacy CREW 
systems. The committee understands the future joint-counter 
remote control improvised explosive device electronic warfare 
(JCREW) program of record for the military services is the 
JCREW 3.3 system and this system is expected to be fielded in 
fiscal year 2012. The committee notes both the Army and the 
Marine Corps will attempt to continue to upgrade their legacy 
systems to keep pace with threats until JCREW 3.3 becomes 
available.
    The committee is aware the single manager for JCREW, who is 
a flag grade officer designated by the Secretary of the Navy, 
the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the program, is 
responsible for improving the efficiency and economy of future 
ground-based CREW technology development, and for eliminating 
duplication and overlap of effort. The military services are 
required to follow the single manager's guidance for 
integrating, fielding, and replacing CREW systems.
    The committee believes the individual military services 
should assume a greater amount of responsibility related to 
providing joint acquisition goals, objectives, and execution of 
the JCREW program office rather than relying solely on 
Department of Navy budgets and Overseas Contingency Operations 
funds via the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization. This funding instability discourages continued 
investment in current and future CREW technology, could 
potentially reduce or eliminate surge capability necessary to 
respond to other contingencies; and inhibits the development of 
affordable joint solutions. The committee encourages the 
military services to ensure inputs to the Department of Defense 
program objective memorandum to enable the JCREW joint program 
office to continue the development and acquisition of joint 
CREW systems.
    The committee 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, outlining forecast 
requirements for armed forces sustainment of CREW legacy 
systems and future CREW system requirements.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $18.5 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $19.1 billion, an increase of 
$624.0 million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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 Navy tactical aircraft inventory

    The budget request contained $1.8 billion for the 
procurement of 22 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike-fighters.
    The committee is concerned by the manner in which the Navy 
and the Marine Corps are managing and accepting an 
unprecedented level of operational risk within the Department 
of the Navy tactical aircraft force structure while waiting for 
the F-35B and F-35C to complete development, testing, and 
fielding. The committee does not expect that the Navy and 
Marine Corps will be able to fully meet future operational 
strike-fighter requirements of any combatant commander if the 
tactical aircraft inventory management plan remains unchanged. 
The committee remains concerned with five areas of the Navy and 
Marine Corps tactical aircraft portfolio: (1) strike-fighter 
inventory requirements and estimated shortfalls; (2) 
sustainment and viability of the strike-fighter legacy fleet; 
(3) courses of action that are being implemented, resulting in 
unprecedented levels of operational risk; (4) F-35B and F-35C 
affordability; and, (5) closure of the F/A-18E/F production 
line.
    The committee is disappointed with the manner in which 
officials of the Department of the Navy have conveyed strike-
fighter inventory requirements and estimated shortfalls over 
the past several years. The committee notes that the validated 
strike-fighter inventory requirement is 1,240 aircraft, but 
currently the Navy is using the current operational demand 
figure of 1,154 aircraft as its baseline for projections of 
future shortfalls. This is an inaccurate depiction of the 
actual shortfall of tactical fighters in the inventory, and the 
Navy and Marine Corps strike-fighter shortfall mitigation 
strategies are either optimistic or not credible since the 
mitigation strategies are not funded.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee describes the 
ongoing development problems with the F-35 series Joint Strike 
Fighter (JSF) and notes that the JSF is significantly delayed, 
well over cost projections, and not likely to arrive in the 
Navy-Marine Corps inventories in sufficient numbers to offset 
the pending retirements of F/A-18 series and AV-8B aircraft. 
The committee estimates that by fiscal year 2017 the Navy-
Marine Corps inventory could easily be 250 aircraft short of 
requirements, or the equivalent of 5 carrier air wings. This is 
an unacceptable outcome and the committee will not support 
future budget requests that fail to address the factual 
realities of a naval strike-fighter shortfall. Absent a 
complete reversal of development and production performance in 
the JSF program, the committee expects future budget 
submissions to extend the production of the F/A-18E/F series 
aircraft to prevent U.S. naval airpower from losing 
significance in the nation's arsenal. Although the Marine Corps 
chose not to recapitalize its current fleet of fixed-wing F/A-
18A/D aircraft with F/A-18E/F aircraft, the committee believes 
that procuring F/A-18E/F aircraft should be considered as a 
means in resolving the Marine Corps' inevitable strike-fighter 
inventory shortfall.
    The committee recommends an increase of $500.0 million, 
which when combined with $130.5 million excess funding as a 
result of the third multiyear procurement, shall be available 
for the procurement of an additional eight F/A-18E/F Super 
Hornet strike-fighters.

UH-1Y/AH-1Z rotorcraft upgrade program

    The budget request contained $896.6 million for the 
procurement of 31 UH-1Y and AH-1Z rotorcraft.
    The committee understands that the advance procurement 
funding appropriated in fiscal year 2010 only supports the 
procurement of 28 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. The Marine 
Corps has informed the committee that the UH-1Y and AH-1Z prime 
contractor plans to provide internal advance procurement 
funding, at the risk of the contractor, to support the 
procurement of 31 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. The committee 
understands the funding which the contractor intends to use for 
advance procurement was originally intended to be applied 
towards cost-reduction initiatives to lower the unit recurring 
flyaway cost of the rotorcraft.
    The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps' budget 
request is shortsighted in applying the contractor's funds 
towards advance procurement for only three additional aircraft 
instead of towards already pre-planned cost-reduction 
initiatives. Applying these funds towards cost-reduction 
initiatives would provide a larger return on investment by 
decreasing the overall cost of the rotorcraft across the life 
of the program, and in turn, could bolster the committee's 
future support regarding any future multi-year procurement 
contract authority request from the Marine Corps.
    Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary 
of the Navy to reevaluate the business case for using the 
contractor's funds in fiscal year 2011 for procurement of only 
three additional rotorcraft vice the long-term benefits gained 
in using these funds for cost-reduction initiatives.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $3.4 
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $3.4 billion, a decrease of $8.9 million, for 
fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Littoral Combat Ship Module weapons

    The budget request contained $9.8 million for Littoral 
Combat Ship (LCS) Module Weapons, of which $8.9 million was 
requested for procurement of 45 non-line-of-sight launch system 
(NLOS-LS) missiles.
    The committee notes that the Army has terminated the NLOS-
LS program, and even if it is continued by the Navy, an 
additional year of development work will be required. As a 
result, the committee does not agree with Navy procurement 
funding for NLOS-LS in fiscal year 2011. In title II of this 
report, the committee recommends an increase in Navy research 
and development funding to support continued development work 
for the NLOS-LS program if the Navy determines that is in the 
best interest of the LCS program.
    The committee recommends $0.9 million, a decrease of $8.9 
million, for LCS Module weapons.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $818.0 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. 
The committee recommends authorization of $818.0 million, no 
change in the budget request, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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 2011 contained $15.7 
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $15.7 billion, no change in the 
budget request, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


U.S. Navy shipbuilding

    The budget request contained $15.7 billion in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy and $380.0 million in title XIV of this 
Act for the construction of nine Navy vessels. The budget 
request also included the fourth and final incremental funding 
authorization for construction of the aircraft carrier USS 
Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78); funding for advance procurement 
necessary for the construction of vessels to be authorized in 
future fiscal years; and incremental funding for the complex 
refueling overhaul of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore 
Roosevelt (CVN 71).
    The committee notes that the Long-Range Plan for the 
Construction of Naval Vessels, known as the 30-year 
shipbuilding plan, submitted in accordance with section 231 of 
title 10, United States Code, proposes an average of 10 new 
vessels per year during the 5-year period of the Future Years 
Defense Plan (FYDP). While this is a positive step in 
shipbuilding procurement, the total number of battle force 
vessels remains essentially constant during the FYDP due to the 
high rate of ship retirements planned during the period. Only 
after the FYDP, do the battle force levels begin to increase in 
real terms and the stated goal of a 313-ship Navy is not 
achieved until fiscal year 2018. The committee further notes 
that a short term solution to the stagnant number of battle 
force ships through the FYDP is to delay retirement of vessels 
with useful service life and that a planned approach to retire 
no more ships in any one fiscal year than are being delivered 
to the Navy would accomplish this goal.
            Aircraft carriers
    The committee is concerned that the decision by the 
Secretary of Defense in April 2009, prior to the completion of 
the congressionally mandated analysis of the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, to shift aircraft carrier construction to five-
year centers for the stated purpose of ``a more fiscally 
sustainable path'' was shortsighted. The committee has recently 
learned via receipt of Department of Defense Selected 
Acquisition Reports that the cost to construct the next three 
Ford-class aircraft carriers is likely to increase by up to 
$4.0 billion because of the change in construction centers. The 
committee notes that the current 30-year shipbuilding plan 
would not maintain a force of 11 operational aircraft carriers 
past fiscal year 2040 and therefore does not conform to the 
requirement in section 5062b of title 10, United States Code, 
to maintain an operational fleet of 11 aircraft carriers.
    The committee expects that subsequent plans will conform to 
current law, or the Secretary of the Navy will request a change 
to statute commensurate with detailed analysis of the effect a 
reduction to 10 operational aircraft carriers will have on the 
national military strategy. In title I of this Act, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to phase the 
construction of aircraft carriers to minimize the total cost 
for procurement of the vessels.
            DDG 51 class destroyer
    The committee is pleased with the effort by the Navy to 
undertake a comprehensive analysis of the radar and hull 
alternatives needed for a future sea-based ballistic missile 
defense (BMD) platform. The analysis has determined that the 
proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) system matched to 
a DDG 51 class destroyer hull is the most cost-effective method 
of fielding a new generation of sea-based BMD. The committee 
notes that this new radar development program will leverage 
existing technologies of both the DDG 1000 class destroyer 
program and the DDG 51 class destroyer program. The committee 
understands that the AMDR system is not likely to reach full 
development for a number of years and that a funding 
authorization request for the first ship will not occur until 
fiscal year 2016. In the meantime, the committee understands 
that the Navy's plan is to continue the restart of the DDG 51 
production line begun last year using a procurement strategy of 
three ships every two years in a ``2-1-2-1'' build plan. The 
committee has significant concerns whether such an acquisition 
strategy can sustain a competitive relationship between the two 
current surface warfare construction yards.
            DDG 1000 class destroyer
    The committee is concerned with the Nunn-McCurdy cost 
breach incurred by the DDG 1000 destroyer program. The 
committee understands that the current cost breach was caused 
by costs associated with research and development efforts 
charged against only three vessels vice the original seven.
    The committee notes that this cost threshold breach was 
known by the Navy far in advance of the receipt of notification 
required by law. The committee was informed that official 
notification of the cost breach was not technically required 
until after submission of the budget request for fiscal year 
2011, as the budget request was the official truncation of the 
class to three vessels. This argument is disingenuous in that 
both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy 
made public statements and transmitted official correspondence 
to the committee that the program would be truncated to three 
vessels as early as mid-2008.
    However, regardless of how the Navy has arrived at this 
juncture, the fact remains that one vessel is currently under 
construction and significant materiel orders have been made for 
the second. The committee is also keenly aware of the 
industrial base consequences of a decision by the Secretary of 
Defense to terminate the program.
            Littoral Combat Ship
    The Littoral Combat Ship program has failed its initial 
intent to build inexpensive ships with modular capability and 
field them to the fleet at a high rate. None of those goals 
have been met. The ships are expensive; the modular capability 
has not been tested or verified; and in some cases is still 
undergoing development; and only two of the ships have been 
delivered to the Navy.
    Last year, the committee supported the request of the 
Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to 
revamp the acquisition strategy for these vessels and to down-
select to one variant of the ship with the award of the fiscal 
year 2010 two-ship authorization. The new acquisition strategy 
is aimed at reducing overall costs by procuring 10 ships in the 
Future Years Defense Plan using a fixed price incentive 
contract in fiscal year 2010 with priced options for 8 
additional ships, 2 per year, in fiscal years 2011-15. In 
addition, the government would gain all rights to the technical 
data package required to compete the winning design to a second 
source shipyard which would build 5 additional ships, for a 
total of 15 ships, between fiscal years 2012 and 2015. The 
committee supported this plan as the best alternative to 
provide needed capability to the fleet in the shortest time 
possible, at the least cost. The plan was also proposed to the 
committee as the best way to divorce the prime contractors from 
the program and to transition the ship's installed combat 
systems to government furnished equipment that complimented 
equipment currently in use in the fleet.
    As of this report, the Navy has received the proposals from 
the two authorized competitors and is in the process of source 
selection leading to contract award. The committee is 
cautiously optimistic that, with a down-select to one variant 
and stability in the construction schedule, this troubled 
program can begin to fulfill its original purpose of providing 
capable ships, in quantity, at an affordable cost.
            Maritime Landing Platform
    The Maritime Landing Platform (MLP), as originally briefed 
to Congress was to be a part of the larger Maritime 
Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)) which would provide the 
capability of a sea-base when conducting both high-end combat 
operations or humanitarian operations where access to port 
facilities was not available.
    The budget request has abandoned the previous MPF(F) 
concept in favor of a smaller prepositioning force for use in 
low-threat environments. Likewise, the MLP vessel itself, 
funded at a level of $120.0 million in fiscal year 2010, has 
been changed to a smaller vessel than the one proposed to and 
authorized by Congress last year, which will provide only 
incremental operational capability from the original design. 
These changes to the future capability of the amphibious force 
were made without notification or consultation with the 
committee, and appear to be driven purely from budgetary 
pressure and not from a well defined capabilities analysis. In 
addition, the current plan to build three MLP vessels, in 
fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2015, is inefficient. The proposed 
MLP vessel is a modified design of a previously built 
commercial product tanker and can easily be supported by the 
shipyard chosen for construction at a rate of one per year. The 
committee expects the budget request for fiscal year 2012 to 
reset the construction centers for the remaining MLP vessels to 
fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
            Ohio-class replacement program
    The committee strongly supports a robust sea-based 
strategic deterrent force. The current 14 ships of the Ohio-
class ballistic missile submarines are a national treasure and 
have helped keep the nation safe for over two decades. Like the 
ballistic missile submarine classes that preceded them, a 
percentage of these vessels remain in an alert posture, at sea, 
invulnerable to attack by potential enemies, ready to retaliate 
should the nation be attacked. The committee supports efforts 
to retain this capability into the future.
    However, the committee has questions concerning the current 
program to replace the Ohio-class ships. First, the basic 
requirement of how much and what type of deterrent capability 
is sufficient for the national military strategy has not been 
communicated to the committee. Second, the committee has not 
been afforded the opportunity to review the analysis of 
alternatives conducted by the Navy, which determined that a 
submarine large enough to support the Trident II D5 missile 
weapons system is the preferred vessel to continue deterrent 
capability. Third, the committee has concerns that the decision 
to proceed with a submarine program of similar size as the 
Ohio-class ships was made prior to the analysis of 
alternatives, and that a potential use of a modified Virginia-
class submarine, in production today, was discounted in favor 
of maintaining the Trident II D5 weapons system. Because of 
these concerns, elsewhere in this Act the committee will 
authorize, but withhold authority to obligate more than 50 
percent of the funds requested for development of this program 
until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the committee of 
the necessity to continue sea-based deterrence with the Trident 
II D5 weapons system.

U.S. shipbuilding industrial base

    The committee has reservations as to the continued health 
of the shipbuilding industrial base and its ability to remain 
viable in its current form. The shipbuilding industrial base 
currently serving the needs of Navy and the nation is a legacy 
from the cold war when the size of the Navy fleet, and the 
construction required to maintain that fleet, was significantly 
higher than today. The committee is concerned that the 
relatively low orders for new ships as proposed in the 30-year 
shipbuilding plan are not sufficient to maintain all shipyards 
currently constructing naval vessels. This is a very difficult 
situation for the Navy since reducing the number of shipyards 
constructing vessels could have the unintended consequence of 
driving up cost due to limited or no competition for particular 
classes of ships, yet the current industrial base adds 
increased costs due to the significant overhead rates that must 
be charged to each vessel.
    Perhaps even more significant than shipyard over-capacity 
for the current shipbuilding plan is the reduction in vendors 
willing to provide equipment and materiel necessary for the 
shipbuilding industry. Low orders coupled with significant 
government requirements for testing, traceability, and 
financial controls have driven many former suppliers out of the 
market altogether. The committee received testimony that the 
vendor supply base is currently 60 to 70 percent sole source. 
While this almost total lack of competition may be manageable 
in terms of maintaining the ability to construct vessels, it is 
not a condition that is bringing the best value to the 
taxpayer.
    The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy 
has embarked on a comprehensive review of the industrial base, 
including the supply base. The committee requests the Secretary 
of the Navy to inform the committee when the comprehensive 
review is complete and to make available to the committee those 
officials who participated in the review to testify before the 
committee at a hearing in open session aimed at oversight of 
this potential threat to national security.

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $6.5 
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $6.5 billion, no change in the budget request, 
for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $1.3 
billion Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $35.0 million, 
for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


Marine Corps communications switching and control systems

    The budget request contained $32.3 million for Marine Corps 
communications switching and control systems. Of that amount, 
$22.7 million was requested for Warfighter Network Services 
Tactical equipment.
    The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps has been 
slow to execute on-hand funding from fiscal year 2009 and 
fiscal year 2010. In addition, the committee notes that $10.5 
million in additional funding for this equipment is authorized 
in title XV of this Act.
    The committee recommends $12.7 million, a decrease of $10.0 
million, for Warfighter Network Services Tactical equipment.

Marine Corps joint tactical radio systems

    The budget request contained $40.6 million for Marine Corps 
radio systems. Of that amount, $20.5 million was requested for 
joint tactical radio system (JTRS) radios.
    The committee continues to support the JTRS program. 
However, the committee notes that low-rate initial production 
of the two JTRS model radios requested by the Marine Corps in 
fiscal year 2011 may be delayed, and that the Marine Corps has 
other funds available to procure radios to meet near-term 
requirements.
    The committee recommends $6.4 million, a decrease of $14.1 
million, for Marine Corps procurement of JTRS radios.

Marine Corps M88A2 recovery vehicles

    The budget request contained $12.0 million for Marine Corps 
M88A2 recovery vehicle procurement.
    The committee understands that the Marine Corps requirement 
for M88A2 vehicles has increased by 28 vehicles, and that the 
M88A2 recovery vehicle is seeing extensive use in Operation 
Enduring Freedom in support of Marine Corps operations. The 
committee also notes that the Marine Corps Unfunded Programs 
List for fiscal year 2011 includes $55.0 million for 24 
additional M88A2 vehicles.
    The committee recommends $67.0 million, an increase of 
$55.0 million, in Marine Corps procurement for additional M88A2 
recovery vehicles.

Marine Corps small unmanned ground vehicles

    The budget request contained no funds for Marine Corps 
procurement of small ground robots for use by Marine Corps 
infantry forces.
    The committee is concerned that despite the potential 
utility of such robots for infantry forces, the Marine Corps 
has no current plans to equip its forces with this capability. 
In particular, the committee believes that man-portable robots 
between 10-30 pounds may prove highly useful for Marine Corps 
infantry units in Operation Enduring Freedom. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Commandant of the Marine Corps to 
deliver, by March 1, 2011, a report to the congressional 
defense committees outlining the Marine Corps' plans for 
fielding small ground robots, including specific requirements, 
cost estimates, and deployment timelines.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $15.4 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $15.4 billion, a decrease of $10.6 
million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
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


F-35 modifications

    The budget request contained $94.2 million for F-35 
modifications, of which $86.6 million was included to procure 
25 kits to retrofit 25 low-rate initial production (LRIP) F-35A 
aircraft to the block three configuration.
    Under the recently-revised F-35 schedule, the committee 
notes that development of block three hardware and software 
components will not be complete until 2015, and believes that 
the request to procure kits to retrofit 25 LRIP F-35A aircraft 
to the block three configuration is premature.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $7.6 million, a 
decrease of $86.6 million for F-35A modifications.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $667.4 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $672.4 million, an increase of $5.0 
million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in 
the table below.


                     Missile Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $5.5 
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $5.5 billion, a decrease of $7.5 
million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
Missile 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


Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line

    The budget request contained $44.2 million for the 
Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line program.
    The Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line program is designed to 
maintain sufficient industrial capability for solid rocket 
motors in order to sustain the Minuteman III weapon system 
through 2030, as directed by Congress. However, the budget 
request only supports low-rate production of three rocket motor 
sets in fiscal year 2011 and would result in program 
termination in fiscal year 2012. The committee understands that 
a production rate below six per year would require regular 
requalification of the technicians for each production run.
    The committee has not yet received a plan to sustain the 
solid rocket motor industrial base as required by section 1078 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84). Absent a comprehensive plan, the committee 
supports retaining the industrial capability to sustain the 
Minuteman III weapons system.
    The committee recommends $51.7 million, an increase of $7.5 
million, for the Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line 
program, which should provide sufficient resources for six 
rocket motor sets in fiscal year 2011.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $17.8 
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $17.9 billion, an increase of $66.4 
million, for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below.


                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $4.3 
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 
authorization of $4.4 billion, an increase of $119.4 million, 
for fiscal year 2011.
    The Committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advance procurement for AN/TPY-2 X-band radars

    The budget request contained $858.9 million for fielding of 
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) equipment and $94.1 
million for fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense 
interceptors, but contained no funds for fielding of Army-Navy/
Transportable Radar Surveillance--Model 2 (AN/TPY-2) X-band 
radars.
    The AN/TPY-2 radar is capable of operating in either a 
forward-based mode to provide information to the ballistic 
missile defense system (BMDS) and all of its potential 
interceptors, or in terminal mode to provide information to a 
co-located THAAD battery. The Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) 
for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) includes funding to 
purchase a total of 14 AN/TPY-2 X-band radars by fiscal year 
2015. Nine of the AN/TPY-2 radars are required for the nine 
currently-programmed THAAD batteries. At present, two AN/TPY-2 
radars are deployed in forward-based mode, one in Japan and the 
other in the State of Israel. While the future requirements for 
AN/TPY-2 radars to support the BMDS and the Administration's 
plan for regional missile defense systems are undefined, the 
FYDP includes three additional radars that could potentially be 
forward-based.
    Thus far, MDA has contracted for acquisition of seven AN/
TPY-2 radars, the last of which will be delivered later in 
2010. Funding for the additional seven radars will not begin 
until fiscal year 2012, leaving a potential production gap of 
over a year. The committee is concerned that this production 
gap will result in higher unit costs and greater schedule risks 
in the acquisition of AN/TPY-2 radars. MDA also plans to field 
the AN/TPY-2 radars for the THAAD batteries through its Sensors 
Directorate using research, development, test, and evaluation 
funds, and not through the THAAD fielding procurement account. 
The committee is concerned that not all of the additional AN/
TPY-2 radars will be acquired using procurement funding.
    The committee recommends $65.0 million for advance 
procurement of equipment for future purchases of AN/TPY-2 
radars to avoid obsolescence of key components and to maintain 
the industrial base. Furthermore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to request all additional future funding 
for acquisition of AN/TPY-2 radars within the defense-wide 
procurement account.

Common data link

    In recent years, new competition has brought improved 
capabilities and cost savings to the common data link (CDL) on 
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
platforms and unmanned aerial systems. However, the committee 
believes that equal participation in the further development of 
CDL specifications, and providing supporting systems 
engineering, would allow even more competition for CDL. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
define a common control interface for CDL terminals and directs 
its use for all new equipment purchases made after fiscal year 
2011.
    Recognizing the benefits of multiple vendors supplying 
competitive offerings for this vital communications service, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 
all Department of Defense efforts to install CDL on new blocks 
and models of Department of Defense platforms should adopt the 
CDL common control interface and that all future CDL 
procurements for these platforms shall be competitively 
awarded.

Fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense interceptors

    The budget request contained $94.1 million for fielding of 
Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors, a reduction 
of $131.5 million from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level.
    The request would support the purchase of eight Standard 
Missile-3 (SM-3) Block 1B interceptors in fiscal year 2011, the 
first year that Block 1B interceptors would be purchased using 
procurement funding.
    In fiscal year 2012, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
anticipates increasing the purchase of SM-3 Block 1B 
interceptors to 66, at a projected cost of $701.9 million. Yet 
the production schedule contained in the Department's detailed 
budget justification book shows an 18-month gap between the 
last deliveries of Block 1A interceptors in December 2011 and 
the first deliveries of the Block 1B purchases in July 2013.
    In March 2010, the Government Accountability Office 
reported that the ``Aegis BMD program is putting the SM-3 Block 
IB at risk for cost growth and schedule delays by planning to 
begin manufacturing in 2010 before its critical technologies 
have been demonstrated in a realistic environment.'' The first 
flight test to demonstrate the Block 1B interceptor's 
technology readiness has been delayed until the winter of 2011.
    The committee is concerned that the lack of stability in 
the purchase of SM-3 interceptors and the steep expansion of 
production of Block 1B interceptors in fiscal year 2012 could 
damage the industrial base and delay increases in the inventory 
of a system that will play a central role in the Phased, 
Adaptive Approach to missile defenses in Europe announced by 
the President in September 2009. The committee notes that the 
development of regional missile defense plans beyond Europe, 
pursuant to the Administration's Ballistic Missile Defense 
Review released on February 1, 2010, may also expand the near-
term requirement for Aegis BMD interceptors.
    The committee recommends $144.1 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, to provide for greater stability in SM-3 
production and to reduce the size of the production increase in 
fiscal year 2012. The committee expects that MDA will only 
allocate additional funding for SM-3 Block 1B production in 
fiscal year 2011 if the first flight test is successful.
    The committee recommends $144.1 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, to provide for greater stability in SM-3 
production and to reduce the size of the production increase in 
fiscal year 2012. The committee expects that MDA will only 
allocate additional funding for SM-3 Block 1B production in 
fiscal year 2011 if the first flight test is successful.

Lighter-than-air vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and 
        reconnaissance

    The committee is concerned about the duplication of effort 
among the military services in regard to the acquisition of 
lighter-than-air vehicles used by the military services for 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and 
communications.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2011, detailing the Department's Future Years Defense 
Program requirement for lighter-than-air vehicles, by service, 
to include: the Special Operations Command; comparative 
operational and sensor capabilities; and unit and system costs 
of each vehicle and system; and completed analyses of 
alternatives.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


           Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations

    These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 
2011 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


    Section 111--Procurement of Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team 
                        Increment One Equipment

    This section would limit the Secretary of the Defense from 
taking any steps to procure more than two brigade sets of Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team Increment One equipment, with a 
waiver based on providing testing data and reports to the 
congressional defense committees and an exception for meeting 
operational need statements.

   Section 112--Report on Army Battlefield Network Plans and Programs

    This section would require a report from the Secretary of 
the Army on the Army's plans for future tactical network 
technology and the acquisition programs to achieve this 
network. This section would also limit obligation of certain 
Army procurement funds for tactical communications equipment 
until the report is received. There is an exception for meeting 
operational need statements.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


Section 121--Incremental Funding for Procurement of Large Naval Vessels

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
incrementally fund large naval vessels over a period of years 
not to exceed three quarters of the amount of years of planned 
ship construction. The planned ship construction time-period is 
defined starting in the year of authorization and ending in the 
year of projected delivery. Large naval vessels are defined as 
those vessels exceeding 17,000 tons light ship displacement. 
Additionally, this section would authorize an additional year 
of incremental funding for the vessel LPD 26 should the 
Secretary determine it is in the interest of the Navy to do so.

  Section 122--Multiyear Procurement of F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G 
                                Aircraft

    This section would amend section 8011 of the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) to 
clarify that the Secretary of Defense must submit a 
certification of full funding for a multiyear contract for the 
procurement of F/A-18E, F/A-18F, or EA-18G aircraft not later 
than 30 days prior to the contract award. This section would 
also amend section 128 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to require that 
the Secretary submit the certification required by section 
2306b(i)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by September 1, 
2010. This section would specify that the Secretary may submit 
an update to the report on multiyear contracts, as required by 
section 2306b(l)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to reflect 
a multiyear contract for such aircraft, by not later than 
September 1, 2010. This section would clarify that, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, a multiyear 
contract for the procurement of such aircraft meets the 
requirements under section 2306b(i)(3) and section 2306b(l)(3) 
of title 10, United States Code, that a multiyear contract be 
specifically authorized by law in an Act other than an 
appropriations Act and in an appropriations Act, 
respectively.This section would clarify that the requirement of 
section 8008(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56) regarding a request for authority 
to enter into a multiyear contract shall not apply to a 
multiyear contract for such aircraft. Lastly, this section 
would require the Secretary of Defense to use the fiscal 
savings garnered from the Navy's entry into the fiscal year 
2010 through 2013 multiyear procurement contract, now 
considered excess to the Future Years Defense Plan current 
program of record, and procure the maximum quantity of 
additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft that the excess funding 
would enable.

    Section 123--Report on Naval Force Structure and Missile Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in 
coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees on the 
requirements of the major combatant surface vessels with 
respect to missile defense. The report would include an 
analysis of the number of vessels needed to fulfill the 
missions of missile defense, including the mission of the 
phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense in 
Europe, when balanced against the competing tasks of meeting 
surface fleet demands in each of the geographic areas. The 
section would additionally require the Secretary outline the 
need to either upgrade existing ships outfitted with the Aegis 
weapons system to more robust missile defense capability or 
procure additional vessels above the current requirement of 88 
large surface combatants. The Secretary would also be required 
to discuss expected technological advancements associated with 
missile defense systems and to provide the construct for 
deployment of Aegis ships equipped with missile defense systems 
within the context of the fleet response plan.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


   Section 131--Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling for F-22 
                            Fighter Aircraft

    This section would amend subsection (b) of section 133 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2219) by striking ``2010'' and 
inserting ``2011''.

               Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters


  Section 141--Limitation on Procurement of F-35 Lightning II Aircraft

    This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
amounts necessary for the procurement F-35 aircraft to an 
amount necessary for the procurement of 30 such aircraft unless 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
submit certifications to the congressional defense committees, 
not later than January 15, 2011, that specified items 
pertaining to the F-35 program have been accomplished. The 
section would also allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the 
full achievement of some items if the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies 
that the failure to fully achieve some items would not delay or 
otherwise negatively affect the F-35 aircraft test schedule for 
fiscal year 2011, impede production of 42 F-35 aircraft in such 
fiscal year, and otherwise increase risk to the F-35 aircraft 
program.

          Section 142--Limitations on Biometric Systems Funds

    This section would limit the obligation of funding for 
biometrics programs within the Department of Defense until the 
Secretary of Defense provides a report to the congressional 
defense committees on the actions taken:
          (1) (To implement paragraphs (16)(a)-(f) of National 
        Security Presidential Directive dated June 5, 2008;
          (2) To implement the recommendation included in 
        Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -08-1065;
          (3) To implement the recommendations included in GAO 
        report -09-49;
          (4) To fully and completely characterize the current 
        biometrics architecture and establish the objective 
        architecture for the Department of Defense;
          (5) To ensure that an official within the Office of 
        the Secretary of Defense has sufficient authority and 
        is responsible to ensure that all funding for 
        biometrics programs and operations is effectively 
        programmed, budgeted, and executed; and
          (6) To ensure that an officer within the Office of 
        the Joint Chiefs of Staff has sufficient authority and 
        is responsible to ensure the development and 
        implementation of common and interoperable standards 
        for the collection, storage, and use of biometrics data 
        by all combatant commanders and their commands.
    Further, this section would require written approval for 
all obligations of funds for biometrics program and activities 
within the Department of Defense by the Director of Defense 
Biometrics in the Office of the Under Secretary for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

 Section 143--Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Initiatives Database

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
direct the military services and the Director of the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to create a 
comprehensive improvised explosive device defeat initiative 
database and work with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 
Defeat Organization to develop a Department of Defense-wide 
database for all counter-improvised explosive device 
initiatives. This database would include all ``defeat the 
device,'' ``attack the network,'' and counter-improvised 
explosive device type efforts from across the Department, 
including the Rapid Equipping Force, joint concept technology 
demonstrations, and quick reaction task force efforts.

         Section 144--Study on Lightweight Body Armor Solutions

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
direct a federally funded research and development center 
(FFRDC) to identify and examine the requirements for lighter 
weight body armor systems. This section would require that not 
later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the FFRDC shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report 
recommending ways in which the Secretary of Defense and each 
secretary of the military departments may more effectively 
address the research, development, and procurement requirements 
regarding reducing the weight of body armor.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $76.1 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $76.5 billion, an increase of 
$342.6 million to the budget request.


            Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $10.3 billion for Army 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The 
committee recommends $10.3 billion, a decrease of $16.6 million 
to the budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Army 
request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Abrams tank modernization

    The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 23735A 
for research and development of M1 Abrams tank upgrades.
    The committee supports continued upgrades to the Army's 
fleet of M1 Abrams tanks. The committee notes that with the 
demise of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground 
vehicles (MGV) program, the M1 Abrams will remain the Army's 
premier combat platform for decades. As a result, the committee 
believes that an aggressive upgrade program is necessary to 
keep the M1 Abrams tank fleet capable of defeating all possible 
threats. The committee is concerned, however, that the Army's 
current incremental plan for M1 Abrams upgrades could result in 
a production break in the fiscal year 2013-14 timeframe. The 
committee urges the Army to develop an Abrams modernization 
strategy during the fiscal year 2012 budget deliberations that 
avoids any production gaps and integrates critical 
survivability technologies, such as an active protection 
system, in the initial tranche of upgrades.
    The committee recommends $107.5 million, the full amount 
requested, for research and development of M1 Abrams tank 
upgrades.

Biometrics enabled intelligence

    The budget request contained $14.1 million in research and 
development in PE 37665A, an operational systems development 
budget activity, a 6.7 budget activity, for engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD), a 6.5 budget activity, for the 
joint personnel identification version 2 (JPIv2) biometrics 
collection device. The budget request also included $106.2 
million in PE 33140A for biometrics design and development.
    Currently, there is no JPIv2 device available to be able to 
initiate EMD in PE 37665A in fiscal year 2011. The Army program 
manager currently plans to enter EMD in fiscal year 2012, if 
the technology readiness level (TRL) of the devices being 
considered for JPIv2 can be assessed at TRL 6. However, the 
Army has not established its acquisition strategy outlining the 
number of devices it will compete in the technology 
demonstration phase and the EMD phase of the program.
    The committee believes the Army, when requesting funding, 
should align the purpose of the funds requested with the 
appropriate budget activity. The committee also believes the 
$14.1 million request is premature, with sufficient funding 
available in PE 33140A for technology development required on 
JPIv2.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $14.1 
million, in PE 37665A for engineering and manufacturing 
development of JPIv2.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle modernization

    The budget request contained $97.0 million in PE 23735A for 
research and development of Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) 
upgrades.
    The committee supports continued upgrades to the Army's 
fleet of BFVs and views ongoing upgrades to the BFV fleet as a 
critical element of the Army's overall combat vehicle 
modernization plan. However, the committee is concerned that 
the Army is not executing funds made available in fiscal years 
2009 and 2010 for BFV upgrade research and development. The 
committee notes that even if the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle 
(GCV) is fielded on schedule that it is only intended to slowly 
replace the M2 variant of the BFV starting in 2017. This 
fielding plan would leave dozens of other BFV variants in heavy 
brigade combat teams for an indefinite period. In addition, the 
committee understands that BFV chassis-based vehicles are being 
considered for replacement of some M113 vehicles. As a result, 
the committee believes that it is far too soon for the Army to 
stop investing in the BFV fleet, or even slowing its upgrade 
plans. With the GCV program just beginning, the committee views 
any Army move to slow or terminate BFV upgrades as premature. 
The committee does not believe that upgrades to the BFV fleet 
will impact the GCV program or diminish the need for a new Army 
combat vehicle. Therefore, the committee expects the Army to 
move quickly to establish any needed BFV upgrade requirements 
and execute the funds provided for this purpose. Specifically, 
the committee urges the Army to consider engine or other 
upgrades that would improve mobility and increase electrical 
generating capacity.
    The committee recommends $97.0 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 23735A for research and development of BFV 
upgrades.

Cellulose nanocomposites for Army infrastructure and troop protection

    The budget request contained $79.1 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 that the use of cellulose 
nanocomposite panels for ballistic protection could further 
development of cost effective, reduced weight and rapidly 
erectable field structures as well as class IV construction 
materials. The committee notes this technology could accelerate 
the Army's capability by 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 nanocomposites for Army 
infrastructure and troop protection.

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team

    The budget request contained $1.6 billion for Early 
Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) research and development, 
and $682.7 million for procurement.
    In addition to the myriad of program challenges detailed 
elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned with the 
continued lack of stability in the EIBCT program's budget 
request. The committee views the lack of accurate and stable 
budget request information as a sign that the Army's plans for 
the EIBCT program remain in flux almost a year after 
termination of the FCS program. The committee notes that since 
the termination of the Future Combat Systems program in June 
2009, the Army has submitted an amended request for EIBCT 
fiscal year 2010 procurement funding, an amended request for 
fiscal year 2011 procurement funds in March 2010, and two 
reprogramming requests for EIBCT funds in April 2010. In 
addition, the budget justification materials submitted in 
support of the fiscal year 2011 request contained numerous 
errors, including the embedding of advance procurement funds 
within procurement lines. The committee notes that the lack of 
fidelity in EIBCT budget request information may lead to 
denials of reprogramming requests, funding restrictions, or 
other actions taken by the committee to ensure that funding 
provided is not misused.
    Finally, the committee understands that with the 
termination of the non-line-of-sight-launch system program that 
relevant procurement funds provided in fiscal years 2009 and 
2010 appear to be more than enough to fund two full brigade 
sets of the remaining program elements, plus additional test 
assets. With the program not set to complete initial 
operational test and evaluation until late fiscal year 2011, 
the committee believes that the procurement funds requested in 
the budget request are premature.
    The committee recommends $1.4 billion, a decrease of $208.3 
million, for EIBCT research and development. The committee 
recommends no funds, a decrease of $682.7 million, for EIBCT 
procurement.

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors

    The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 64664A for 
Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) unattended ground 
sensor (UGS) development.
    The committee understands that the UGS development program 
will reach a total funding level of approximately $130.0 
million at the end of fiscal year 2010 and that limited low-
rate production has been approved. The committee is concerned 
that despite being six years into its development, test data 
from technical field tests and Limited User Tests (LUT) 
conducted in fiscal year 2009 show that the demonstrated 
reliability of the Tactical-UGS and Urban-UGS is still poor. As 
reported by Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 
during the most recent LUT, both systems demonstrated poor 
communications connectivity, inadequate transmission ranges, 
poor image quality, and frequent system failures. The committee 
notes that the Increment 1 EIBCT program acquisition decision 
memorandum approved by the Defense Acquisition Executive on 
December 24, 2009, directs DOT&E and the Army to conduct a 
comparative test of EIBCT-equipped units with units equipped as 
currently deployed for operations. The committee believes that 
the results of the comparative test will be critical to 
determining whether the program of record should be continued, 
modified, or terminated. If the comparative test reveals that 
the program of record should go forward, the committee believes 
that it is in the best interests of the warfighter to conduct a 
full and open competition prior to full-rate production. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army 
to require full and open competition prior to making full-rate 
procurement decisions; and to consider multi-source 
procurement.
    The committee recommends $7.5 million in PE 64664A, the 
full amount requested, for UGS research and development.

Focus for Minerva research

    The budget request contained $91.2 million in PE 61103A for 
Army university research initiatives. Of this amount, $15.3 
million was requested for the Minerva Initiative.
    The committee continues to note the importance of using 
social science research and expertise to support key Department 
of Defense (DOD) missions, including irregular warfare, 
counterinsurgency, and stability and reconstruction operations. 
The Secretary of Defense established the Minerva Initiative to 
provide one of the primary mechanisms for the Department to 
foster basic social science and humanities research at the 
university level.
    After nearly two years in operation, the committee is 
concerned that the Department of Defense has not provided 
enough focus for the Minerva Initiative topics to develop an 
effective critical mass of talent concentrated on key mission 
areas. The original broad area announcement for the Minerva 
Initiative outlined seven topical areas. While these areas are 
all valuable in fostering foundational social science research 
for the Department and university researchers willing to work 
on topics of DOD interest, the committee is concerned that 
funds for the Minerva Initiative are spread too thinly to 
develop deep expertise in any of the current topic areas.
    The committee recommends $96.2 million, an increase of $5.0 
million, in PE 61103A to conduct research on how best to 
counter extremist ideologies. The committee notes elsewhere in 
this report on how the Department might structure such a 
counter-ideology program and how Minerva might support such a 
program.

Future Combat Systems system-of-systems engineering and program 
        management

    The budget request contained $568.7 million in PE 64661A 
for Future Combat Systems (FCS) system-of-systems engineering 
and program management.
    The committee remains concerned that more than a year after 
the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to terminate the FCS 
program of record that the contract for FCS has not been 
renegotiated to account for the dramatically reduced scope of 
the program, which is now the Early Infantry Brigade Combat 
Team program. The committee believes that the large amount of 
contractor ``system-of-systems'' integration and overhead 
requested exceeds what is needed given the reduction of the FCS 
program from 18 to just 4 major program elements. The committee 
expects the renegotiated contract to require significantly less 
contractor overhead, program management, and systems 
integration in fiscal year 2011. In addition, the committee 
understands that termination costs for the non-line of sight 
cannon program will be substantially lower than originally 
forecast.
    The committee recommends $497.4 million, a decrease of 
$71.3 million, in PE 64661A for FCS system-of-systems 
engineering and program management.

Ground Combat Vehicle program

    The budget request contained $934.4 million in PE 65625A 
for development of the Army Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).
    The committee supports the Army's move away from the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicle (MGV) path to 
modernizing the Army's combat vehicle fleet. In the committee 
report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the 
committee noted that it was not inclined to support the high-
risk path the Army was on with the MGV family of vehicles, 
which the committee was concerned would encounter significant 
technical challenges and, in the end, prove unaffordable given 
the Army's many other needs. The committee believes that the 
projected cost of the MGVs, along with requirements ill-suited 
for the current operational environment, set the MGV effort on 
its ultimate path to termination by the Secretary of Defense in 
April 2009.
    The committee supports the initial acquisition strategy for 
the GCV program, which appears to be more disciplined, and 
focused on producing a single variant of a new ground combat 
vehicle with a design flexible enough to accommodate future 
upgrades. The committee believes that a future mix of upgraded 
M1 Abrams tanks, upgraded M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and new 
GCVs will provide the Army with a flexible mix of armored 
fighting platforms. In addition, the committee supports the 
current acquisition strategy for GCV that maintains competition 
throughout the technology development, and engineering and 
manufacturing development phases.
    However, the committee is concerned with some of the 
requirements in place for the GCV, which the committee believes 
are extremely ambitious in some areas. The committee notes that 
it was, first and foremost, poorly thought-through requirements 
that led FCS MGVs to eventual termination. Specifically, early 
limitations on MGV weight and size, based on what turned out to 
be flawed operational concepts, including C-130 
transportability, led to an overly-complex MGV design that 
resulted in cost growth, unplanned weight increases, and 
significant schedule delays. The committee is concerned that, 
once again, the Army may be asking the defense industry to 
build a ``gold-plated'' vehicle that may take longer to develop 
than planned and prove to be extremely expensive to procure.
    The committee is also concerned that the Army chose to 
release a detailed request for proposals in February 2010, a 
full eight months before it completes the analysis of 
alternatives (AOA) for the GCV program. The Army's choice to do 
so suggests that it is a pro-forma exercise that will in fact 
have little bearing on the initial contract awards planned for 
September 2010, and that the Army will not seriously consider 
upgrading or modifying current platforms.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Army to take two 
actions. First, the committee believes the Army must carefully 
review the requirements for the GCV program and consider a more 
incremental approach that separates ``needs'' from ``wants.'' 
While the committee supports the program's early focus on 
vehicle and crew survivability, the committee is concerned that 
other requirements may prove too costly and complex. For 
example, while the committee understands that deployment of 
non-lethal weapons, the ability to intercept direct and 
indirect fire threats, aggressive fuel efficiency improvements, 
and the ability to defeat heavily armored vehicles at extended 
range may be desirable, it is concerned that requiring these 
capabilities in the initial GCV model could needlessly 
complicate the vehicle's design, and could be included as 
incremental upgrades at a later time. Second, after 
streamlining the GCV requirements, the committee recommends 
that the Army conduct a thorough AOA before proceeding to 
technology development contract awards. Specifically, the 
committee believes the Army should carefully consider whether 
or not it is possible to upgrade current vehicles, including 
some foreign designs, to meet baseline GCV requirements on an 
accelerated schedule that could get a vehicle in the hands of 
troops more quickly than the current seven-year timeline.
    The committee recommends $934.4 million, the full amount 
requested, for the Army GCV program.

Maingate tactical network architecture

    The committee supports the Joint Tactical Radio System 
(JTRS) program, but encourages the Army to explore alternative 
network solutions in order to mitigate the risk of JTRS 
fielding delays. The committee believes that one alternative 
could be provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency Maingate network gateway technology, which is intended 
to enable mobile ad hoc network communications between analogue 
and digital Army radio systems. The committee understands that 
the Army has conducted limited testing of networks using 
Maingate technology. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Director, Defense Research and Engineering to provide a report 
to the congressional defense committees by January 30, 2011, 
comparing the technological readiness, test performance, 
reliability, and cost of a notional Army tactical network using 
the JTRS Ground Mobile Radio running the Wideband Networking 
Waveform and Soldier Radio Waveform, and the Maingate network 
gateway. The report should also include a detailed description 
of the notional network's composition and size.

Medium Extended Air Defense System

    The committee is concerned that the tri-national Medium 
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) co-development program will 
deliver a capability that is not integrated with the Army's 
Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) architecture and 
joint operational concept. The Army's IAMD architecture relies 
on the IAMD Battle Command System (IBCS) to provide battle 
management and command and control (C2) across all Army air and 
missile defense sensors and shooters. IBCS also provides the 
interface to other air and missile defense battle management 
and C2 systems such as the Missile Defense Agency's Command and 
Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) and the 
Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), which enables 
access to their sensors and interceptor systems. However, the 
MEADS program, as currently planned, does not include the IBCS.
    The committee is aware that the United States requested 
that its international partners restructure the MEADS program 
in the fall of 2008 and has proposed substituting IBCS as the 
MEADS battle manager. The committee believes that both United 
States and coalition forces benefit by leveraging a battle 
management and C2 system that enables access to a full 
complement of air and missile defense systems.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 
December 1, 2010, evaluating the options for restructuring the 
MEADS program structure and governance. The evaluation should 
include, at a minimum, an assessment of cost, schedule, 
performance, and international implications for each option.

Military engineering advanced technology

    The budget request contained $27.4 million in PE 63734A for 
military engineering advanced technology.
    The committee notes that budget justification materials 
indicate that $20.5 million of this amount is for ``Deployable 
Force Protection Technology Integration Demonstrations and Red 
Teaming.'' The committee does not believe the demonstration and 
red teaming work described requires the requested funding 
level.
    The committee recommends $17.4 million, a decrease of $10.0 
million, in PE 63734A for military engineering advanced 
development.

Non-line-of-sight launch system

    The budget request contained $81.3 million in PE 64646A for 
non-line-of-sight launch system (NLOS-LS) research and 
development.
    The committee notes that the Army terminated the NLOS-LS 
program in April 2010. However, the committee is concerned that 
the Army chose to terminate a program that had been touted for 
years as a key element in improving the lethality of light 
infantry brigades. The committee is also concerned that the 
Army is walking away from a $1.0 billion investment in research 
and development for this system. While the committee 
understands the need for the Army to reduce redundancy and fund 
other priorities, the committee believes that in this case the 
Army could have extended the engineering and manufacturing 
development phase for another year at a modest cost. This 
extension could have at least provided the Army with more 
options for procuring different versions of the missile, 
perhaps at a lower unit price. As a result, the committee has 
provided additional funding to the Navy elsewhere in this title 
to complete development of the NLOS-LS program. In addition, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 
2011, on how it can use some of the technology developed under 
the NLOS-LS program in the future.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $81.3 
million, in PE 64646A for NLOS-LS research and development.

Paladin Integrated Management program

    The budget request contained $53.6 million in PE 64854A for 
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program research and 
development.
    The committee notes that the Army has delayed the planned 
milestone C low-rate initial production decision for the PIM 
program, due to technological development challenges. As a 
result, the committee believes additional research and 
development funds are needed for the PIM program in fiscal year 
2011.
    The committee recommends $105.6 million, an increase of 
$52.0 million, in PE 64854A for the PIM program.

Self-inerting munitions technology development

    The budget request contained $42.6 million in PE 62624A for 
weapons and munitions technology, but included no funds for 
self-inerting munitions technology development.
    The committee notes unexploded ordnance (UXO) is common to 
all munitions, and that it is particularly significant in the 
case of cluster munitions where the UXO rate can be as high as 
20 to 30 percent. The committee recognizes these items function 
as unintended landmines, limiting battle-space command and 
control through increased hazards to friendly forces during 
combat operations. They also pose continued hazards to 
civilians and peacekeepers in post-conflict environments. The 
committee understands the purpose of this program is to develop 
technology that removes humanitarian hazards, prevents illicit 
reuse, and protects the environment from explosives in UXO.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62624A for the development of self-inerting munition 
technology.

Social science research capacity

     The budget request contained $195.8 million in PE 61102A, 
$429.8 million in PE 61153N, and $351.0 million in PE 61102F 
for basic research activities, including support for specific 
researchers.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has a 
program for supporting early career postdoctoral scientists and 
engineers by funding creative research opportunities. Each 
military department sponsors a Young Investigator Program 
(YIP), or some equivalent, that funds research by exceptional 
young faculty members in order to encourage their teaching and 
research careers to provide the Department of Defense with a 
future pipeline of scientific talent.
    Historically, YIP and similar programs have focused on 
supporting researchers in traditional physical and biological 
sciences of interest to the Department. With the increasing 
importance and emphasis on social science research, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should 
leverage YIP to encourage promising young social science 
researchers as well.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $198.8 million, an 
increase of $3.0 million, in PE 61102A; $432.8 million, an 
increase of $3.0 million, in PE 61153N; and $354.0 million, an 
increase of $3.0 million, in PE 61102F for YIP and equivalent 
programs to fund promising faculty members to encourage social 
science research that supports defense needs.

Stryker vehicle improvised explosive device mitigation technology

    The committee notes that attacks on Stryker vehicles in 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) have resulted in significant 
casualties, and that the Army is researching a new ``double V'' 
hull design to provide improved protection against improvised 
explosive devices (IED). In addition to this effort, the 
committee understands that the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is evaluating other IED 
survivability technologies that could be applied to a wide 
range of military vehicles, including Army Stryker vehicles. 
These technologies include roof or side-mounted IED blast-
attenuation seating systems, rocket propelled grenade fence 
armor, and IED mine blast armor kits, all of which could 
mitigate the effects of IED attacks in OEF. The committee also 
understands that some of these technologies have already been 
fielded on Marine Corps and North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
ally vehicles in OEF. Further, the committee understands that 
these technologies could be installed in the near-term on 
current Army Stryker vehicles during reset or in theater. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, JIEDDO to 
provide a report by January 30, 2011, to the congressional 
defense committees evaluating these technologies, their 
potential for installation on existing Stryker or other 
vehicles, and any actions taken by JIEDDO or the Army to field 
these technologies.

Tactical electronic surveillance systems

    The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 63766A for 
tactical electronic surveillance systems.
    The committee notes that budget justification materials 
indicate that $9.0 million of this amount is for requirements 
analysis and validation, and that this represents a $5.0 
million increase over the fiscal year 2010 funding level for 
this project. The committee does not believe the activities 
described justify this increase in funds.
    The committee recommends $12.9 million, a decrease of $5.0 
million, in PE 63766A for tactical electronic surveillance 
systems advanced development.

            Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $17.7 billion for Navy 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The 
committee recommends $18.0 billion, an increase of $285.2 
million to the budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Navy 
request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Composite deckhouse design for DDG 51 flight III class ships

    The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 63563N for 
ship concept advanced design, but contained no funds for 
development of a composite deckhouse for flight III of the DDG 
51 class destroyer.
    The committee supports the Navy decision to re-start the 
DDG 51 class destroyer acquisition program and to work toward a 
flight III version of the vessel by fiscal year 2016. To 
support the goal of that flight of ships of advanced radar and 
ship control systems, the Navy must make significant design 
changes to the class, in order to upgrade power and cooling 
capability. The committee realizes that those design changes 
have the potential to add significant weight to the vessel 
which could limit operational effectiveness. The committee 
supports an effort, aimed at reducing overall life-cycle costs 
of the class, to develop a composite deckhouse for the flight 
III ships that would significantly reduce the weight to center 
of buoyancy ratio and increase operational effectiveness of the 
vessel. The committee notes that the technological advancements 
for the composite deckhouse of the DDG 1000 program can 
significantly aid this effort.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63563N for development of a composite deckhouse for potential 
use on flight III DDG 51 class destroyers.

Development of hybrid multi-functional composites for submarine 
        structures

    The budget request contained $608.6 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine systems development, but contained no 
funding for the development of hybrid multi-functional 
composites for submarine structures.
    The committee notes the excellent results of the Virginia-
class submarine program of composite technology in the areas of 
the wide aperture array and main ballast tank vent gratings. 
The committee understands the use of composites is beneficial 
in life-cycle maintenance costs, as well as weight savings, 
which are always a key element of submarine design. The 
committee understands that emerging technologies using hybrid 
composite structures have the potential to continue to reduce 
weight with increased strength for many submarine applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63561N for continued development of hybrid multi-functional 
composite technology.

Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended Range Munition

    The budget request contained $108.9 million in PE 26623M 
for Marine Corps ground combat support research and 
development. Of this amount, $10.4 million was requested for 
the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFFS) Precision Extended 
Range Munition (PERM) program.
    The committee notes that the EFFS 120mm mortar system will 
be capable of firing the Army Accelerated Precision Mortar 
Initiative (APMI) round, which will offer similar performance 
to the proposed EFFS PERM round. The committee also notes that 
the PERM round will not achieve low-rate initial production 
until fiscal year 2015 and that the Army APMI round is set to 
field in early in fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends 
that the Marine Corps evaluate the performance of the APMI 
prior to beginning a development program to produce a munition 
with similar performance.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $10.4 
million, in PE 26623M for the EFFS PERM program.

Future integrated nuclear power systems

    The budget request contained $366.5 million in PE 63570N 
for advanced nuclear power systems, but contained no funds for 
development of small scale pressurized water reactors suitable 
for destroyer-sized vessels or for alternative nuclear power 
systems using thorium liquid salt technology.
    The committee remains committed to an all nuclear powered 
naval battle force. The committee notes that significant 
challenges in size and weight of nuclear technology make 
inclusion of integrated nuclear power systems on destroyer 
sized vessels currently impossible. Therefore, the committee 
believes that additional funding in engineering research and 
development is needed to design a smaller scale version of a 
naval pressurized water reactor, or to design a new reactor 
type potentially using a thorium liquid salt reactor developed 
for maritime use.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
63570N for research and design efforts to develop an integrated 
nuclear power system capable of use on destroyer-sized vessels 
either using a pressurized water reactor or a thorium liquid 
salt reactor.

High-Integrity Global Positioning System

    The budget request contained $40.9 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 justified and 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 $40.9 
million from the budget request.

Marine Corps military fleet simulation computer co-simulation

    The budget request contained $40.5 million in PE 63635M for 
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System, but included no 
funds for Marine Corps fleet simulation computer co-simulation 
technology programs.
    The committee understands the application of computer co-
simulation tools could be used to increase fuel efficiency of 
Marine Corps combat vehicles and tactical wheeled vehicle 
fleets.
    The committee recommends $41.3 million, an increase of $800 
thousand, in PE 63635M for fleet simulation computer co-
simulation technology programs for the Marine Corps.

Marine operations, Scripps Institute

    The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 61103N 
for University Research Initiatives, but contained no funds for 
efforts to upgrade facilities used extensively by Navy research 
vessels at the Nimitz Marine Facility in Point Loma, 
California.
    The committee understands the Scripps Institute of 
Oceanography, in affiliation with the University of California, 
San Diego, is undertaking a major program to replace pier and 
wharf facilities at their Point Loma location. The committee is 
aware that these facilities are extensively used by Navy 
research vessels and are instrumental for continued naval 
oceanographic projects. Because of the unique requirements of 
Navy research vessels and other vessels of the Department of 
Defense for pier supplied electrical distribution systems, 
information technology systems, and support services such as 
heavy lift cranes and advanced fendering systems, additional 
funding is required above the levels funded by the institution 
for construction of the new wharf and pier facility to 
effectively berth Navy research vessels.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 
61103N for integration of advanced electrical, information 
technology, crane, and associated support services of the new 
wharf and pier facilities at the Nimitz Marine Facility to 
optimize efficiency for Navy research vessels. The committee 
considers this funding appropriate for appropriation in the 
research and development account since this funding is not 
targeted to construction or repair but rather to upgrade the 
research capability of the facility.

Marine personnel carrier

    The budget request contained $108.9 million in PE 26623M 
for Marine Corps ground combat support research and 
development. Of this amount, $26.8 million was requested for 
the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program.
    The committee notes that the program's planned milestone A 
decision in March 2010 has been indefinitely postponed. As a 
result, the MPC program will not need the full amount of 
research and development funds requested.
    The committee recommends $6.8 million, a decrease of $20.0 
million, in PE 26623M for Marine Personnel Carrier research and 
development.

Navy non-line-of-sight launch system development

    The budget request contained $226.3 million in PE 63581N 
for Littoral Combat Ship mission module research and 
development but contained no funds for the non-line-of-sight 
launch system (NLOS-LS).
    The committee notes that the Army's termination of the 
NLOS-LS could leave the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 
without sufficient capability to defeat small boat threats and 
unable to provide precision fire support to Marine Corps 
forces. The committee is informed that the NLOS-LS will likely 
require only one more year of research and development work to 
achieve threshold requirements. Therefore, in order to take 
advantage of the $1.5 billion in development funds spent to 
date, the committee encourages the Navy to complete development 
of the NLOS-LS system for use on the LCS. The committee also 
directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees by December 15, 2010, on the 
feasibility and utility of the Navy completing development of 
the NLOS-LS. The report should include an analysis of possible 
unit cost reduction options.
    The committee recommends $301.3 million, an increase of 
$75.0 million, in PE 63581N for research and development of the 
NLOS-LS for use on the LCS.

Navy Unmanned Combat Air System

    The budget request contained $266.4 million in PE 64402N 
for the Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS) development 
and demonstration program.
    The committee notes that the N-UCAS development program is 
exhibiting less than optimal program execution as it relates to 
cost, schedule, and performance and the program is currently 
undergoing an acquisition strategy restructuring to improve the 
aforementioned areas of execution. The committee understands 
that the primary purpose of the N-UCAS program is to 
demonstrate the ability to launch and recover from an aircraft 
carrier a tailless, remotely piloted aircraft. However, the 
committee also understands that the N-UCAS program may be 
putting efforts towards developing low observable materials and 
technologies that are not required for successful completion of 
the required demonstration.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of 
the Navy review the scope of the program for any unneeded 
technology development efforts that may be occurring in the N-
UCAS development and demonstration program.

Next Generation Enterprise Network

    In the conference report (H. Rept. 111-288) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 
the conferees expressed concern over the pace of acquisition 
decisions that are necessary to transition from the Navy-Marine 
Corps Intranet (NMCI) to the Next Generation Enterprise Network 
(NGEN). The committee reiterates its support for the overall 
segmentation strategy for NGEN, which would break the single 
omnibus contract of NMCI into multiple smaller contracts. The 
committee believes that such an approach will not only promote 
increased competition in the future, but it will also support 
the development of greater in-house capability within the Navy 
and provide for a level of operational control by naval 
personnel over the network that is not available currently 
under the NMCI contract.

Photonic digital beamforming systems

    The budget request contained $83.9 million in PE 62271N for 
electromagnetic systems applied research, but contained no 
funds for development of photonic digital beamforming 
technology.
    The committee is interested in the development of new 
technologies that accomplish multiple functions of legacy 
technology. One such development is the introduction of 
photonic digital beamforming systems. The committee believes 
this new technology has the potential to significantly reduce 
radio frequency communication paths currently used on naval 
warships, saving on weight, spare parts, logistics support, and 
personnel manning.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 
62271N for development of photonic digital beamforming 
technology.

Small diameter bomb increment II

    The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 64329N for 
the Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) program.
    The SDB II is to provide the warfighter the capability to 
attack mobile targets in all weather, from stand-off range. SDB 
II will be integrated on the F-15E for the Air Force and Joint 
Strike Fighter variants for the Navy.
    The committee is aware of delays in the Air Force's SDB II 
contract award. The committee understands the Navy had planned 
to integrate and qualify the SDB II and its carriage rack onto 
the Joint Strike Fighter carrier and short takeoff vertical 
landing variants beginning in November 2009. The Air Force 
contract is not expected to be awarded until June 2010. The 
committee notes the Navy only requires six months of funding in 
fiscal year 2010 because the development decision has slipped 
for the SDB II program, causing a corresponding slip in the 
Navy's plans to contract for integration and qualification of 
the SDB II. As a result, the program office has identified 
$26.0 million in fiscal year 2010 funds as excess to program 
needs.
    The committee recommends $18.0 million, a decrease of $26.0 
million, in PE 64329N for the SDB II program.

Ultra High Frequency Hosted Payloads program

    The budget request contained $405.7 million in PE 33109N 
for the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) program, but 
contained no funds for the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Hosted 
Payloads program.
    MUOS will replace the existing UHF Follow-On (UFO) 
constellation and provide a much higher data rate capability 
for mobile users. However, the MUOS program has suffered 
significant schedule delays that may create an unacceptable gap 
in critical UHF service.
    Narrowband UHF satellite communications (SATCOM) provide 
tactical, over-the-horizon radio links for our men and women in 
combat in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, as well as around the world. The committee 
understands that the existing UHF system is oversubscribed by 
200 to 300 percent and that user requests for access to UHF 
SATCOM have often been denied due to a lack of available 
channels, forcing our troops to use less reliable line-of-sight 
radios. The current UFO fleet of satellites is reaching the end 
of life and the delays in the follow-on MUOS program risk an 
unacceptable degradation of service. As a result, the Navy is 
pursuing a diverse set of mitigation measures that provide an 
incremental strategy to augment the declining UHF 
communications capacity.
    To that end, the committee encourages full utilization of 
commercially-hosted government payloads and the development of 
additional UHF augmentation by the commercial satellite 
industry for military use. Specifically, the committee supports 
the UHF Hosted Payloads program that was cancelled in February 
2009 and the potential it holds both as a transitional gap-
filler between the UFO and MUOS systems, and as an ongoing 
augmentation providing critical support to tens of thousands of 
legacy UHF terminals.
    The committee recommends $410.7 million, an increase of 
$5.0 million, in PE 33109N to explore the entire range of 
options beyond the MUOS program for meeting UHF SATCOM needs.

VH-(XX) acquisition program and VH-3D/VH-60N legacy fleet sustainment

    The committee notes with disappointment that the Navy 
invested $3.3 billion in the VH-71 program with little to no 
return on investment for the taxpayer. Furthermore, the 
committee understands that termination costs for the program 
may reach an additional $555.0 million. Due to termination, the 
Navy will also be required to invest additional resources, 
beyond originally anticipated, to sustain the current VH-3D and 
VH-60N legacy fleet of executive helicopters. The committee 
notes that in the new program to develop a replacement 
Presidential helicopter, the Navy plans to produce at least two 
airframes, an executive model to transport the President, 
members of his family, and heads-of-state, and a passenger/
cargo variant to support the President during times of 
emergency. The committee supports this acquisition strategy. 
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would require the Comptroller General to conduct an annual 
review of the VH-(XX) acquisition program. Details of the 
review requirements are contained in the legislative provisions 
section of this report.

         Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $27.2 billion for Air Force 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The 
committee recommends $27.3 billion, an increase of $22.6 
million to the budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Air Force 
request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Conversion of excess ballistic missiles for space transportation uses

    Section 205 of the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 
105-303) requires a certification by a U.S. Government agency 
to the Congress at least 30 days before such agency converts an 
excess ballistic missile for use as a space transportation 
vehicle if the action: ``(a) would result in cost savings to 
the federal government when compared to the cost of acquiring 
space transportation services from United States commercial 
providers; (b) meets all mission requirements of the agency, 
including performance, schedule, and risk requirements; (c) is 
consistent with international obligations of the United States; 
and (d) is approved by the Secretary of Defense or his 
designee.''
    In a recent Government Accountability Office decision, ``In 
the Matter of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation,'' 
File B-402186, February 1, 2010, the Air Force testified that 
it interprets the term ``conversion'' to ``occur when the 
excess [intercontinental ballistic missile] assets are removed 
from their storage place and united with commercial components 
something that typically does not occur until launch is 
imminent and long after the contract or delivery order for the 
applicable launch service has been awarded.''
    Given that the purpose of Public Law 105-303 is to promote 
the United States commercial space industry, the committee is 
troubled by the Air Force interpretation of the term 
``conversion'' and believes that the certification should be 
provided to Congress with sufficient time to review and take 
action, if necessary. The committee recommends that an agency 
considering conversion should provide a certification 
concurrent with awarding a contract or delivery order for space 
transportation services. Moreover, the certification letter 
should provide sufficient financial detail to demonstrate that 
the action would result in cost savings to the United States. 
The committee notes that while the original development and 
procurement costs of excess ballistic missile assets are sunk 
costs, the costs to refurbish or modify excess assets for space 
launch or suborbital use are current costs and should be paid 
for by the agency proposing to use the assets.

Cyber Boot Camp

    The budget request contained $117.3 million in PE 62788F 
for work to develop better 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 ACE is to develop ROTC 
cadets into cyber officers. 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. ACE is the only cyber 
education offered by the Department of Defense for ROTC cadets. 
The committee recognizes that this program is vital to ensuring 
a robust information technology workforce that is capable of 
handling current and future cyber threats to our systems. The 
committee believes ACE Cyber Boot Camp should be expanded 
beyond the Air Force to include ROTC cadets from other military 
services.
    The committee recommends $118.3 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.

Defense applications of commercial satellites

    The committee is aware of numerous opportunities for 
hosting defense payloads on commercial satellites. For example, 
the committee understands that it may be possible to place 
weather data sensors on a commercial satellite platform that 
would augment or replace dedicated weather satellite systems. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct a study of the 
options for hosting defense payloads on commercial satellites. 
The committee expects the study to identify feasible options 
that offer potential savings and the specific actions required 
to take advantage of these opportunities. The committee further 
directs the Secretary to submit a report on the study to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle common upper stage engine

    The budget request contained $30.2 million in PE 64853 for 
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, but included no 
funds for research and development to achieve a common upper 
stage between the Atlas and Delta launch vehicles. In fiscal 
year 2010, Congress provided $20.0 million for this purpose. 
The committee supports continuing work to modify Delta IV RL-10 
upper stage engines to the Atlas V RL-10 configuration to 
enable efficient use of the existing RL-10 inventory.
    The committee recommends $58.2 million, an increase of 
$28.0 million, for research and development of a common upper 
stage engine for the Delta and Atlas launch vehicles.

F-35 aircraft

    The budget request contained $2.4 billion in PEs 64800F, 
64800N, and 64800M for development of the F-35 aircraft, but 
contained no funds for development of a competitive F-35 
propulsion system. The budget request also contained $7.7 
billion in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force and Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy for procurement of 22 F-35As, 13 F-35Bs, and 
7 F-35Cs.
    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 
four years, the committee recommended increases for the F-35 
competitive propulsion system, and notes that in all cases, 
funds have been appropriated by Congress 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 
fifth consecutive year, chosen not to comply with both the 
spirit and intent of this law by opting not to include funds 
for this purpose in the budget request.
    In the committee report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H. Rept. 111-166), the 
committee noted cost increases in the F135 development program, 
as well as cost increases for the procurement of F135 engines 
between December 2005 and December 2008. A March 2010 report on 
the Joint Strike Fighter by the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) notes that F135 engine development cost is now 
estimated to cost $7.3 billion, a 50 percent increase over the 
original contract award. In its report, GAO also notes that for 
the fiscal year 2009 F135 engine contract, the negotiated price 
for the F-35B engine and lift fan was 21 percent higher than 
the budget estimate, and the negotiated unit cost for the F-35A 
engine was 42 percent higher than budgeted. Over the past year, 
as a result of these cost increases in fiscal year 2009, the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics directed that a Joint Assessment Team (JAT) review 
the F135 cost structure, and the JAT concluded that engine 
contractor improvement plans were credible but challenging, and 
would require additional investment by the contractor for cost 
reduction initiatives.
    On February 23, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
submitted to the committee an update of the 2007 DOD ``Joint 
Strike Fighter Alternate Engine Acquisition and Independent 
Coast Analysis'' for the competitive engine program which noted 
that an investment of $2.9 billion over six years in additional 
cost would be required to finish F136 engine development and to 
conduct directed buys to prepare the F136 for competitive 
procurement of F-35 engines in 2017. This report also noted 
that long-term costs for either a one-engine or two-engine 
competitive acquisition strategy are the same, on a net present 
value basis.
    Given the F135 development and procurement cost increases 
and that long-term F-35 engine costs would be the same for a 
competitive F-35 engine acquisition strategy, the committee is 
puzzled by the Department's decisions over the past five years 
to not include an F-35 competitive propulsion system program in 
its budget requests. The committee remains unwavering 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. Therefore, the committee recommends 
a total increase of $485.0 million for the competitive engine 
program in PEs 64800F, 64800N, and 64800M as noted in the 
funding tables elsewhere in this report.
    Over the past year, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and 
F-35 contractor failed to meet promised expectations with 
regard to cost and schedule performance. As a result, in 
addition to the JAT, the Department of Defense conducted two 
other reviews of the F-35 program which included a 2009 update 
to the 2008 Joint Estimating Team (JET), known as JET 2, and 
chartered an independent manufacturing review team (IMRT). The 
JET 2 was tasked to conduct an independent cost and schedule 
estimate of the development and production program, while the 
IMRT reviewed production capacity and risk. The JET 2 concluded 
that the F-35 development program would take 30 months longer 
and cost some $3.0 billion more, and the IMRT concluded that 
the contractor's planned production ramp rates were high risk 
and not achievable within the contractor's planned timeframe. 
To reduce development and production risk, the Department of 
Defense proposes to procure one additional F-35C developmental 
test aircraft; stand-up an additional software simulation 
facility; utilize three operational F-35s for developmental 
test purposes; adjust the production profile in line with the 
IMRT recommendations and reduce planned production in the 
Future Years Defense Program by 122 aircraft; and increase 
amounts budgeted for F-35 development and production. Together, 
these actions are projected to delay the completion of F-35 
development by 13 months compared to last year's plan, and cost 
$2.8 billion more. In accordance with section 2433 of title 10, 
United States Code, the Secretary of the Air Force informed the 
committee on March 25, 2010, that the F-35 program will exceed 
unit cost thresholds by more than 50 percent compared to the 
original baseline estimate.
    On March 11, 2010, in testimony before the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics described the F-35 
program as having ``unprecedented concurrency'' of development, 
test, and production activities. On March 24, 2010, at a 
hearing held jointly by the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense's Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation testified that ``the primary issues with 
the Joint Strike Fighter program have been late delivery of 
test aircraft and the failure to adjust to the reality by 
building and resourcing realistic system development and test 
plans, as well as plans for producing and delivering 
aircraft.'' Additionally, on March 24, 2010, GAO's Director of 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management testified to the 
Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces that the ``DOD intends to 
procure up to 307 aircraft at a cost of $58.2 billion before 
completing developmental flight testing by mid-fiscal year 
2015.'' The committee notes that, under current plans in the 
spring of 2015, the Department will have requested a total of 
550 aircraft, over 22 percent of the planned procurement of 
2,443 F-35s, before developmental testing is complete. The 
committee also notes that, notwithstanding the JAT, JET 2, and 
IMRT findings and continued unprecedented research and 
development and procurement concurrency, the request for 43 
total F-35 aircraft for fiscal year 2011 is the same as 
projected in fiscal year 2009 for fiscal year 2011. In its 
testimony on March 24, 2010, GAO also noted that ``with most of 
development testing still ahead, the risk and impact from 
required design changes are significant,'' and may require 
``alterations to the production process, changes to the supply 
base and costly retrofitting of aircraft already produced and 
fielded.'' Consequently, the committee remains concerned that 
despite the Department's recent reduction of 122 aircraft in 
the Future Years Defense Program, the F-35 production ramp rate 
may still too high and the Department should consider further 
reductions until developmental testing is complete.
    For fiscal year 2011, the committee recommends 
authorization of the budget request for 42 aircraft, subject to 
the Department's completion of certain milestones planned by 
the Department for calendar year 2010. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a provision (sec. 141) which would require 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
to certify, not later than January 15, 2011, that certain 
milestones have been completed before an amount necessary for 
the procurement of more than 30 F-35 aircraft would be 
obligated or expended.

Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle and Broad Area Maritime 
        Surveillance system commonality

    The Air Force's Global Hawk unmanned aerial system (UAS) 
and the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system 
were planned to achieve maximum system commonality and 
interoperability.
    The committee is concerned that differing, evolving service 
unique requirements, coupled with Global Hawk UAS vanishing 
vendor issues are resulting in a divergence in each service's 
basic goal of maximum system commonality and interoperability, 
particularly with regard to the communications systems.
    The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to certify and 
provide written notification of compliance to the congressional 
defense committees by March 31, 2011, that he has reviewed the 
communications requirements and acquisition strategy for both 
the Global Hawk UAS and BAMS systems programs, that the 
requirements of each service's communications systems have been 
validated, and the acquisition strategy being executed for each 
system achieves the greatest possible commonality and 
represents the most cost effective option for each program.

Metals Affordability Initiative

    The budget request contained $33.4 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapon systems.
    Congress has supported the Metals Affordability Initiative 
(MAI) as a peer review process to provide science and 
technology funding for promising aerospace projects in the Air 
Force advanced materials program with the objective of 
improving the strength and durability of materials available to 
the warfighter, as well as reduce costs. The committee 
continues to support government-industry collaboration provided 
through MAI. 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 continues to encourage 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.

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

    The budget request contained $325.5 million in PE 35178F 
for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 
Satellite System (NPOESS).
    This tri-agency program, involving the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, was established in 1994 
to combine the weather satellite programs of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Air 
Force. In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 
the committee expressed concern about the significant cost, 
schedule and management challenges facing the program.
    Section 913 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the President to 
develop a strategy for the management and funding of the NPOESS 
program and an implementation plan to execute this strategy. 
The section also limited the expenditure of funds in fiscal 
year 2010 until reports on the strategy and the plan were 
submitted to Congress.
    On February 1, 2010, the Executive Office of the President 
announced its intention to restructure the NPOESS program by 
terminating the joint procurement of weather satellites and 
assigning responsibility for each of the three planned orbits 
to the agency holding the majority of the interest in that 
orbit. The Department of Commerce will populate the afternoon 
orbit and the Department of Defense will populate the early 
morning orbit. The U.S. Government will continue to rely on the 
European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological 
Satellites (EUMETSAT) to provide weather data from the mid-
morning orbit period.
    On March 12, 2010, the Director of the Office of Management 
and the Budget and the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy submitted a report on the strategy and 
implementation plan required by section 913 of Public Law 111-
84. The report explained that the Department of Defense would 
identify the path forward to accomplishing the early morning 
orbit mission by reviewing its requirements consistent with its 
acquisition regulations, making a Material Development 
Decision, and then performing an Analysis of Alternatives. The 
committee does not expect this process to be completed in less 
than a year.
    The report also stated that the Department of Defense 
budget request for fiscal year 2011 ``will remain unchanged to 
allow work to continue on the satellite components as well as 
to transition the afternoon acquisition efforts to NOAA.'' The 
committee has received no information from the Department of 
Defense on how it intends to support continued work on 
satellite components in fiscal year 2011 or how current work 
related to the afternoon orbit will be transitioned to NOAA.
    The committee does not support additional funding, beyond 
that currently available in fiscal year 2010, for the 
acquisition of a satellite for the afternoon orbit until a 
transition plan has been prepared and until the Department of 
Defense has completed its process for determining the path 
forward for populating the morning orbit.
    The committee recommends $25.5 million, a decrease of 
$300.0 million, in PE 35178F for NPOESS.

Next-generation military satellite communications technology 
        development

    The budget request included no funds in PE 64436F for next-
generation military satellite communications technology 
development. In the conference report (H. Rept. 111-288) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010, Congress authorized creation of this program element 
to carry out technology development efforts, in part to fill 
gaps left by the cancellation of the transformational satellite 
communications program. The committee considers it a priority 
to continue developing sufficiently mature communication 
technologies that could be used on future blocks of current 
communication satellites or, eventually, on next-generation 
communication satellites to minimize the technical, cost, and 
schedule risk. The committee is especially interested in risk 
reduction efforts that could have applications on future 
satellites, and in military-unique radiation hardening 
requirements and techniques with a focus on reducing the cost, 
weight, and complexity of current technologies.
    The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 
64436F for next-generation military satellite communications 
technology development.

Non-volatile hardened memory

    The committee recognizes that non-volatile, radiation-
hardened memory provides a dedicated, light-weight storage 
capacity with important defense applications. The committee 
therefore directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare a 
technology development and investment plan to ensure that the 
U.S. Government continues along a near-term path to develop and 
produce eight megabyte or greater non-volatile, radiation-
hardened memory chips. The committee further directs the 
Secretary to deliver this plan to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2011.

Operationally Responsive Space

    The budget request contained $94.0 million in PE 64857F for 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). However, the budget 
request did not include sufficient funding to accelerate the 
development of critical ORS infrastructure, and to acquire 
enabling technologies.
    The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) established the ORS 
Office to respond to the needs of the joint force commander and 
to build the enabling infrastructure to deliver space 
capabilities in operationally relevant timelines. The committee 
commends the progress made thus far on the ORS-1 satellite, 
which has been a warfighter priority, and the development of an 
open architecture with a plug-in-play bus, modular payloads, 
and standard interfaces. In this next stage, the committee 
recommends increased funding to further develop such 
activities. The committee also supports accelerating the 
development of critical infrastructure to expand user access to 
ORS capabilities and data. These efforts would expand ground 
and communications segments providing data to multiple 
operational commands and users. This work would also accelerate 
development of a space vehicle that would accommodate multiple 
payloads on shorter timelines.
    The committee recommends $134.0 million, an increase of 
$40.0 million, in PE 64857F to acquire additional ORS 
satellites to meet commanders' urgent needs, support enabling 
technologies, and to further develop and procure an open 
architecture with a plug-in-play bus, modular payloads, and 
standard interfaces.

Space Based Space Surveillance

    The budget request contained $185.9 million in PE 64425F 
for the Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) project.
    The SBSS project is a critical priority for space 
situational awareness (SSA) and is structured into two 
acquisition efforts: a Block 10 system and follow-on systems. 
Launch of the Block 10 system has been delayed several times 
and is currently scheduled for July 2010. Delays in the Block 
10 satellite launch have affected the schedule for the follow 
on product development and delivery, reducing the funding 
requirement for SBSS in fiscal year 2011.
    SBSS will support SSA by providing timely, actionable data 
for detecting, tracking and identifying objects in space in 
order to execute global space operations, provide threat 
assessment and warning, conduct operational-level space 
campaign planning and strategy, and maintain the space 
operating picture. After launch, the Block 10 system is 
expected to operate until January 2016. The committee 
understands that the Air Force intends to decelerate 
acquisition of the follow-on SBSS system to incorporate lessons 
learned from initial operation of the Block 10 system.
    The committee recommends $155.9 million, a decrease of 
$30.0 million, in PE 64425F for the Space Based Space 
Surveillance project.

Star tracker technology

    The committee is concerned with the decline and potential 
loss of domestically produced, survivable, moderate accuracy 
star trackers for defense and national security satellite 
programs. The committee believes that star trackers are a 
foundational technology for enabling both military and civilian 
satellites to fulfill their missions. The committee understands 
that star trackers should be survivable against current and 
near-term threats, including laser illumination and exo-
atmospheric nuclear detonations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
prepare a technology development and investment plan to ensure 
that the U.S. Government retains the ability to produce 
moderate accuracy, survivable star trackers. The committee 
further directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit this 
plan to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011.

Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for Space

    The budget request contained $111.9 million in PE 62601F 
for space technology, but contained no funds for the Technology 
Research and Innovation Outreach for Space (TRIOS) project.
    The TRIOS project is designed to expand the number of 
private sector companies, universities, and government entities 
participating in the nation's small satellite space sector. 
This expansion should directly benefit Department of Defense 
space organizations at Kirtland Air Force Base, the Air Force 
Research Lab Space Vehicles and Directed Energy Directorates, 
the Operationally Responsive Space Office, and the Space 
Development and Test Wing, by providing ready access to 
innovative vendors and well-qualified scientists, engineers, 
and technicians. This will expedite the development and launch 
of the new small, lower-cost, responsive space systems required 
to support the Department's numerous and rapidly changing 
warfighter missions around the world.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62601F for the Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for 
Space project.

        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 $20.7 billion, an increase of $51.5 
million to the budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Defense-
Wide program are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and defense against sea-based missile 
        attacks

    The committee commends the Department of Defense funding 
increase for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program 
to advance the capabilities of sea-based missile defense. The 
committee believes the investment in sea-based missile defenses 
will serve to strengthen the security of the United States. 
Nevertheless, the committee believes there are additional steps 
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should take to expand sea-
based missile defense capabilities.
    First, the committee believes MDA should increase its 
collaboration with the Navy to ensure sea-based ballistic 
missile defenses are fully integrated into the broader missile 
defense Command and Control, Battle Management, and 
Communications system. Additionally, both the Navy and MDA 
should work to see Aegis BMD ships receive the widest array of 
off-board sensor data necessary to support theater, regional 
and national missile defense operations.
    Second, the committee understands that the Department's 
objectives for pursuing early-intercept capabilities are to 
handle large raid sizes, provide more shoot-look-shoot 
opportunities, constrain countermeasure deployments, and hedge 
against advanced threats. The committee believes that 
capability enhancements planned for the Standard Missile-3 (SM-
3) interceptor may provide such early intercept capability. 
Specifically, the next-generation SM-3 Block IIA interceptor 
with a planned increase in velocity and SM-3 Block IIB 
interceptor with a planned lighter kill vehicle, flexible 
propulsion, and upgraded fire control software, should enable 
greater early-intercept capability when fielded in either a 
ship-based configuration or relocatable land-based 
configuration. The committee therefore encourages MDA to 
continue the requisite technology development and maturation of 
these promising capabilities.
    Finally, the committee remains concerned about the nation's 
vulnerability to cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic 
missiles that could be launched from off the coast. This 
vulnerability is particularly acute for the east coast of the 
United States. Accordingly, the committee directs the Commander 
of U.S. Northern Command, with contribution from the Director 
of MDA and the Director of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile 
Defense Office, to provide the congressional defense committees 
with an assessment by March 15, 2011, of the vulnerability of 
the United States homeland to cruise missiles and shorter-range 
ballistic missiles that could be launched from off the coast, 
and a plan for how such vulnerabilities are being addressed.

Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National 
        Defense University

    The budget request contained $49.3 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 $50.3 million, an increase of $1.0 
million, in PE 65104D8Z for the CTNSP.

Counter-ideology programs

    The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63826D8Z 
for Quick Reaction Special Projects in the Rapid Reaction 
Technology Office, but included no funds to address the science 
and technology gaps identified in the ``Strategic Communication 
Science and Technology Plan'' from April 2009.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has not sufficiently focused its activities to counter 
violent extremist ideologies. While there are many strategic 
communication and information operations programs that aim to 
undermine the ideological narrative of various violent 
extremist groups, it is not apparent that they are coordinated 
and supported to the same extent that programs to undermine 
communism were during the cold war. As noted elsewhere in this 
report, there are social science programs within the Department 
that could prove valuable in establishing a concerted program 
to delegitimize violent extremist ideologies.
    The committee encourages the Department to take a holistic 
view of its messaging and counter-messaging activities and 
develop a strategy that links these efforts with other science 
and technology efforts in order to better understand 
adversarial ideologies. As noted elsewhere in this report, the 
Department must first understand the ideological environment, 
including how these groups leverage digital media, and then 
translate that understanding into synchronized action that 
coordinates near-, mid-, and far-term actions across the 
federal government. Active and continuous monitoring should be 
institutionalized in order to improve the execution of ongoing 
and future planned efforts.
    The committee recommends $88.2 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 63826D8Z for initiatives identified in the 
April 2009 ``Strategic Communication Science and Technology 
Plan'' that focus DOD activities to counter adversarial 
ideologies.

Cognitive computing efforts

    The budget request contained $90.1 million in PE 62304E for 
Cognitive Computing at the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA). Of this amount, $21.0 million was requested for 
the Transformative Apps and Healing Heroes programs.
     The committee is aware that the goal of the Transformative 
Apps program is to put mobile, tactical applications in the 
hands of warfighters and to create a new military apps 
marketplace with a vibrant development community. The committee 
understands that the Army Chief Information Officer (CIO) has 
established a similar development effort called ``Apps for the 
Army,'' which includes a cash award competition. The committee 
believes that because of the CIO's day-to-day experience 
supporting the warfighting community, the CIO would possess a 
closer understanding of the warfighter's needs and 
requirements. The committee is concerned that the DARPA effort 
is not adequately coordinated and de-conflicted with the Army 
initiative, or that an adequate case has been made as to the 
unique challenge that makes this a hard problem requiring DARPA 
support.
     The committee is also aware that the goal of the Healing 
Heroes effort is to bring the power of social networking, 
modern information technology, and machine learning to bear on 
the medical problems of American veterans. Because of the 
policy and regulatory requirements associated with addressing 
the medical challenges of our warfighters, such as the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-191) (HIPAA) and the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 
93-579), the committee is concerned that DARPA does not have 
adequate policy expertise to translate these legal strictures 
into technical systems. While the committee supports the goals 
of this program, it is not confident that DARPA should lead 
this type of activity, or that it should pursue technical 
solutions using real patient data without a well-defined 
memorandum of agreement with a partner that has deeper 
experience with HIPAA and Privacy Act information.
     Therefore, the committee recommends $69.1 million, a 
decrease of $21.0 million, in PE 62304E for the Transformative 
Apps and Healing Heroes programs.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

    The committee remains supportive of the mission of the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 
researching and developing innovative, leap-ahead capabilities 
for the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes 
that DARPA has undergone several corporate changes over the 
last year, including changes to its management structure, 
program priorities, execution goals, and business model. The 
committee commends the new director of DARPA for taking steps 
to improve the overall efficiency of DARPA operations. Most 
notably, by making key changes to its financial execution 
procedures, DARPA's obligation rates are up 17 percent over the 
average of the previous five years; and are a vast improvement 
over historical averages.
    Despite these improvements, the committee is aware of other 
potential program execution problems. During its review of 
DARPA's fiscal year 2011 budget request, the committee noted 
several programs, in particular the 6.3 programs, lacked clear 
transition paths. The committee remains concerned that without 
strong transition paths in place, or programmed service or 
agency transition funding, many of these programs will fail to 
be adopted by a program of record or science and technology 
activity. Additionally, some programs were noted to have late-
year starts or were still undergoing performer selections. The 
committee believes that with only two quarters remaining for 
the obligation of the fiscal year 2010 funds, DARPA will be 
unable to effectively obligate the requested funds.
    The committee makes a series of recommendations for general 
reductions in DARPA programs:

                        [In millions of dollars]

61101E--Defense Research Sciences.............................    (-50M)
62715E--Materials and Biological Technology...................     (-5M)
62716E--Electronics Technology................................    (-15M)
63286E--Advanced Aerospace Systems............................    (-31M)
63287E--Space Programs and Technology.........................     (-2M)
63760E--Command, Control, and Communications Systems..........     (-2M)
63765E--Classified DARPA Programs.............................    (-15M)
63766E--Network-Centric Warfare Technology....................    (-15M)
63767E--Sensor Technology.....................................     (-5M)

    These recommendations are made without prejudice to the 
particular account identified.

Digital media study

    The budget request contained $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for Combating Terrorism Technical Support, but contained no 
funds for efforts to better understand the impact of digital 
media exploited by extremist groups and individuals.
    The committee recognizes the rapid increase in adversarial 
use of new media products to disseminate their messages and 
biased rhetoric in order to undermine U.S. interests and entice 
populations to actively and passively support global terrorism. 
Various groups around the globe, such as al-Qa'ida and the 
Taliban, persistently utilize the Internet to recruit, train, 
and fundraise. Through popular websites, such as video sharing 
and social networking sites, their misleading and persuasive 
products often reach the stage of public opinion first, 
ultimately rendering subsequent factual counter messages 
useless. The amount of deceptive misinformation continues to 
grow at a staggering pace and the majority remains unanswered 
and misunderstood by moderate authorities.
    The Department's ability to analyze extremist online 
propaganda within the proper cultural and linguistic context is 
critical to comprehending our adversaries' ideological 
campaign, which is a significant driver for insurgencies and 
prolonged terrorist attacks. The committee believes defense 
policy will be appropriately guided if the Department 
understands the full scope of our enemies' online information 
campaign.
    The committee recommends $87.8 million, an increase of $2.5 
million, in PE 63122D8Z for the Combating Terrorism Technical 
Support Office to conduct an extensive study to determine the 
state of the virtual media environment our adversaries occupy. 
The committee also directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict and 
Interdependent Capabilities to brief the House Committee on 
Armed Services, by February 1, 2011, on the plan for executing 
this digital media study.

Directed energy research programs

    The budget request contained $96.7 million in PE 63901C for 
directed energy research programs for the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA).
    The budget request supports transitioning the Airborne 
Laser (ABL) aircraft to a national laser test platform for 
advanced directed energy research. It will also allow the MDA 
to continue focused directed energy research and development to 
hedge against future threats.
    The committee understands that the Director, Defense 
Research and Engineering (DDR&E) has begun a review of the 
Department-wide portfolio of directed energy research efforts 
in light of the availability of the ABL aircraft to act as the 
test-bed for directed energy research activities beyond missile 
defense.
    The committee is aware of a number of promising 
technologies being reviewed that may warrant additional 
resources, and understands that the review of these 
technologies is scheduled to be completed by DDR&E in June 
2010. However, the committee is concerned that the budget 
request does not include sufficient funding to support 
appropriate testing and retention of the ABL workforce, which 
has developed critical directed energy technology skills.
    The committee supports developmental efforts that appear 
most likely to yield operational capabilities and directs the 
Director, Defense Research and Engineering to submit a report 
on the Department's review of directed energy technologies to 
the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2010.
    The committee recommends $146.7 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, in PE 63901C to support increased research, 
development, and testing of directed energy technologies, 
including using ABL as a test platform.

Environmental management information systems

    The committee is aware that the Army has conducted a pilot 
program to evaluate an internet-based environmental management 
information system (EMIS). The committee understands that the 
Army has utilized an EMIS to demonstrate how a system can cost 
effectively and efficiently automate environmental compliance 
and greenhouse gas emission tracking and reduction. As a result 
of this pilot, the Army appears to have experienced cost 
savings, energy reductions, increased compliance with federal, 
state and local environmental regulations, while at the same 
time improving mission readiness and installation 
sustainability. The committee strongly encourages the Secretary 
of Defense to examine the lessons learned from this pilot to 
determine the potential for leveraging this technology to share 
with other components within the Department of Defense and the 
other military departments.

Environmental Security Technical Certification Program

    The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 63851D8Z 
for the environmental security technical certification program.
    The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts to 
demonstrate and promote implementation of innovative cost-
effective environmental technologies through the environmental 
security technical certification program. The committee also 
supports the efforts of this program, highlighted in the recent 
Quadrennial Defense Review, to use military installations as a 
test bed ``to demonstrate and create a market for innovative 
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies coming out 
of the private sector and DoD and Department of Energy 
laboratories.'' The committee recognizes that much more can be 
done in this area.
    The committee recommends $45.4 million, an increase of 
$15.0 million, in PE 63851D8Z, including an increase of $10.0 
million to accelerate efforts to demonstrate and implement 
innovative environmental, energy efficiency and renewable 
energy technologies, and an increase of $5.0 million for a 
pilot program on collaborative energy security authorized 
elsewhere within this title.

Federal Voting Assistance Program

    The budget request contained $64.7 million in PE 65803SE 
for research and development supporting the Defense Human 
Resources Agency. Of this amount, $39.0 million was requested 
for the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The committee 
required the Department of Defense conduct an electronic 
absentee voting demonstration project for uniformed services 
voters in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107). The committee is aware that the 
immaturity of system standards makes it impossible for the 
Department of Defense to get the Election Assistance Commission 
certified system guidelines required by the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 
Law 108-375) in fiscal year 2011. The committee continues to 
support the goals of FVAP, but the challenges in maturing the 
needed system standards calls for a gradual increase in funding 
to mitigate developmental risks.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $39.7 million, a 
decrease of $25.0 million, in PE 65803SE for the FVAP.

Ground combat uniform research and development

    Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) established, as a policy 
of the United States, that the design and fielding of all 
future ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms of the 
armed forces may uniquely reflect the identity of the 
individual military services, provided that the ground combat 
and camouflage utility uniforms, to the maximum extent 
practicable: (1) provide members of every military service an 
equivalent level of performance, functionality, and protection 
commensurate with their respective assigned combat missions; 
(2) minimize risk to the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or 
marine operating in the joint battlespace; and (3) provide 
interoperability with other components of individual war 
fighter systems, including body armor and other individual 
protective systems. The committee notes that part of the 
rationale for section 352 of Public Law 111-84 was to reduce 
the multiple research, design, development, and fielding 
efforts for military ground combat uniforms being undertaken by 
the military departments and to improve the overall combat 
capability of those assigned to ground combat missions.
    In an interim response to section 352 of Public Law 111-84, 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found no performance 
standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for 
evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no 
requirements for the services to test interoperability between 
their uniforms and other protective gear. Furthermore, while 
GAO found some examples of uniform technology being shared 
across the services, the committee emphasizes the importance of 
sharing new technologies, advanced materials, and other 
advances in ground combat uniform design and development 
between the military services. The committee notes that some of 
the military departments have used the Army Natick Soldier 
Research, Development, and Engineering Center during 
development of their ground combat uniforms to test the 
effectiveness of the camouflage, and, in some cases, camouflage 
effectiveness of ground combat uniforms and protective gear. 
The committee believes, however, that Natick's resources could 
be better utilized for joint research and development. Because 
of its expertise, the committee urges the services to consider 
expanding their use of the Army Natick Soldier Research, 
Development, and Engineering Center as a center of excellence 
for uniform research and development to guide their development 
of camouflage effectiveness and performance criteria and 
testing.
    Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense to consider designating an executive agent (EA) to 
oversee Department of Defense activities related to research 
and development of ground combat and camouflage utility 
uniforms. The committee envisions that such an EA would be 
similar to the functions performed by the executive agent for 
operation of the Department of Defense Combat Feeding Research 
and Engineering Program.

Intergovernmental Value Added Network

    The budget request contained $184.1 million in PE 65020BTA 
for the Business Transformation Agency (BTA), including $3.7 
million for the Intergovernmental Value Added Network (IVAN).
    The committee is aware that BTA has developed IVAN to 
address long standing material weaknesses associated with 
intergovernmental transactions identified by the Government 
Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector 
General. IVAN will provide a system for internal control and 
financial visibility, as well as ensure the timeliness and 
accuracy of accounting transaction postings. These goals are 
important for ensuring the full transparency of Department 
financial transactions as well as providing capabilities 
necessary to achieve financial audit readiness. The committee 
supports the objectives of IVAN, but is discouraged that this 
system has not been transitioned to other military departments 
or interagency partners. Because there has not been wide spread 
adoption of IVAN to remedy this long-standing problem, the 
committee believes that continued investment is unlikely to 
result in any benefit for the nation.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $180.4 million, a 
decrease of $3.7 million, in PE 65020BTA for IVAN.

Investment review process for human dynamics activities

    The committee recognizes the need for human dynamics 
programs within the Department of Defense, which, according to 
the Defense Science Board, include ``the actions and 
interactions of personal, interpersonal, and social/contextual 
factors and their effects on behavioral outcomes.'' The 
committee has been supportive of human dynamics activities in 
the past, such as the Human Terrain System, the Minerva 
Initiative, cultural engagement teams and associated programs.
    The committee believes that for the Department to have a 
robust human dynamics effort, it requires senior leadership 
engagement and a governance forum for understanding the range 
of service and combatant commander requirements, existing 
programs, program gaps and required resources needed to create 
a critical mass of expertise within the government.
    The committee also recognizes that one area in particular 
that would benefit from senior leadership would be data 
standards and data tagging methodologies for socio-cultural 
information. The committee understands that collecting useful 
socio-cultural information in a manner that can be ingested and 
analyzed by automated information processing systems is a key 
technical challenge to integrating human terrain understanding 
into the overall battlespace operational picture.
    The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
establish a process, including a reviewing and decision-making 
body, to review investments and recommend programming decisions 
for Department of Defense programs associated with human 
dynamics. This process should also serve as intra- and 
interdepartmental coordination body for human dynamics 
research. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
report on the development of the investment review process 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.

Israeli cooperative programs

    The budget request contained $121.7 million in PE 63913C 
for Israeli cooperative programs. This represents a decrease of 
$79.6 million from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. The 
fiscal year 2011 budget request contained $46.7 million for 
continued development of David's Sling Weapon System (DSWS), 
$12.2 million for improvements to the Arrow Weapon System 
(AWS), and $50.8 million for Arrow-3.
    Since 1986, the United States and the State of Israel have 
cooperated on missile defense. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) has three significant initiatives with Israel to develop 
and improve its indigenous capability to defend against short- 
and medium-range ballistic missiles: DSWS for defense against 
short-range systems; AWS for defense against medium-range 
systems; and the Arrow-3 Interceptor, an upper-tier follow-on 
to the AWS. MDA is also developing, testing, and exercising 
interoperability between the U.S. ballistic missile defense 
system (BMDS) and the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture to 
ensure Israeli systems can be integrated into the global BMDS.
    However, the budget request does not support acceleration 
of full scale development of the DSWS, completion of the 
development and testing of AWS improvements, and beginning 
coproduction of the Arrow-3 interceptor. The committee is aware 
that progress has been achieved over the past year in meeting 
the agreed Arrow-3 knowledge points.
    The committee recommends $209.7 million for Israeli 
cooperative programs, an increase of $88.0 million in PE 
63913C, including $84.7 million for DSWS, $54.2 million for AWS 
improvements, and $58.8 million for Arrow-3.

K-12 education in computer sciences and mathematics

    The budget request contained $328.2 million in PE 61101E 
for basic research in the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA), including funds for the Computer Futures 
program; $48.3 million in PE 65803A for basic research in the 
Army, including funds for the Army Educational Outreach 
Program; and $429.8 million in PE 61153N for basic research in 
the Navy, including funds for educational outreach programs in 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to 
stimulate careers in computer science and engineering.
    The committee remains 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. If the nation is 
unable to meet the 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 made significant 
progress in the years that followed. However, in the past 
several decades the impact of those investments has declined.
    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 in 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 
Army Educational Outreach Program includes a range of Army-
sponsored research, education, competitions, internships and 
practical experiences designed to engage and guide students and 
teachers in STEM education. The Navy also supports a similar 
variety of STEM opportunities.
    The committee recommends $329.2 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 $49.3 million, an increase of $1.0 
million, in PE 65803A for expansion of the Army Educational 
Outreach Program to create new curricula and to expand the 
geographic diversity of the participating schools. The 
committee also recommends $430.8 million, an increase of $1.0 
million, in PE 61153N for the expansion of the Navy educational 
outreach program to provide more focus on cyber-related 
computer science and mathematics students.

Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology Sharing

    The committee remains committed to ensuring that knowledge 
created through the Department of Defense's (DOD) research and 
development programs are fully exploited across the DOD science 
and technology enterprise. The committee notes that over the 
past several years, the Army has developed and implemented the 
Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology Sharing (KITS) system. 
The committee understands that the KITS system is an innovation 
and knowledge management tool designed to identify, capture, 
manage, and share information generated by service-funded 
research and development activities. The KITS system enables 
researchers, procurement staff, technology transition agents, 
and patent attorneys to capture vital innovation knowledge 
generated by Army-funded research and development activities 
and store it in a single integrated database. The committee 
notes that KITS is currently operational at five Army research, 
development, and engineering organizations. The committee 
believes that such an integrated system could foster greater 
collaboration on technology development and transitions issues 
in support of the Department and industry and should be made 
available across the DOD research and development community.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, to 
review the Army KITS systems and brief the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Armed 
Services Committee, by September 15, 2010, on the utility of 
the program for use across the services and relevant agencies, 
including the cost of adopting the system, as well as any 
potential savings it may offer the defense science and 
technology enterprise.

Management of defense basic research

    The committee is encouraged by recent sustained increases 
for basic research within the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
committee recognizes the critical contribution basic research 
investments make in creating a strong scientific foundation 
that supports the long-term development of future military 
capabilities.
    The committee notes the concerns regarding the defense 
basic research program raised by the JASON scientific advisory 
group and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on 
Department of Defense Basic Research. Considering the 
increasing investments being made in defense basic research, 
the committee remains concerned about the quality, relevance, 
and focus of the basic research efforts, and the coordination 
of those efforts within the Department, including the services 
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and relevant 
programs within the federal government.
    The committee is encouraged that the Basic Science Office, 
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, recently 
proposed a clear, actionable strategic defense basic research 
plan that would address many of those concerns. The committee 
supports the five goals set forth to strengthen the defense 
basic research enterprise, including:
          (1) Provide scientific leadership for the DOD basic 
        research enterprise;
          (2) Attract the nation's best scientists and 
        engineers to contribute to and lead DOD research;
          (3) Ensure the coherence and balance of the DOD basic 
        research portfolio;
          (4) Foster connections between DOD performers and the 
        DOD community;
          (5) Maximize the discovery potential of the defense 
        research business environment.
    The committee is concerned that the proposed basic research 
strategy is not properly resourced to develop and execute 
useful management tools for ensuring the quality and relevance 
of defense basic research. Therefore, the committee encourages 
the Secretary of Defense to provide adequate resources to 
oversee, plan, execute, and evaluate its basic research program 
and investments. Further, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
September 1, 2010, on actions being taken to implement the 
proposed basic research strategy.

Mechanism to provide funds for defense laboratories

    Section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as 
amended by section 2801 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), granted the 
directors of the Department of Defense laboratories the 
authority and resources to conduct, at their discretion, a 
program for innovative research and development, incentives to 
hire and retain skilled scientists and engineers, transition of 
technology to warfighters, and funding of minor construction 
projects. The committee notes that the statute requires that 
all funds available to laboratory directors, up to three 
percent, may be used to support the selected efforts. The 
committee is concerned that the utilization of section 219 of 
Public Law 110-417, due to various reasons, has not been fully 
implemented across the Department of Defense laboratories. The 
committee reminds the Department of Defense that the use of all 
funds include, directly appropriated funds, funds derived from 
work for other Department of Defense organizations, other 
federal agencies, and non-federal organizations, or from other 
sources of laboratory revenue, excluding congressionally 
directed appropriations. The intent of section 219 of Public 
Law 110-417 is to provide authorization to access up to three 
percent of all such funds.
    The committee believes that to improve the performance and 
technical capabilities of the laboratories requires a proper 
balance between central management control and local director 
discretion. However, the Department of Defense's laboratory 
corporate structure provides consultation, not direction, to 
the laboratory directors. Section 219 of Public Law 110-417 is 
modeled after the successful Department of Energy Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development program, and affords 
Department of Defense laboratory directors the opportunity to 
reinvigorate the in-house workforce and programs essential to 
the development of military capabilities.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
is not moving expeditiously to implement this useful new 
authority. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and 
the secretaries of the military departments to provide the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services a briefing, by September 1, 2010, on the details 
of the status of implementation of section 219 of Public Law 
110-417, as amended by section 2801 of Public Law 111-84, 
including specific bureaucratic, regulatory, and statutory 
barriers to full implementation and the organizations involved 
in those barriers, and a schedule for full implementation of 
this section as intended.

Missile Defense Agency special programs

    The budget request contained $270.2 million in PE 63891C 
for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) special programs.
    The committee recommends $245.2 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, in PE 63891C for MDA special programs.

Missile defense command, control, and communications

    The committee is concerned that a potential adversary could 
conduct cyber attacks and/or satellite communications (SATCOM) 
jamming against elements of the missile defense network. These 
technologies are readily available and have proliferated. An 
attack against the missile defense network could have 
asymmetric effects and may imperil the defense of national 
interests at home and abroad.
    The committee directs the Commander of U.S. Strategic 
Command and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to 
prepare a joint report on actions planned or taken to mitigate 
the threat posed to theater, regional, and global missile 
defense command, control, communications, and computer 
capabilities by cyber and SATCOM jamming threats. The report 
should identify key nodes and vulnerabilities and any actions 
taken to protect those nodes and mitigate the vulnerabilities. 
The report may be delivered in classified form but should 
include an unclassified summary.
    The committee further directs the Commander and the 
Director to submit this report to the congressional defense 
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

Multi-Agency Collaboration Environment

    The committee is aware that the office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration 
sponsored a program intended to break down interagency 
information stovepipes and promote greater information sharing 
among the Department of Defense and its partners. The Multi-
Agency Collaboration Environment (MACE) is an innovative effort 
to address many of the information sharing problems identified 
by the 9/11 Commission which continue to plague the U.S. 
Government. MACE provides a unique proving ground for federated 
information sharing architectures and techniques. Equally 
important, the contracting paradigm for MACE is a radical 
departure for the Department, and offers a potential future 
standard that leverages Darwinian principles in support of 
information systems program management. The committee plans to 
closely monitor the progress of MACE, and encourages the 
Department to make greater use of this capability.

Over-the-horizon broadcast extension capability

    The budget request contained $162.3 million in PE 64940D8Z 
for Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
develop, by January 1, 2012, an over-the-horizon broadcast 
extension capability by the Air Force 46th Test Squadron. The 
purpose of this capability is to provide Air National Guard 
elements with a mission critical data link that is integrated 
with test data networks, allowing sharing of tactical data link 
data by geographically-separated ranges.
    The committee recommends $169.1 million in PE 64940D8Z, an 
increase of $6.8 million, for Central Test and Evaluation 
Investment Development.

Regional missile defense plans

    The new Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for missile defense 
in Europe announced by the President on September 17, 2009, is 
likely to create increased force structure and inventory 
demands. Furthermore, as noted in the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Review (BMDR) released on February 1, 2010, the Phased Adaptive 
Approach is to be tailored to other geographic regions such as 
East Asia and the Middle East, which is also likely to create 
significant force structure and inventory demands. As 
acknowledged in the BMDR, ``regional demand for U.S. BMD assets 
is likely to exceed supply for some years to come.''
    Until these regional missile defense architectures are 
completed, the committee is concerned that the Department's 
missile defense force structure and inventory requirements, and 
the resulting resource implications will be difficult to 
quantify. In addition, certain missile defense capabilities, 
such as Aegis ballistic missile defense ships, will remain high 
demand, low density assets that must be carefully managed 
across the combatant commands so that no one theater accepts 
greater risk at the expense of another.
    The committee is aware that the Department is developing 
regional missile defense architectures based on the PAA and 
also developing a comprehensive force management process. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 
2010, describing: (1) the regional missile defense 
architectures, including the force structure and inventory 
requirements derived from the architectures, and (2) the 
comprehensive force management process, and the capability, 
deployment, and resource outcomes that have been determined by 
this process.

Role of non-lethal weapons

    The committee reiterates its belief that non-lethal weapons 
(NLW) can and should play an increasingly important role in 
meeting the evolving requirements of U.S. military strategy. 
The committee supports a robust science and technology effort 
leading to deployment of non-lethal weapons capabilities, 
including directed energy technologies, which can provide 
escalation-of-force options to the warfighter for situations 
where the use of lethal force may be counterproductive to U.S. 
goals and objectives.
    The committee appreciates the Department's ``Report on 
Requirements for Non-Lethal Weapons'', submitted in response to 
a requirement in committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010. The committee notes that the December 2009 Report 
stated that ``Non-lethal weapons will continue to make useful 
contributions in a range of military operations for the 
foreseeable future.'' In the letter of transmittal, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
wrote that the Department ``strongly supports the timely 
development and fielding of NLW for the armed forces.'' The 
report also identified actions being taken by the Department to 
address the concerns raised in the April 2009 Government 
Accountability Office report titled, ``DOD Needs to Improve 
Program Management Policy, and Testing to Enhance Ability to 
Field Operationally Useful Non-Lethal Weapons.''
    Despite these positive developments, the committee remains 
concerned that the Department does not fully appreciate the 
important role non-lethal capabilities can play in helping to 
ensure mission success. For example, the Secretary of Defense, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander, U.S. Central 
Command, and the Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, have 
reaffirmed the need to limit unintended non-combatant 
casualties in on-going contingency operations; yet they have 
not explicitly identified the role non-lethal weapons can play 
in achieving this end.
    The committee believes the importance of non-lethal weapons 
has increased as a result of the shift in United States 
military strategy toward civilian casualty avoidance, 
particularly in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Moreover, 
although the goal of civilian casualty avoidance is likely to 
be an enduring requirement of future U.S. military engagements, 
the importance of non-lethal weapons is not explicitly 
recognized in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. In addition, 
the research and development budget requests for fiscal year 
2011, for both the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program and the 
individual service NLW programs are less than the appropriated 
amounts for fiscal year 2010, which are insufficient to close 
the capability gaps referenced in the Department of Defense 
report to Congress. Procurement funding has declined 
substantially in recent years and is less than one-fifth of the 
total fiscal year 2011 Department of Defense non-lethal weapons 
budget request, complicating the ability to field systems more 
broadly in support of current counter-piracy, stability 
operations, or other unconventional and irregular 
contingencies. These budgetary trends do not reflect an urgent 
need for non-lethal capabilities, despite the Department's 
affirmation of their continuing utility. The committee is 
troubled by this apparent disconnect.
    The committee's oversight of the Department's non-lethal 
weapons activities is handicapped by the lack of comprehensive 
and easily identifiable data on non-lethal weapons budgets and 
programs. These programs are grouped in multiple categories, 
depending upon whether the program is a joint or service 
initiative, or in the research, development, or acquisition 
phase. Moreover, funding is contained in multiple service line 
items that are not easily identifiable. This complicates the 
ability to understand the breadth of the Department's non-
lethal weapons program in order to avoid program duplication 
and redundancies. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 
directs the military departments to clearly identify a 
procurement account for NLW line items in their future year 
budget submissions. The committee expects that each line item 
description will identify the specific programs for which funds 
are being requested; provide summary justification for the 
program; identify whether the program is a joint or service-
specific initiative; and the amount of funding provided during 
the past fiscal year. The committee also expects the Department 
to provide similar information for all budget requests for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for NLWs.
    The Department's report also states that, ``Commander, 
Central Command has mandated NLW training as a prerequisite for 
deploying forces.'' Consistent with the deployment of force 
application and force protection capabilities, the committee 
believes that effective operational testing and evaluation, as 
well as proper training on non-lethal weapons are critical to 
effective fielding. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to begin operationally 
testing, including training of counter-personnel NLWs prior to 
fielding these devices to deploying service members.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce

    The committee believes that one of the enduring strengths 
of the Department of Defense is the technological capability 
provided by a strong science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) workforce. The committee has repeatedly 
expressed concerns, echoed by reports from the National Academy 
of Science and the Defense Science Board, which indicate that 
the United States is not producing sufficient numbers of 
qualified scientists and engineers to meet our future national 
security needs. In addition to the national security 
implications, the committee agrees with leading economists that 
the continual decline in the STEM workforce will have a 
significant impact on our economic security, affecting the 
nation's competitiveness and technological leadership on the 
world stage.
    The committee commends the service secretaries and the 
Secretary of Defense for placing increased emphasis on 
developing and implementing STEM programs, particularly K-12 
programs, but remains concerned that there has not been a 
commensurate increase in planning, coordination or investments 
across the Department. The committee is disappointed that the 
Secretary of Defense has not complied with a March 31, 2009, 
deadline for a response to a study required 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 to include in the study the 
findings from an assessment of all STEM related programs across 
the Department and the recommendations for the enhancement and 
coordination of such programs.
    The committee emphasizes that the Department of Defense has 
a mandate to continually analyze, understand, and address 
critical STEM needs in areas, such as:
          (1) Enduring scientific and technical disciplines 
        where the Department of Defense may potentially have 
        critical shortages in personnel or expertise;
          (2) Emerging scientific and technical areas where the 
        Department should promote growth of the workforce;
          (3) Tools necessary to foster and grow a diverse and 
        culturally competent STEM workforce; and
          (4) Efforts that mutually support broader national 
        goals to promote STEM education and increase the 
        international competiveness of the United States.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct greater mentoring and outreach with STEM professional 
societies or other organizations to help support STEM education 
outreach programs. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense 
and the service secretaries to do more to increase diversity 
and equity in the STEM workforce pipeline in order to leverage 
the untapped potential of a broader range of the population. 
Not only does this have the potential to increase the resource 
pool to support traditional scientific and engineering pursuits 
for national defense, but it also has the potential to provide 
valuable benefits for other related organizations, such as the 
intelligence community, the Foreign Service, and the 
acquisition corps.

Special Operations Technology Development

    The budget request contained $26.5 million in PE 1160401BB 
for Special Operations Technology Development (SOTD).
    The committee recognizes that SOTD provides valuable 
support to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) through 
the development of laboratory prototypes for applied research 
and technology projects. The committee also recognizes that 
SOTD provides USSOCOM with an ability to make small incremental 
investments with the Department, other government agencies, and 
commercial organizations in order to influence the direction of 
emerging technologies and capabilities in support of U.S. 
Special Operations Forces (USSOF).
    The committee notes that the list of unfunded requirements 
it received for USSOCOM research and development efforts is in 
excess of $41.0 million, indicating significant shortfalls in 
this critical area. The committee understands that these 
unfunded requirements would provide transformational 
enhancements for USSOF engaged in direct and indirect missions 
in the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
and other areas.
    The committee recommends $31.5 million, an increase of $5.0 
million, in PE PE 1160401BB for Special Operations Technology 
Development to support USSOCOM research and development 
unfunded requirements, including digital night vision devices, 
non-lethal weapons applications, and classified program areas 
in direct support of USSOF missions.

Test Resource Management Center budget certification briefing

    The committee recognizes that the Director, Test Resource 
Management Center is required to review and certify as adequate 
the budgets of each military department, Operational Test and 
Evaluation, and each Defense Agency with test and evaluation 
responsibilities as directed by section 231 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
314) that established the Test Resource Management Center. 
Further, section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) amended section 196(c) 
of title 10, United States Code to grant the Director, Test 
Resource Management Center the same authority to military 
service department information as provided the Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation to ensure that the Director has 
access to all the information needed to certify service budgets 
and provide recommendations regarding Department of Defense 
test and evaluation infrastructure. The committee seeks to 
ensure that communication between the Test Resource Management 
Center and the services and agencies is adequate for the 
performance of the Director's legislated duties. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Director, Test Resource Management Center 
to brief the committee by December 1, 2010 on the budget 
certification process for fiscal year 2012.

Trusted computing in defense systems

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for 
developing a robust framework for risk management of the global 
supply chain. The report provided to the committee in response 
to section 254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) clearly shows that the 
Department of Defense assessed the threats to the entire 
spectrum of hardware and software for gathering, storing, 
transmitting, retrieving, or processing information, including 
counterfeit as well as maliciously manipulated components.
    The committee encourages the Department to build upon this 
work through the establishment of additional pilot projects to 
test out this risk management framework, which may prove useful 
in refining technologies or concepts requiring greater 
maturation, as well as integrating risk management practices 
more broadly across the Department.

Unmanned systems manning

    The committee recognizes the importance of unmanned systems 
and encourages the Department of Defense to continue investing 
in technology that reduces manning requirements for current 
system operations. The committee believes the Department should 
pursue technologies that allow high levels of automation of 
routine tasks thus allowing mission management by significantly 
fewer personnel.

Unmanned system technology development

    The committee recognizes the urgent need to develop new 
unmanned technologies that are more responsive to battlefield 
conditions and constantly evolving enemy tactics. The committee 
encourages the use of joint training exercises, like Trident 
Spectre, to achieve rapid technology development and a higher 
level of responsiveness within the acquisition process.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $194.9 million for Operational 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The 
committee recommends $194.9 million, the requested amount for 
fiscal year 2011.


                       Items of Special Interest


Joint test and evaluation program

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
supports a program within operational test and evaluation that 
is chartered to provide non-materiel solutions to resolve joint 
warfighting issues. The committee recognizes that the Joint 
Test and Evaluation (JT&E) program has been successful at 
providing rapid and affordable solutions to joint problems by 
crafting solutions that address the full range of doctrinal, 
organizational, training, logistical, personnel and facilities 
challenges, rather than relying solely on developing technology 
solutions.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to make 
greater use of the expertise in JT&E as part of the larger 
drive to improve capabilities development and requirements 
generation for the Department. Furthermore, the committee 
believes that the JT&E program is a critical enabler for weapon 
systems acquisition reform, especially as it supports analysis 
of alternatives that explore solutions beyond the development 
of new technologies. The committee also recognizes that if JT&E 
is leveraged appropriately in the acquisition process, it could 
be used to either obviate the need for some technology 
development, or in other cases provide additional refinement of 
the upfront requirements development.

                         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 2011.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


 Section 211--Report Requirements for Replacement Program of the Ohio-
                       Class Ballistic Submarine

    This section would convey the sense of Congress that sea-
based strategic deterrence provided by Navy ballistic missile 
submarines have been essential to the national security of the 
United States and that the Ohio-class submarines should be 
replaced with a new class of submarine designed to ensure there 
are no gaps in our current strategic deterrence capability. 
This section would further express the sense of Congress that 
prior to requesting over one billion dollars in research and 
development funding to develop a replacement for the Ohio-class 
submarine in advance of a milestone A decision, the Department 
of Defense should have made available to Congress the guidance 
issued with regard to the conduct of an analysis of 
alternatives and the results of such an analysis of 
alternatives. Lastly, this section would restrict the 
obligation of more than 50 percent of authorized funds for this 
development program until the Secretary of Defense submits a 
report to the congressional defense committees outlining the 
guidance associated with, and results of an analysis of 
alternative capabilities, the cost and schedule projections for 
each alternative capability, and the time needed to develop and 
deploy each alternative capability, along with the reasoning 
associated with the decision to replace the current sea-based 
strategic deterrent force with a new class of ships designed to 
carry the current weapons system.

 Section 212--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for F-35 Lightning II 
                            Aircraft Program

    This section would limit the obligation of amounts 
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for 
fiscal year 2011 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.

   Section 213--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 
                                Aircraft

    This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a new section 236 that would require 
that the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each annual 
budget and each Future Years Defense Program for fiscal year 
2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, submitted to Congress 
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, include 
amounts necessary for the continued development and procurement 
of a competitive propulsion system for the F-35 Lightning II. 
This section would also require that the Secretary of Defense 
shall ensure that of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
for fiscal year 2012 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 214--Separate Program Elements Required for Research and 
              Development of Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

    This section would establish separate and distinct program 
elements in Army, research, development, test and evaluation, 
and in Navy, research, development, test, and evaluation 
accounts for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, 
beginning in fiscal year 2012.
    The committee supports the JLTV program. The committee 
recognizes the JLTV program is a required and ambitious attempt 
to replace high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles across 
the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Special Operations 
Forces. The committee is aware the current JLTV acquisition 
strategy implements an incremental approach to development and 
the program is approximately 18 months into a 36 month 
development effort. The committee notes initial competitive 
prototype testing will begin in fiscal year 2010. The committee 
supports this incremental and competitive prototype approach 
and believes the JLTV program is too important to fall victim 
to cost growth and unnecessary schedule delays that have 
plagued other Department of Defense major defense acquisition 
programs that entered into the Engineer Manufacturing and 
Development phases prematurely.
    The committee notes JLTV investment to date is 
approximately $298.5 million but projected investment in JLTV 
for fiscal years 2011-15 will be at least $9.7 billion. 
Therefore, the committee believes a program of this capacity 
and scope requires extensive oversight, and the establishment 
of a separate and distinct program element would provide the 
congressional defense committees with increased transparency 
into the program, as well as allow for more effective 
oversight.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


 Section 221--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Missile Defenses 
                               in Europe

    This section would limit the availability of funds for 
construction and deployment of either medium-range or long-
range missile defense systems in Europe until: (1) any nation 
hosting such a system has signed and ratified a missile defense 
basing agreement and status of forces agreement authorizing 
deployment; and (2) 45 days have elapsed following the receipt 
by the congressional defense committees of the report on the 
independent assessment of alternative missile defense systems 
in Europe required by section 235 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
    This section would also repeal and restate a modified 
version of section 234 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to add a 
limitation on medium-range missile defense interceptors, such 
as the ``Aegis Ashore'' concept proposed by the Administration 
as part of the ``Phased Adaptive Approach'' announced on 
September 17, 2009, to the limitation imposed by existing law 
on acquisition (other than for initial long-lead procurement) 
or deployment of operational interceptors of a long-range 
missile defense system in Europe. The limitation would be 
removed when the Secretary of Defense 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 that such 
missile defense system has the ability to accomplish the 
mission.

  Section 222--Repeal of Prohibition of Certain Contracts by Missile 
                  Defense Agency With Foreign Entities

    This section would repeal the ban on use of Department of 
Defense funds to contract with a foreign government or foreign 
firm on research, development, test, or evaluation related to 
missile defense, as required by section 222 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 
(Public Law 100-180).
    Repealing this section would eliminate unnecessary 
impediments to allow the Missile Defense Agency to collaborate 
more closely with our friends and allies to defend against 
global missile threats as called for in the Administration's 
Ballistic Missile Defense Review.

  Section 223--Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense in Europe

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
phased, adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe. The 
section would also require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees assessing the report of the Secretary. Finally, the 
section would prevent obligation of more than 95 percent of 
funds available for Defense-Wide Operations and Maintenance for 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense until the date on which 
the report required of the Secretary is submitted to the 
congressional defense committees.

              Section 224--Homeland Defense Hedging Policy

    This section contains five findings concerning missile 
defense threats from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 
Administration's phased, adaptive approach to missile defense, 
and hedges against unforeseen circumstances.
    Further, this section would make it the policy of the 
United States government to:
          (1) Field missile defense systems in Europe that 
        provide protection against medium- and intermediate-
        range ballistic missile threats consistent with NATO 
        policy and the phased, adapted approach, and have been 
        confirmed to perform the assigned mission after 
        successful, operationally-realistic testing;
          (2) Field missile defenses to protect the territory 
        of the United States pursuant to the National Missile 
        Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) and to test 
        those systems in an operationally realistic manner;
          (3) Ensure that the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA 
        interceptor planned for Phase 3 of the phased, adaptive 
        approach for missile defense is capable of addressing 
        intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched from the 
        Middle East, and that the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB 
        interceptor planned for Phase 4 of such approach is 
        capable of addressing intercontinental ballistic 
        missiles launched from the Middle East; and
          (4) Continue the development and testing of the two-
        stage ground-based interceptor to maintain it (1) as a 
        means of protection in the event that: the 
        intermediate-range ballistic missile threat to North 
        American Treaty Organization allies in Europe 
        materializes before the availability of the Standard 
        Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor; the intercontinental 
        ballistic missile threat to the United States that 
        cannot be countered with the existing ground-based 
        missile defense system materializes before the 
        availability of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB 
        interceptor; or technical challenges or schedule delays 
        affect the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor or 
        the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB interceptor; and (2) 
        as a complement to the missile defense capabilities 
        deployed in Alaska and California for the defense of 
        the United States.

  Section 225--Independent Assessment of the Plan for Defense of the 
           Homeland Against the Threat of Ballistic Missiles

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
contract with an independent entity to conduct an assessment of 
Department of Defense plans for defending the territory of the 
United States against the threat of attack by ballistic 
missiles, including electromagnetic pulse attacks, as such 
plans are described in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review 
submitted to Congress on February 1, 2010, and the report 
submitted to Congress under Section 232 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

  Section 226--Study on Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities of the 
                             United States

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
conduct a joint capabilities mix study on the ballistic missile 
defense capabilities of the United States and submit a report 
on the results to the congressional defense committee on or 
about the time of the budget submission for fiscal year 2012.

            Section 227--Reports on Standard Missile System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
standard missile system, particularly with respect to Standard 
Missile-3 Block IIA and Standard Missile-3 Block IIB, no later 
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
each 180-day period thereafter.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


      Section 231--Report on Analysis of Alternatives and Program 
           Requirements for the Ground Combat Vehicle Program

    This section would limit the Secretary of the Army from 
obligating more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2011 research 
and development funding for the Army Ground Combat Vehicle 
program until certain program documentation is provided to the 
congressional defense committees.

   Section 232--Cost Benefit Analysis of Future Tank-Fired Munitions

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army, by 
March 15, 2011, to submit a cost benefit analysis of future 
options for developing tank-fired munitions.

     Section 233--Annual Comptroller General Report on the VH-(XX) 
              Presidential Helicopter Acquisition Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
conduct an annual review of the VH-(XX) Presidential Helicopter 
acquisition program, during the period from 2011 to 2018, and 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1 of every year during the reporting period.

  Section 234--Joint Assessment of the Joint Effects Targeting System

    This section requires the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to form a joint 
assessment team to review the joint effects targeting system 
and report back to the congressional defense committees on the 
team's findings.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


             Section 241--Escalation of Force Capabilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and in 
consultation with the Executive Agent for Non-Lethal Weapons, 
to carry out a program to operationally test and evaluate 
counter-personnel non-lethal weapons and report to the 
congressional defense committees on matters affecting the 
fielding of such capabilities.
    This section would direct the Secretary to provide a 
dedicated procurement line item in future defense budget 
submissions for non-lethal weapons.

 Section 242--Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features 
           During Research and Development of Defense Systems

    This section would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
establish a pilot program in order to develop technology 
protection features during the research and development phases 
for any DOD system. Features that might be included in this 
pilot would include technology and engineering design activity, 
such as capability differentials, anti-tamper, system assurance 
and software assurance.

      Section 243--Pilot Program on Collaborative Energy Security

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to carry out a 
collaborative energy security pilot program involving one or 
more partnerships between one military installation and one 
Department of Energy laboratory for the purpose of evaluating 
and validating secure microgrid components and systems for 
deployment.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $283.1 billion in operation 
and maintenance (O&M) funds to ensure that the Department of 
Defense can train, deploy, and sustain U.S. military forces. 
The fiscal year 2011 O&M request includes $167.9 billion in the 
base budget and $115.2 billion for Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO). Some 37 percent of the total request is for 
OCO. The fiscal year 2011 request represents a $17.8 billion 
increase above the fiscal year 2010 request, including an 
increase of $11.5 billion in the base budget request.
    The committee commends the Department for applying 
additional resources to the readiness accounts in fiscal year 
2011 but notes that overall readiness remains tenuous. Repeated 
deployments, with limited dwell time, have reduced the ability 
of the forces to train across the full spectrum of conflict, 
increasing risk to national security if the military had to 
respond quickly to emergent contingencies. Because units are 
focused on deployment to the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan ahead of all other missions, skills not 
required for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan have atrophied. 
It will take time to restore these skills once sufficient dwell 
time at home station is available.
    The readiness levels of most non-deployed Army units remain 
low, due to a combination of equipment and personnel shortfalls 
and a lack of time to train. Like the Army, the Navy's next-to-
deploy forces are reporting high levels of readiness, but this 
also comes at the expense of the non-deployed forces that 
experience fewer training opportunities as resources are 
prioritized toward meeting Global Force Management demands. 
Navy requirements to support non-standard missions and requests 
for individual augmentees continue to grow, reducing 
opportunities for Navy sailors and officers to train for core 
missions with a full complement of personnel.
    The Marine Corps is experiencing equipment usage rates as 
much as seven times greater than peacetime rates, reducing the 
expected lifespan of gear. The pace and nature of ongoing 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have adversely affected 
Marine Corps readiness, as evidenced in the Marine Corps' 
overall readiness assessment, the reported readiness of next-
to-deploy and non-deployed Marine units, and in the service's 
assessed ability to perform key warfighting functions. Non-
deployed units are being used to satisfy equipment needs for 
deployed and next-to-deploy units.
    The Air Force's overall readiness has remained at a 
relatively high level compared to the other services because it 
adopted a rotational model for deployment several years ago. 
However, Air Force readiness levels have declined significantly 
since 1995. While the Air Force maintained the highest 
readiness of all the services between 2004 and 2008, its 
readiness has declined since October 2008. Operational tempo, 
support of emergent mission sets, and an aging aircraft fleet 
remain the Air Force's top readiness concerns.
    The budget request continues efforts begun in fiscal year 
2010 to address readiness shortfalls by increasing training 
funding for all the active-duty forces. The fiscal year 2011 
budget request contained funds to continue reset of equipment 
damaged or worn out through nine years of continuous combat 
operations. The committee notes, however, that the amount of 
the Army's depot maintenance budget request contained in the 
base budget remains alarmingly low (at 11.4 percent). The 
committee has the same concern for Marine Corps depot 
maintenance, where 86 percent of the total fiscal year 2011 
budget request is contained in the OCO request.
    With the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Navy attempts 
a course correction to restore flying-hour funding in order to 
more correctly fund operational requirements and meet training 
goals for the Navy and Marine Corps. The committee notes, 
however, that the budget request contained a decrease in 
funding for Fleet Replacement Squadrons to 84 percent of the 
requirement against a goal of 94 percent, which Navy officials 
said represented ``the best balance of resources to 
requirements.'' While the Air Force budget request represents a 
7.3 percent increase over last year's request, a large portion 
of the increase can be attributed to inflation and cost growth, 
particularly driven by fuel prices.
    To reduce budgetary risk to readiness in areas where the 
services have identified unfunded requirements, the committee 
recommends funding above the levels contained in the budget 
request. These areas include: Navy ship and aviation depot 
maintenance, naval aviation flight training, Air Force weapon 
system sustainment and support equipment, Army base operating 
services, Army Reserve depot maintenance, and contract and 
performance management and training.
    As operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to draw 
down over the next two fiscal years, the committee anticipates 
a realignment of funding from the Department's OCO request to 
the services' O&M base budgets. The committee understands that 
equipment reset and drawdown requirements will remain 
relatively high and steady for a number of succeeding years but 
expects the Department to migrate these baseline operations and 
sustainment costs to the O&M base budget in order to better 
represent the normalized budget requirements for the required 
force structure.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                       Budget Request Adjustments

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
fiscal year 2011 amended budget request:

Operation and Maintenance, Army Adjustments:
    BA 1 Army Vehicle Repair Parts Shortfall..................     +45.3
    BA 1 UAS Branch Concept Development.......................      +3.2
    BA 1 Army Capabilities Integration Center.................     (5.0)
    BA 1 Fort Bliss Data Center...............................      +2.5
    BA 1 Base Operations Support Program Increase.............    +500.0
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................    +256.0
    BA 3 Diversity Outreach for Recruiting & Retention at West 
      Point...................................................      +1.5
    BA 4 Army G-2 Biometrics..................................    (20.0)
    BA 4 GNEC Reprogramming Offset............................    (26.0)
    BA 4 Social Work Center for Soldiers & Military Families..      +1.0
    BA 4 The National Organization on Disability Pilot Program 
      for Wounded Warriors....................................      +4.8
    Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.............................    (28.0)
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (475.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Adjustments:
    BA 1 Fleet Air Training Program Increase..................    +111.0
    BA 1 Navy Engineering Technical Service/Contractor 
      Engineering Technical Service...........................      +6.6
    BA 1 Aircraft Depot Maintenance Program Increase..........     +74.0
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................    +137.0
    BA 1 NECC Integrated Logistics Overhaul & Equipment Reset.     +38.9
    BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance Program Increase..............     +34.0
    BA 2 Navy Ship Disposal Program...........................      +4.0
    BA 3 Naval Sea Cadet Corps................................      +0.6
    Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.............................    (49.0)
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (515.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Adjustments:
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................     +66.0
    Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.............................     (4.0)
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............    (84.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Adjustments:
    BA 1 Support Equipment....................................     +22.0
    BA 1 Battlefield Airmen Equipment.........................     +19.3
    BA 1 Distributed Ground Common Station Integrated 
      Collective Command & Control Processing, Exploitation, & 
      Dissemination System....................................     +55.0
    BA 1 Joint Terminal Attack Controller Modeling & 
      Simulation..............................................      +1.6
    BA 1 Barry M. Goldwater Range Sensor Training Area........      +3.5
    BA 1 Air Force Amended Budget Submission..................    (16.7)
    BA 1 Weapons System Sustainment...........................    +150.0
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................    +154.0
    BA 2 BEAR Expeditionary Airfield Resources................     +52.8
    BA 3 Diversity Outreach for Recruiting & Retention at the 
      Air Force Academy.......................................      +2.1
    Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.............................    (90.0)
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (513.5)
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide Adjustments:
    BA 4 I-CAN! E-File Program................................      +0.2
    BA 4 DCAA General Counsel.................................      +1.0
    BA 4 Procurement Technical Assistance Program.............      +5.2
    BA 4 Defense Impact Aid...................................     +65.0
    BA 4 Department of Defense Education Activity Increase in 
      Sustainment to 100%.....................................      +4.0
    BA 4 Corrosion Prevention & Mitigation....................      +3.6
    BA 4 Critical Language Training, San Diego State 
      University..............................................      +3.5
    BA 4 Fort Hood Follow-on Review Implementation Fund.......    +100.0
    BA 4 Industrial Base Fund.................................     +30.0
    BA 4 Office of Performance Assessment & Root Cause 
      Analysis................................................      +4.0
    BA 4 Readiness & Environmental Protection Initiative......     +10.0
    BA 4 ROTC & Reserve Component Strategic Language Hub Pilot      +1.2
    Undistributed--Fuel Reduction.............................     (4.0)
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (612.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Adjustments:
    BA 1 Depot Maintenance Program Increase...................     +38.0
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................     +25.0
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve Adjustments:
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................      +6.0
    BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance Program Increase..............      +1.0
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve Adjustments:
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................      +2.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve Adjustments:
    BA 1 Primary Combat Forces Air Force Amended Budget 
      Submission..............................................      +1.0
    BA 1 Depot Maintenance Air Force Amended Budget Submission      +2.8
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................      +7.0
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard Adjustments:
    BA 1 Mobile C3 & Asset Tracking Equipment.................      +1.8
    BA 1 100 Meter Indoor Small Arms Range....................      +1.9
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................     +48.0
    BA 1 North Carolina Army National Guard Family Assistance 
      Centers.................................................      +1.6
    BA 1 Our Military Kids....................................      +1.0
    BA 1 Washington National Guard Employment Enhancement 
      Project.................................................      +1.5
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard Adjustments:
    BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%......................     +25.0
    BA 1 Aircraft Operations Air Force Amended Budget 
      Submission..............................................      +6.1
    BA 1 F-16CM & AH-64D Digital Communications Bridge........      +1.1
    BA 1 Depot Maintenance Air Force Amended Budget Submission      +6.8
Miscellaneous Appropriations Adjustments:
    Acquisition Workforce Training & Recertification..........     +12.0
    Environmental Restoration at Culebra Island, Puerto Rico..      +5.0
    Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites....     +15.0
    Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund Program 
      Reduction...............................................     (5.0)

                        Base Operations Support

    The budget request contained $7.6 billion for Army Base 
Operations Support
    The committee believes that the implementation of the 
budget request for Base Operations Support could cause a 
deleterious impact on Army garrison operations and negatively 
affect the Army Family Covenant. The Army addressed a similar 
issue in a reprogramming request during the execution of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2010 (Public Law 111-
118).
    The committee recommends $8.1 billion, an increase of 
$500.0 million for Army Base Operations Support.

                   C-130 Force Structure Adjustments

    The budget request included funds to move C-130 aircraft 
from the Air Force reserve components to the active-duty Air 
Force. The committee understands that after the fiscal year 
2011 budget request was submitted to Congress, the Air Force 
decided to reverse that plan and now intends to keep the C-130s 
in the reserve components. In addition, the budget request 
called for the retirement of six C-130s from the Puerto Rico 
Air National Guard (ANG). The committee understands that under 
the Air Force's revised force structure plan, the six C-130s in 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will not be retired in fiscal 
year 2011 and that adequate funds exist in the ANG program to 
operate these aircraft into fiscal year 2012.
    Based on the Air Force's decision, the committee recommends 
changes to the original budget request that retain the C-130 
aircraft in the reserve components. The adjustments include the 
transfer of funds from active-duty and reserve components for 
aircraft operations and depot maintenance funding to 
accommodate the air reserve components' retention of 12 C-130H 
aircraft for the Formal Training Unit at Little Rock Air Force 
Base.

                    Corrosion Control and Prevention

    The budget request contained $7.2 million for prevention 
and mitigation of corrosion of military equipment and 
infrastructure through projects directed by the Office of 
Corrosion Policy and Oversight within the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics.
    Despite the validated 50-to-1 return on investment from the 
more than 160 projects implemented through the corrosion 
office, the budget request, even with an additional $4.8 
million funded in other accounts, falls far short of the known 
requirement of $47.0 million as reported by the Government 
Accountability Office in its annual review of the corrosion 
prevention and control budget submission. The committee is 
disappointed that, in the face of demonstrated successes by the 
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, the Department has 
not adequately resourced this requirement.
    The committee is aware that the Air Force's F-22 Raptor 
fleet was grounded in February 2010 for corrosion on ejection 
seat rods; a situation the committee understands was a known 
problem due to poorly designed drainage in the cockpit. In 
light of this problem, the committee awaits the congressionally 
directed report of the Director of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight assessing the corrosion control and mitigation 
lessons learned from the F-22 Raptor program as applied to the 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The committee believes that 
corrosion control and prevention should be a part of the 
lifecycle management and support strategy required for major 
weapon systems under section 805 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
    The committee includes a provision elsewhere in this title 
that would add reporting requirements to the annual report 
submitted to Congress by the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
    The committee recommends $10.8 million, an increase of $3.6 
million, for the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight.

             Defense Contract Audit Agency General Counsel

    The budget request contained $486.1 million for the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) but contained no funds for an 
Office of General Counsel for DCAA. The committeenotes that the 
Government Accountability Office recommended the creation of an 
independent Office of General Counsel for DCAA in testimony 
before the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform and that 
legislation establishing such an office, the Implementing 
Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value 
in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 
2010), has passed the House of Representatives.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for an 
Office of General Counsel within DCAA.

        Environmental Restoration at Formerly Used Defense Sites

    The budget request contained $276.5 million for 
environmental restoration at formerly used defense sites.
    The committee is aware that 4,705 sites were listed in the 
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) environmental restoration 
inventory in fiscal year 2008, including sites eligible for the 
installation restoration program, the military munitions 
response program, and the building demolition and debris 
removal program. The committee is aware that the U. S. Army 
Corps of Engineers estimated the cost to complete all FUDS 
cleanup efforts at $16.2 billion in fiscal year 2008, 
reflecting decades of additional work at the current rate of 
expenditure.
    The committee recommends $296.5 million, an increase of 
$20.0 million for environmental restoration, formerly used 
defense sites, including $15.0 million for environmental 
restoration, formerly used defense sites, and $5.0 million for 
environmental restoration at Culebra Island, Puerto Rico.

                     Execution of Readiness Funding

    The committee is concerned about the ability of the 
military services and Department of Defense (DOD) agencies to 
execute their operation and maintenance (O&M) budgets 
completely each year. The committee bases its concern upon the 
budget review analysis on unobligated and unexpended balances 
provided annually to the committee by the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO). The analysis provided for the 
review of the fiscal year 2011 budget request included 
execution data for fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2009, 
therefore covering both peacetime and wartime execution trends. 
The highest levels of unobligated balances range from 87.0 to 
25.7 percent in some accounts. From fiscal years 2000 to 2004, 
the average level of unexpended balances in the services' O&M 
accounts ranged from a high of 4.14 percent to a low of 1.32 
percent.
    The committee is concerned with under-execution in O&M 
accounts that appears to have a direct relationship to current 
warfighting requirements. Among these are combat support 
forces, combat/weapons systems, aircraft depot operations 
support, and operating forces. While the committee understands 
that obligation rates are dependent upon the timely receipt of 
funding, particularly supplemental appropriations, GAO's 
analysis accounts for congressional adjustments.
    As evidence of its concern about the Department's ability 
to properly identify its budget requirements, the committee has 
included in this title a provision that would inventory and 
evaluate the modeling and simulation tools used by the 
Department to develop and analyze the annual budget submission 
and to support decision-making inside the budget process.
    The committee recommends undistributed reductions of 
between 2 and 1 percent of the services' and the DOD-wide 
fiscal year 2011 O&M base budgets for unobligated balance 
estimates, based on GAO's analysis. In implementing the 
reductions, the committee encourages the services and the 
Department of Defense to focus on those areas that appear, from 
GAO's analysis, to be the most problematic. Furthermore, the 
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller 
to examine the Department's budget process and execution rates, 
identify causes for chronic and historical under-execution, and 
issue guidance that would enable all components and agencies of 
the Department of Defense to fully execute their O&M budget 
allocations annually. The committee directs the Comptroller to 
report the findings of this examination to the congressional 
defense committees with the budget documents submitted for the 
fiscal year 2012 budget request.

                          Industrial Base Fund

    The budget request contained no funds for an Industrial 
Base Fund. The committee notes that legislation which has 
passed the House of Representatives, the Implementing 
Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value 
in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 
2010), creates an Industrial Base Fund to support the 
monitoring, assessment, and enhancement of the industrial base.
    The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for 
the Industrial Base Fund.

        Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis

    The budget request contained $231.8 million for the 
activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics including $13.3 million 
for the Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause 
Analysis (PARCA). The committee notes that legislation which 
has passed the House of Representatives, the Implementing 
Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value 
in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 
2010), would substantially expand the mission of PARCA leading 
to a need for additional resources to carry out PARCA's 
mission.
    The committee recommends $17.3 million, an increase of $4.0 
million for PARCA.

           Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

    The budget request contained $39.8 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 $49.8 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, for the Readiness and Environmental Protection 
Initiative.

       Training and Recertification of the Acquisition Workforce

    The budget request contained $217.6 million for the 
Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. 
The committee notes that legislation establishing new 
requirements for training and recertification of the 
acquisition workforce, the Implementing Management for 
Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every 
Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010), has 
passed the House of Representatives. The Department's 
compliance with these requirements will require additional 
resources for training throughout the Department's acquisition 
workforce.
    The committee recommends $229.6 million, an increase of 
$12.0 million, to allow the Department to fund this additional 
training.

                             Energy Issues


               Department of Defense Alternative Fuel Use

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts 
to enhance energy security by reducing demand, increasing 
efficiency, and diversifying supply by adopting alternative 
energy technologies. The committee is aware that certifying 
alternative fuels for use is among the Department's energy 
security initiatives, and that the military services are 
pursuing different fuel alternatives. For example, the 
Department of the Air Force is working to complete 
certification of a Fischer-Tropsch fuel blend in fiscal year 
2011 and a hydro-processed renewable jet fuel in fiscal year 
2012. In addition, the Department of the Navy is evaluating use 
of biofuels for aviation and maritime purposes and intends to 
deploy a ``Green Strike Group'' using these biofuels by 2016.
    The committee recognizes that, through its efforts, the 
Department of Defense has the opportunity to enhance energy 
security and reduce its reliance on petroleum-based fuels. The 
committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts to 
increase energy independence. The committee directs the 
Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs, within one 
year after the date of enactment of this Act, to provide a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services on whether existing contracting 
authorities for alternative fuels are adequate to meet the 
Department of Defense's needs.

            National Security Impacts of Petroleum Refining

    The committee remains concerned about the vulnerability of 
the Department of Defense to shortages in petroleum 
availability. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide a briefing to 
the committee on the significance of a robust domestic 
petroleum refining industry to the national security of the 
United States by October 31, 2010. In particular, the brief 
should examine the degree to which there is a connection 
between the domestic refining sector and U.S. military 
readiness, and identify any national security concerns that may 
be associated with reductions in domestic refining capacity.

                       Workplace and Depot Issues


                     Army Cooperative Arrangements

    The Department of Defense, in its submission of legislative 
proposals to Congress, proposed amending section 4544 of title 
10, United States Code, to: remove the limitation of eight 
public-private partnerships; remove the sunset provision now 
scheduled for September 30, 2014; and allow multi-year 
contracting for greater than five years. The committee has not 
included this proposed provision in this Act because the 
committee has not yet received the analysis required by section 
328 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181). This analysis is essential to the 
committee making an informed decision regarding the 
Department's legislative proposal concerning the cooperative 
arrangements addressed in section 4544 of title 10, United 
States Code.

  Contractor Support to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
                              Organization

    The committee acknowledges the gradual expansion of the 
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) 
but notes that such growth appears to include activities that 
may be beyond the scope originally intended, and ultimately 
approved, for the organization to defeat improvised explosive 
devices and associated networks. While the committee generally 
supports using contractor expertise in non-operational support 
and other service support type roles, the committee is 
concerned that the utilization of contractor personnel to 
fulfill and perform traditional military functions that may be 
inherently governmental is fraught with risks.
    Specifically, the committee is concerned that JIEDDO may be 
establishing a cadre of contractor personnel to provide direct 
support to military operations as an offset to fill uniformed 
personnel vacancies at the combatant commands. The committee 
notes that this concept was not included in the original 
charter governing JIEDDO and may be facilitating the expansion 
of JIEDDO beyond its core mission. The committee believes that 
normal personnel procedures pursuant to the joint manning 
document process are in place to provide such capacity and 
support from military and federal civilian personnel.
    In response to the above stated concerns and pursuant to 
the stated goals, aspirations, and limitations for JIEDDO, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, by January 31, 
2011, to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on JIEDDO's 
use of contractors. The briefing should identify all areas of 
support provided by contractors and contractor employees, 
including support of core missions and operations and support 
to combatant commands. The briefing also should include an 
assessment of whether JIEDDO missions being performed by the 
contractor workforce are appropriate, including an analysis of 
contractor support requirements compared to performance of 
inherently governmental tasks, and a detailed assessment of the 
projected contractor workforce needs across the Future Years 
Defense Plan.

                     Submarine Maintenance Workload

    The committee appreciates the efforts by the Department of 
the Navy to stabilize workloads at the nation's public 
shipyards. However, the committee notes this is occurring at 
the same time that elements of the shipbuilding industrial base 
are facing workforce reductions. This is especially the case in 
the submarine industrial base, where maintenance and repair 
work that has helped sustain the industrial base between 
construction workload peaks has declined.
    While the committee shares the Navy's commitment to long-
term stability at the public shipyards, the committee remains 
concerned about the near-term impact on the submarine 
industrial base, which continues to experience cyclical 
workload demands at the same time it needs to prepare for 
increased Virginia-class production. Specifically, while the 
recent initiative to extend operating intervals for Los 
Angeles-class (SSN-688) submarines has had the positive effect 
of increasing operational availability for the fleet and 
decreasing maintenance and lifecycle costs, this initiative has 
translated into decreased maintenance opportunities for private 
shipyards.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services, by September 30, 2010, on the Navy's plan to 
mitigate gaps in the private-sector submarine industrial base 
workload, including a plan to retain a critically skilled 
workforce.

      Use of Temporary Shipyard Workforce for Nuclear Maintenance

    According to the final environmental impact statement for 
the proposed homeporting of additional surface ships at Naval 
Station Mayport, Florida, homeporting of a nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier (CVN) would result in ``temporary surges of 
maintenance employees associated with the three-year depot-
level maintenance cycle for the CVN.'' The committee is 
concerned about the impact the addition of depot-level workload 
at Mayport would have on the sustainability, efficiency, 
capabilities, and stability of the fly-away teams from the 
nuclear propulsion depot maintenance workforce used under the 
Navy's ``One Nuclear Shipyard'' concept. The committee directs 
the Comptroller General of the United States to provide an 
assessment to the congressional defense committees by February 
15, 2011, of the readiness and cost impacts of CVN homeporting 
and maintenance at Naval Station Mayport on the U.S. nuclear 
power-plant depot maintenance workforce.

                            Readiness Issues


       Air Force's Ability To Train on Core Mission Competencies

    In order to meet the demands of ongoing operations in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the 
Department of Defense has relied heavily upon combat and 
support capabilities within the Air Force. Given the nature of 
these operations, some units have been tasked to perform 
missions other than their primary core missions. For example, 
F-16 aircraft pilots have frequently been flying close air 
support missions rather than the aircraft's primary air-to-
ground strike missions. As a result, the Air Force has made 
adjustments as necessary to shift the focus of training to the 
types of missions expected to be needed to support current 
operations. Continuous demand and high operational tempo have 
left units with little time to train on primary mission tasks.
    The committee is concerned about the potential implications 
of this shift in focus on the Air Force's ability to train for 
a broader spectrum of missions and the potential degradation of 
core mission capabilities. Aware of the Government 
Accountability Office's prior work on Air Force readiness 
issues, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the Air Force's ability to train on 
core mission capabilities and report to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the 
results of its review. This review should:
          (1) Identify the types of missions the Air Force is 
        performing to support ongoing operations and assess the 
        nature and extent of training for these missions;
          (2) Determine the extent to which units' current 
        training differs from their traditional core mission 
        training and the extent to which affected personnel are 
        able to maintain qualifications or currency in their 
        career fields/specialties;
          (3) Identify the nature and extent of Air Force 
        readiness reporting on core mission capabilities; and
          (4) Review the Air Force's plans to address any gaps 
        in training or degradation in Air Force core 
        capabilities.

Analysis of the Use of Commercial F-5 Aggressor Aircraft for Air Force, 
                 Navy, and Marine Corps Pilot Training

    The committee is aware that the military departments have 
used different platforms for adversarial air-to-air pilot 
training missions that closely mirror enemy threat aircraft. 
Since the mid-1970s, the Navy has been using F-5 aggressor 
aircraft, which are flown by a mix of reserve and active-duty 
aviators. To determine whether the capability of the military 
services to conduct air-to-air pilot training could be enhanced 
by using adversary aircraft support provided by commercial 
firms, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an analysis of the feasibility and advisability of 
using F-5 aircraft provided by commercial firms as adversaries 
for air-to-air training missions. The analysis should include 
the following:
          (1) The potential cost to the federal government to 
        contract for such a program, including a comparison of 
        the equivalent costs to accomplish the same pilot 
        training through use of assets organic to the military 
        departments;
          (2) A comparison of the cost per flying hour for 
        flying adversarial training missions by the military 
        departments versus expected cost per flying hour for F-
        5s operated by commercial firms;
          (3) The number of adversarial missions flown annually 
        by organic aircraft including, but not limited to, F-
        15s, F-16s, F-18s, and F-22s, and an assessment of the 
        impact of flying such missions on the Department's 
        flying hour programs and on aircrew proficiency and 
        training requirements;
          (4) The number of military service members engaged as 
        aircrew and maintenance personnel to support the 
        missions identified in (3);
          (5) An assessment of the costs for maintenance and 
        training for personnel associated with commercial firms 
        that would operate the F-5 aggressor aircraft;
          (6) An assessment of the ability of the F-5 to 
        replicate fourth- and fifth-generation threats in 
        support of F-22 and F-35 training;
          (7) An assessment of whether existing F-5 aircraft, 
        and the associated logistical requirements such as 
        spare parts and engines, are readily available to 
        commercial firms in quantities sufficient to provide 
        adequate air-to-air training;
          (8) An assessment of whether such a program could 
        help in the preservation of the useful service life of 
        military aircraft fleets;
          (9) An assessment of Federal Aviation Administration 
        airworthiness requirements and aircrew certification 
        processes to ensure safety of flight for such 
        operations;
          (10) An assessment of government liability, insurance 
        requirements, or other legal impediments; and (11) Any 
        other data that the Secretary determines is appropriate 
        in evaluating the potential for an F-5 training program 
        to be operated by commercial firms.
    The committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services on the results of the analysis 
within 30 days of completion of the report.

             Availability of Full-Time Trainers in the Army

    The committee is aware that the Army has had to deploy a 
significant number of personnel typically assigned to training 
positions to support the needs of ground commanders in ongoing 
contingency operations. In February 2010, the Commander of the 
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command cited a significant 
decline in the total number of trainers assigned to his 
command, as well as an increased reliance upon contracted 
civilian rather than military trainers.
    The committee is concerned about the Army's ability to 
provide the necessary personnel to train U.S. soldiers as well 
as to support the demands of ongoing operations. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to evaluate the availability of full-time trainers in the Army 
and report the results of this review to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 
This review should evaluate:
          (1) The ratio of full-time trainers to trainees;
          (2) Changes in manning authorizations for trainers 
        over time;
          (3) The extent to which the Army has experienced 
        challenges in filling its training positions;
          (4) Any measures the Army has taken to address these 
        challenges, including the extent to which the Army has 
        shifted its instructor/trainer force from uniformed 
        service personnel to civilians or contractors; and
          (5) The extent, if any, that U.S. Army Training and 
        Doctrine Command officials have assessed the impact of 
        any increased reliance on civilians or contractors on 
        the quantity or quality of the training they are able 
        to provide to their trainees.

                   Aviation Assets for National Guard

    The committee is concerned about the force structure 
changes in the Department of Defense over the past several 
years, and in particular, its potential impact on the readiness 
levels of the national guard. Of particular concern is the 
potential impact from the drawdown of mobility assets that are 
used by the national guard to support its homeland defense 
mission and enable quick delivery of cargo and troops. The 
committee remains concerned that national guard units will have 
a hollow force structure and their immediate tactical 
requirements will continue to be unfilled without a coherent 
recapitalization plan. The lack of such a plan could leave a 
gap in the national guard's ability to meet its requirements to 
support U.S. Northern Command and to provide critical support 
during emergencies within the designated Federal Emergency 
Management Agency regions of the United States and its 
territories.
    The committee notes that the recently released ``Mobility 
Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016'' recommends a 
tactical airlift force structure without consideration for the 
direct support mission needs of the Department of the Army and 
without express consideration of airlift force structure and 
basing requirements to meet the national guard's title 32, 
United States Code, responsibilities. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with 
the Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Air National 
Guard, to brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services on the Department's tactical 
airlift force structure and requirements by November 1, 2010. 
The briefing should describe, at a minimum:
          (1) The number and type of fixed-wing aircraft needed 
        to meet the tactical airlift requirements of the 
        Department of Defense, to include the direct support 
        mission needs of the Army;
          (2) The number and type of fixed-wing aircraft needed 
        to fulfill the national guard's title 32 missions, as 
        well as the additional missions assigned to it in the 
        2010 Quadrennial Defense Review;
          (3) A detailed cost analysis of using Army and Air 
        Force mobility assets to provide direct support airlift 
        to the Army and to meet the national guard's title 32 
        mission requirements; and (4) Tactical Army and Air 
        Force airlift force structure composition by numbers 
        that best fulfills the requirements in (1) and (2) in 
        the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

  Completion of Annual Training Requirements for Army and Marine Corps

    The committee recognizes that, as a result of the high pace 
of overseas contingency operations and demand for ready forces, 
the Army and Marine Corps have experienced decreased dwell time 
between deployments. The committee understands that both 
services have annual training requirements that all active 
component forces are required to complete in addition to pre-
deployment training requirements that apply to all forces 
deploying to the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. However, in light of decreased dwell times, the 
committee is concerned that forces may not be completing the 
required annual training prior to going to the Combat Training 
Centers or other locations for pre-deployment training and, 
therefore, are spending some of their time at the centers 
training on tasks that should have been completed at home 
station. Given the services' plans to expand training to 
prepare forces for a fuller spectrum of operations, the 
committee believes it will be even more critical for 
individuals and units to accomplish these annual training 
requirements.
    In view of the Government Accountability Office's prior 
training evaluations, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to review the Army's and the 
Marine Corps' ability to complete home station training 
requirements and to report the results of this review to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services. This review should evaluate:
          (1) The nature of annual training requirements that 
        active component combat arms and combat support forces 
        are required to complete at home station;
          (2) The extent to which forces are completing 
        established training requirements, to include the 
        extent to which units are required to validate 
        completion of the tasks and demonstrate proficiency at 
        home station prior to training at a Combat Training 
        Center or other locations; and
          (3) Any factors affecting the ability of forces to 
        complete training, such as the availability of 
        personnel and equipment, and the impact, if any, on 
        training at the Combat Training Centers or other 
        locations, if home station training cannot be fully 
        completed.

            Criticality of Pre-Deployment Language Training

    The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense 
is updating its strategic plan to meet the needs for enhanced 
language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise. 
However, the committee is concerned about pre-deployment 
language training for general-purpose troops deploying to the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in light of the International 
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander's objectives and 
requirements expressed in his four-point initiative to overcome 
the language challenges in Afghanistan.
    The committee commends the Department and the military 
services for their endeavors to address this issue and to 
provide the appropriate proficiency level for deployable forces 
to Afghanistan. While supportive of these efforts, the 
committee is concerned with the lack of standardization of 
policies regarding the level of emphasis on unit-level language 
training during the pre-deployment training phase. While the 
committee understands the pressures and the challenges of 
available time for pre-deployment training, the committee 
encourages the military services to recognize that language 
skills should be considered a high priority and critical when 
planning for deployment.
    The committee directs the Department and military services 
to review their language training priorities and program 
requirements concerning the language barrier and mission in 
Afghanistan. Upon completion of this review, the committee 
directs the Department to brief the House Armed Services 
Committee on the findings and conclusions no later than 
September 1, 2010.

             F-35 Lightning II Aircraft and National Guard

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 
conjunction with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to 
determine the requirement for concurrent and proportional 
fielding of F-35 Lightning II aircraft in the reserve component 
and report the findings to the congressional defense committees 
not later than January 1, 2011.

          Language, Cultural Awareness, and Regional Expertise

    Recent operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan have highlighted the need for today's 
military establishment to be trained and ready to engage the 
world with an appreciation of diverse cultures, and to 
communicate directly with local populations. The committee is 
aware that the Department of Defense has recognized the need to 
place more emphasis on enhancing foreign language, regional 
expertise, and cultural awareness capabilities, and has 
undertaken numerous initiatives to do so. While there is 
general agreement that some level of foreign language skills, 
regional expertise, and cultural awareness is important for 
today's military, determining the optimal proficiency levels 
and how to distribute such capabilities throughout the general-
purpose forces (meaning military personnel who are neither 
language professionals nor regional experts) is more difficult. 
Training general-purpose forces in language, regional 
expertise, and cultural awareness prior to deployment is 
largely the responsibility of the military services.
    The Government Accountability Office has previously 
reported on actions needed to improve the effectiveness of the 
Department's language and regional proficiency transformation 
efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to review the services' language, 
regional expertise, and cultural awareness training plans as 
they apply to the general purpose forces and report the results 
of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services. Because of the continued 
presence of the Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
where their missions typically require close contact with 
foreign populations, this review should focus on the ground 
forces. This review should include an assessment of the extent 
to which the Army and Marine Corps have:
          (1) Defined training requirements for language 
        proficiency, regional expertise, and cultural 
        awareness;
          (2) Integrated these areas into pre-deployment 
        training and other joint exercises, and developed any 
        metrics to evaluate success;
          (3) Faced challenges, if any, in implementing these 
        plans; and
          (4) Incorporated lessons learned from ongoing 
        operations into training programs.

          Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting

    In recent years, the military services have directed 
several changes in the ways they report unit readiness. 
Specifically, the Army has updated its readiness reporting 
policy and has directed its units to provide additional 
information concerning its abilities to perform directed or 
assigned missions as well as its core missions. The Army 
reports this information in its readiness reporting system that 
feeds information to the Defense Readiness Reporting System 
(DRRS). Leveraging the Army's approach, the Marine Corps has 
recently developed its own system in order to collect and 
analyze readiness data to feed information to DRRS.
    To better understand the extent to which these changes will 
help the military services capture data more accurately on the 
readiness of their respective forces, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to review Army and 
Marine Corps readiness reporting processes and to report the 
results of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. This review 
should:
          (1) Assess any changes that the Army and Marine Corps 
        have made to their approach to reporting readiness;
          (2) Identify the steps that units have taken to 
        implement the directed readiness reporting changes, 
        including the extent to which units are consistently 
        reporting their readiness;
          (3) Determine the extent to which the Army and Marine 
        Corps have aligned these changes with existing 
        strategies for training and deploying forces, such as 
        the Army's Force Generation cycle;
          (4) Assess the impact of these changes on the content 
        of readiness information available to decision-makers 
        within the Department of Defense and Congress; and
          (5) Assess the impact, if any, on development and 
        fielding of DRRS.

                Ship Maintenance Industrial Base Support

    The committee is concerned that the Navy's recommendation 
to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) at Naval 
Station Mayport (NAVSTA Mayport), Florida, could result in the 
relocation of a critical warfighting asset to a region that may 
lack the ship maintenance industrial base necessary to meet the 
specialized repair, maintenance, and related readiness 
requirements of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Even though 
the Navy plans to build the necessary facilities at 
considerable cost, no plan has been presented to address the 
lack of a trained, highly skilled workforce necessary to staff 
those facilities and maintain these complex systems. As a 
result, the committee understands that implementation of the 
Navy's recommendation would require maintenance teams from 
other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeport locations to be 
sent to NAVSTA Mayport temporarily to support maintenance 
requirements, potentially at significant additional cost.
    Additionally, the committee is aware that the existing 
private ship maintenance assets located in the Jacksonville, 
Florida, region has evolved to support the current fleet of 
non-nuclear-powered ships at NAVSTA Mayport. Under current ship 
retirement plans, these private ship maintenance capabilities 
will face severe work reductions, placing their continued 
existence in jeopardy. The committee does not believe that 
placing a critical warfighting asset at a location with 
inadequate maintenance support capabilities, implementing a 
recommendation that could result in significantly increased 
ship maintenance costs, or allowing the nation's ship 
maintenance industrial base to erode are acceptable outcomes.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 
December 15, 2010, on the ability of the private ship 
maintenance industrial base in northeast Florida to support 
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier maintenance requirements, the 
likely costs to the Navy that could result from establishing 
such maintenance capabilities within the local industrial base, 
and the impacts on costs and workforce scheduling that could 
result if the Navy must provide the maintenance workforce from 
another nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeport location. In 
addition, the Secretary is directed to submit a copy of the 
report to the Comptroller General of the United States 
concurrent with submission to the congressional defense 
committees.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide an 
assessment of the report to the congressional defense 
committees within 90 days after receiving the report by the 
Secretary of the Navy. The assessment should:
          (1) Review the Navy's report for thoroughness and 
        completeness;
          (2) Assess the ability of the northeast Florida 
        industrial base to develop capabilities to support 
        nuclear-powered aircraft carrier maintenance 
        requirements;
          (3) Assess how, over a 10-year budget window, the 
        construction of CVN maintenance facilities at NAVSTA 
        Mayport will affect CVN maintenance costs, including 
        recurring and non-recurring costs; and
          (4) Assess whether homeporting a nuclear-powered 
        aircraft carrier at NAVSTA Mayport would provide 
        sufficient workload to allow the local ship repair 
        industrial base to remain viable in light of current 
        ship retirement plans.

                        Ship Material Readiness

    The committee notes that reduced manning on many Navy 
surface combatant ships has added risk to achieving expected 
service life, as stated in the Secretary of the Navy's February 
1, 2010, report to Congress on Surface Ship Material Readiness. 
Based on preliminary work by the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) the committee is aware that the Navy has reduced 
enlisted requirements, authorizations, and on-hand personnel 
levels for its cruisers and destroyers since 1991 but lacks a 
sound analytical basis for some of these reductions. GAO also 
noted that shipboard requirements, including force protection 
and anti-terrorism and ballistic missile defense missions, have 
grown since the Navy began reducing crew sizes. According to 
GAO, in-port and underway maintenance and preservation 
requirements have remained steady as crew sizes have declined. 
While some Navy officials have noted that automation can reduce 
underway watch-station requirements, GAO reported it can 
sometimes increase maintenance requirements.
    The committee is also aware of a Department of the Navy 
Naval Inspector General report dated July 2, 2009, which 
states, ``Relative to other warfare communities, interviews 
with surface commands continue to reveal significant distress 
in meeting material and operational readiness requirements.'' 
Among the factors cited as contributing to this situation were: 
a shortage of funding (to the point that sailors are spending 
their own money to purchase required tools and supplies to meet 
operational and certification requirements); manning 
challenges; reduced training opportunities; deferred 
maintenance; and greater demands from the Inter-deployment 
Readiness Cycle.
    The committee recognizes the stresses that the increased 
operational tempo of overseas contingency operations has placed 
on the Navy's surface combatant fleet and acknowledges that the 
Navy is taking steps in the fiscal year 2011 budget request to 
address some of the issues cited above, particularly in the 
areas of steaming days and deferred maintenance. However, the 
committee agrees with GAO that the Navy lacks the reliable data 
it needs to effectively evaluate the impact of the changes it 
has made to its manning requirements and training programs and 
how these changes have contributed to declining ship material 
readiness.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit with the fiscal year 2012 budget documents a report 
that describes the impact of changes in training and reductions 
in crew size has on the material readiness of its ships, 
including the ships' ability to perform required maintenance 
tasks and pass required inspections; any projected effects on 
the lifespan of individual ships; and any effects on overall 
reported readiness. The report should include a discussion of 
the methodology, including metrics, which the Navy used to make 
this assessment, and based on the results, any adjustments in 
training and manning that the Navy plans to make to address its 
findings. The report also should include steps the Navy has 
taken to establish a stringent tool-control program, through 
appropriate commands, for all surface combatant ships similar 
to the tool-control program that exists for aviation squadrons, 
and describe the funding required to implement such a program.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States, within 60 days of receipt of the fiscal year 2012 
budget documents, to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on 
its assessment of the completeness of the report submitted by 
the Secretary of the Navy and describing the status of the 
actions taken by the Navy to establish the tool-control 
program. Further, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
to submit a follow-on report to the congressional defense 
committees that assesses the reasonableness of the Navy's 
methodology and conclusions and that assesses the impact of the 
tool-control program established for Navy surface combatant 
ships within 120 days of receipt of the fiscal year 2012 budget 
documents.

           Simulation Training for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

    The committee is concerned that the requirements for the 
flight simulation devices under development for the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter may not wholly represent the training needs of 
the participating military departments. The committee believes 
that any flight simulator developed for the F-35 program should 
fully comply with service requirements in order to preclude a 
costly retrofit if needed capabilities are not resident in 
initial design. The committee is aware of the growing reliance 
on distributed training networks, such as the Air Force's 
Distributed Mission Operations, and believes that the F-35 
Joint Program Office should consider the military departments' 
desires to operate F-35 flight simulators in a distributed 
network with other aircraft simulators. Utilizing the F-35 
flight simulators in such a fashion would improve the combat 
skills training and overall readiness of the military forces to 
operate in an increasingly complex and integrated combat 
environment.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to re-
examine and, if necessary, refine the requirements for F-35 
flight simulation devices. The committee directs the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
to provide written notification of compliance to the 
congressional defense committees, by December 1, 2010, 
detailing the agreed-upon requirements and include an 
explanation of any changes made to existing F-35 flight 
simulator device requirements, and the impact on training and 
readiness.

                   Surface Ship Life Cycle Management

    The committee applauds the Navy for establishing the 
Surface Ship Life Cycle Management (SSLCM) Activity and for 
undertaking the Surface Ship Service Life Assessment Pilot 
Program. Both efforts are aimed at ensuring the Navy's surface 
combatant ships achieve their intended service life, which is a 
key underpinning of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan. The 
committee notes that in the past, the surface ship class 
maintenance plans have not been as detailed, nor have they been 
maintained with the same technical rigor as those for aircraft 
carriers and submarines. The committee agrees with the Navy's 
assessment that the Planned Maintenance philosophy of the past 
decade, with limited time spent in depot availability periods 
coupled with multiple pier-side continuous maintenance 
availabilities, has added risk to the Navy's ability to obtain 
expected service life from the fleet. Through the pilot 
program's inputs into the SSLCM Activity, the committee 
understands the Navy will have an analytical basis on which to 
better focus maintenance and repair decisions and funding, and 
establish risk-based measures of criticality for deficiencies 
that may arise in the future.

             Training for Global Ballistic Missile Defense

    Each military service is responsible for missile defense 
training on the individual missile defense assets which the 
service owns and operates. For example, the Navy is responsible 
for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense training and the Army for 
Theater High Altitude Area Defense training. However, missile 
defense operations are global and inherently joint. The 
effectiveness of the global ballistic missile defense system is 
dependent upon the synchronization of these individual assets 
across each military service, and the committee believes that 
missile defense training must be similarly synchronized.
    The committee is concerned that current individual service 
training programs for missile defense do not fully reflect the 
global and joint nature of ballistic missile defense system 
operations. The committee further observes that no single 
entity has clear responsibility for joint missile defense 
training. The committee believes that gaps in joint missile 
defense training, from the lowest sensor or shooter operator 
level to the highest levels of decision-making on combatant 
command (COCOM) staffs, must be identified and rectified.
    The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2011, that contains the 
following:
          (1) A description of existing missile defense 
        training and education, including training of COCOM 
        staffs and service component staffs;
          (2) An assessment of the synchronization and 
        standardization across existing training programs, 
        including best practices; and
          (3) Recommendations for training improvements, 
        including recommended roles and responsibilities, 
        organizational models, resources, and facilities 
        required for joint missile defense training.

                             Other Matters


                Air Force Food Transformation Initiative

    The committee is aware that the Air Force has undertaken an 
initiative to transform its food service operations, including 
dining facilities, flight kitchens, snack bars, and catering 
services. This will be conducted through a two-phased pilot 
program that will encompass 12 military bases, beginning with 
six bases in October 2010, and then six months later, 
incorporating the remaining six bases. The plan ultimately is 
to include all 78 Air Force bases in the initiative. The 
initiative will affect both appropriated funded facilities and 
non-appropriated funded (NAF) facilities.
    The committee understands that while no civilian or 
military personnel employed at the appropriated funded 
facilities will be affected, NAF employees either could be 
reassigned to another position or have their employment 
terminated. Furthermore, prime contracts currently held by 
Ability One (a non-profit entity that provides employment 
opportunities for the blind and severely disabled) will be 
brought under the new initiative. The committee is concerned 
that this initiative is being converted from performance by 
government employees to contractor employees without a public-
private competition being conducted. Furthermore, the committee 
believes that all NAF employees and Ability One employees 
should have the ``right of first refusal'' for any positions 
for which they would be eligible that are available under the 
initiative.
    The committee recognizes that improving food service at Air 
Force bases is an important objective. However, the committee 
does not believe that the Air Force has provided an adequate 
rationale for its food transformation strategy, which is 
expected to result in an increase in food service fees to 
military personnel. The committee, therefore, directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to restrict this initiative to the 
six initial bases and conduct a thorough review of how it is 
meeting objectives before any additional bases are brought 
under the initiative. The Secretary should provide a written 
notification of compliance to the congressional defense 
committees within 30 days after completion of the review. In 
addition, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to undertake a comprehensive review of the 
initiative as implemented at the first six bases and report its 
findings and recommendations to the congressional defense 
committees within six months after the award of the initial 
contract. The Comptroller General's review should address the 
following questions:
          (1) How has the initiative achieved the Air Force 
        objectives to improve food quality, increase the 
        customer base, and expand hours at dining facilities?
          (2) Is the concept of a single food service provider 
        to serve appropriated funded dining facilities, non-
        appropriated funded facilities, and catering 
        requirements a viable solution? Are there other models 
        that could be considered?
          (3) Since both appropriated funded facilities and 
        non-appropriated funded facilities now will be managed 
        by a single contractor, what impact will this have on 
        the appropriated funded facilities (including funding 
        for military construction and the purchase of food and 
        supplies)? What impact will this have on NAF facilities 
        and profits?
          (4) How effective is the food service officer in 
        managing the contract? What were the challenges in 
        implementing the contract?
          (5) Was there adequate competition for the contract?
          (6) How were efficiencies achieved under the 
        initiative, without impacting the appropriated funded 
        facilities?
          (7) What was the percentage increase in food service 
        fees paid by military personnel as compared to food 
        service expenses paid before the initiative took 
        effect?
          (8) What impact has the initiative had on civilian 
        (including NAF employees) and military personnel, and 
        employees of Ability One? How many Ability One and NAF 
        employees were employed by the prime contractor? How 
        were small businesses and their employees impacted?
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force not to 
move forward with expanding the pilot program to the additional 
six bases until 90 days after the Comptroller General has 
submitted the report to the congressional defense committees.

                      Army Post Laundry Facilities

    The committee notes that the Secretary of the Army 
requested legislative authority in fiscal year 2011, to allow 
money received for work performed at Army-owned and Army-
operated post laundries to cover the cost of operating and 
maintaining these laundry facilities. While the committee 
cannot provide the requested legislative relief due to 
mandatory spending limitations, the committee believes the Army 
should adequately fund the operating requirements of the post 
laundries and not rely on proceeds from the laundries to keep 
the operations solvent. The committee understands that in past 
years approximately $3.0 million in proceeds from the laundry 
operations were applied annually toward operations and 
maintenance of the four Army post facilities, and that absent 
the requested legislation, these funds will not be available to 
pay these costs. The committee expects the Army to cover this 
shortfall using some of the additional Base Operations Support 
(BOS) funding authorized in title 3 of this Act. Beginning in 
fiscal year 2012, the committee expects the Army to budget in 
BOS for this requirement.

                      Army Reporting Requirements

    As part of the annual national defense authorization acts, 
the committee tasks Army officials with new reporting 
requirements covering a wide range of issues. The committee 
understands that these reports require a significant amount of 
time and effort for the Department of the Army to produce. In 
addition, the committee understands that the need for some of 
the reports may wane over time as policies shift, and that some 
reports overlap, in terms of subject matter, with other 
established reporting requirements.
    Therefore, in order to streamline communications between 
the Department of the Army and Congress, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army, by September 1, 2010, to provide a 
list of existing reporting requirements that the Secretary 
believes Congress should repeal or modify in future national 
defense authorization acts.

                          Human Terrain System

    The committee remains supportive of the Human Terrain 
System (HTS) developed and executed by the Army to leverage 
social science expertise to support operational commanders in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 
However, the committee is increasingly concerned that in the 
rush to respond to operational requirements in two theaters of 
conflict while simultaneously optimizing and institutionalizing 
HTS capability, the Army has not sufficiently addressed key 
concerns of the social science community. The committee 
understands that it may not be possible to fully address all of 
their concerns, but if HTS continues to rely heavily on the 
participation of social scientists as part of the Human Terrain 
Teams, to have long-term viability among the research 
community, then those researchers must have a voice in the 
evolution of HTS capability.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
continue to develop a broad range of opportunities to leverage 
social science expertise to support key missions for the 
Department, including irregular warfare, counterinsurgency, and 
stability and reconstruction operations. The committee also 
encourages the social science research community to actively 
engage the Department to help shape future cooperative 
activities in ways that are productive and mutually beneficial.

          National Guard Support for Charitable Organizations

    The committee is aware that section 508 of title 32, United 
States Code, provides authority for members and units of the 
national guard to provide certain services to youth and 
charitable organizations under certain conditions. The 
committee notes that the existing authority allows the 
Secretary of Defense to designate youth or charitable 
organizations as eligible to receive assistance. The committee 
believes that opportunities to engage with and observe national 
guard members conducting required training would be of 
particular benefit to organizations, such as Reach for 
Tomorrow, that are aimed at improving individual performance 
and achieving academic and personal excellence of junior and 
senior high school students. The committee encourages the 
Secretary to exercise this authority when appropriate and 
consider such organizations for eligibility under this section.

 Notification of Use of Authority To Expedite Background Investigations

    Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a 
provision that would amend section 1564 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to use expedited 
procedures for completing background investigations for the 
granting of security clearances for military personnel who have 
been retired or separated for a physical disability pursuant to 
chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code. As the committee 
notes, this will facilitate the transition from a military to a 
federal civilian career for these individuals. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report by letter to the 
congressional defense and intelligence committees, by February 
1, 2011, and annually thereafter through 2015, the number of 
background investigations performed under this authority.

    Operation and Support Costs for Non-Standard Items of Equipment

    The committee is aware that operation and support (O&S) 
costs can constitute up to 70 percent of the lifecycle cost to 
the government for a weapon system. Because O&S costs are by 
far the largest percentage of cost in a system's lifespan from 
research and development to disposal, the committee is 
concerned that the military departments may not be planning 
sufficiently for the O&S costs that will be incurred when non-
standard items, such as those fielded under rapid fielding 
initiatives or in response to Joint Urgent Operational Needs 
Statements, migrate to programs of record.
    First among these are the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected 
(MRAP) vehicle and its smaller variant, the Military All-
Terrain Vehicle. The committee understands that O&S costs for 
these vehicles alone are expected to average at least $2.0 
billion per year. Other systems include equipment fielded for 
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan such as jammers, radios, armor kits, Aerostats, 
mine rollers, unmanned aerial systems, MC-12 Project Liberty 
aircraft, and counter rocket, artillery, sniper, and mortar 
systems, among hundreds of others.
    The committee recommends the Department of Defense and the 
military departments take action to ensure that these systems 
are in compliance with section 805 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
which requires development of a comprehensive lifecycle 
management plan and product support strategy for each major 
weapon system.

Private Security Guards Functions To Be Performed by Civilian Employees

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense is 
reducing its reliance on the use of private-sector security 
guards, pursuant to section 332 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). 
Additional restrictions on the use of private security guards 
were further enacted as amendments to Section 332 in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (109-
364) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181). The committee notes that nothing in 
the law requires the Department to use military personnel in 
these positions, especially during these times of increased 
operational tempo. The committee, therefore, directs the 
Department to review its guidance with regard to the conversion 
of the private sector security guard positions and include 
prioritization of the use of civilian employees to fill those 
positions. The committee further directs the Department to 
provide a written letter of compliance by October 1, 2010 to 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed 
Services Committee with details of that review.

       Sale of Arsenal Products Outside the Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense submitted a legislative proposal 
that would amend section 2563 of title 10, United States Code, 
to enable the arsenals to sell their products and services 
outside the Department of Defense. The Department noted in its 
comments accompanying the requested provision that, ``Those 
facilities that have made effective use of section 2563 
authority and built substantial partnerships have reduced the 
cost of products; obtained private sector investment in 
government facilities; and enhanced readiness by improving 
quality and timeliness of industrial facilities.''
    The committee notes that the partnerships fostered by 
section 2563, of title 10, United States Code, because they are 
related to the core capabilities of the arsenals and other 
industrial facilities and therefore enhance military readiness, 
are characteristic of those which the committee had desired to 
see developed through the Arsenal Support Program Initiative 
(ASPI). The committee is open to reconsidering the Department's 
request to amend section 2563 of title 10, United States Code, 
after the Secretary of the Army provides the report required 
elsewhere in this Act regarding ASPI improvement.

                       Security Clearance Reform

    The Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team (JSSRT) 
issued a report in February 2010, outlining its strategic 
framework for moving forward with reforming the security 
clearance process. JSSRT was formed to transform and modernize 
the security clearance process across the federal government, 
and includes personnel from the Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Intelligence, the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, and 
the Office of Personnel Management. The intent of the 
transformation effort is to promote reciprocity, eliminate the 
continuing backlog for processing requests, and reduce 
unnecessary investigation requests. The framework outlined in 
the February 2010 JSSRT report highlights potential performance 
measures, a communications strategy, roles and 
responsibilities, and areas to develop metrics to measure the 
quality of security clearance investigations and adjudications.
    The committee notes that significant progress has been made 
on a number of initiatives as a result of increased resources, 
improvements in policy, and changes to antiquated information 
technology systems. However, the committee is concerned that 
security clearance processing remains on the high-risk list of 
the Government Accountability Office. While the committee 
further notes that JSSRT's February 2010 strategic framework 
highlights significant progress on behalf of the executive 
branch to approve initial requests for personnel security 
clearances in a timely manner, the committee continues to 
believe that it will be imperative for the executive branch to 
demonstrate the ability to sustain that progress, and also 
incorporate quality into every step of the process through 
measures that can be readily defined and quantified.

                        Supply Chain Management

    The committee is aware improvements to supply chain 
management within the Department of Defense (DOD) have been 
slower than desired. The Government Accountability Office has 
placed the Department's supply chain management on its high 
risk list because of long standing problems, due in part to the 
lack of a complete and accurate inventory of all the 
Department's assets. Having an accurate inventory not only 
improves supply chain management, but provides benefits to the 
warfighter, enhances mission planning and budgeting, and 
improves the financial auditing within the Department. The 
committee notes that one tool that could facilitate 
improvements in the Department's supply chain management is the 
enhanced use of item unique identifiers. The committee, 
therefore, believes that full implementation of the 
Department's Item Unique Identification (IUID) policy, issued 
in 2008, would help the Department correct some of its supply 
chain management problems.
    The committee further notes that the Department has been 
successful in implementing its IUID policy with regard to new 
systems, but has been less successful within the logistics 
community in marking legacy property with IUID tags. The 
committee recognizes that the costs of retrofitting existing 
equipment inventories with IUID tags could be substantial, and 
that the Department is developing a business case that would 
support the need for future investments to be made in this 
area. The committee encourages the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer to review this business case to determine how IUID 
policy factors into the Department's strategy for improved 
supply chain management and improved financial accountability 
of its assets.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize $167.6 billion in operation 
and maintenance funding for the military departments and 
defense-wide activities.

            Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions


   Section 311--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
Certain Costs in Connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, 
                               Minnesota

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer not more than $5,611,671 in fiscal year 2011 to the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund. This transfer is to satisfy 
reimbursement to the Environmental Protection Agency for costs 
incurred by the Agency at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
Plant.

 Section 312--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated 
    Penalties in Connection With Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer not more than $153,000 to the Hazardous Substance 
Superfund established under subchapter A of chapter 98 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This transfer is to satisfy a 
stipulated penalty against Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, 
for failure of the Navy to sample certain monitoring wells in a 
timely manner.

 Section 313--Testing and Certification Plan for Operational Use of an 
 Aviation Biofuel Derived From Materials That Do Not Compete With Food 
                                 Stocks

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to Congress a testing and certification plan for 
operational use of a biofuel that is derived from materials 
that do not compete with food stocks.

 Section 314--Report Identifying Hybrid or Electric Propulsion Systems 
  and Other Fuel-Saving Technologies for Incorporation into Tactical 
                             Motor Vehicles

    This section would require the secretary of each military 
department to submit to Congress a report identifying hybrid or 
electric propulsion systems and other vehicle technologies that 
reduce consumption of fossil fuels and are suitable for 
incorporation into the current fleet of tactical motor vehicles 
of each armed force under the jurisdiction of the secretary.

                 Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues


 Section 321--Technical Amendments to Requirement for Service Contract 
                               Inventory

    This section would amend paragraph (c) of section 2330a of 
title 10, United States Code, to make technical corrections to 
the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit an 
annual inventory of services performed by contractors. This 
section would clarify that the responsibility for the 
development of the inventory should reside with the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who would be 
supported by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics. The committee believes that the inventory has much 
broader applicability than just as an acquisition tracking 
tool; the inventory can facilitate the Department of Defense's 
human capital planning and its efforts to determine the right 
mix of military personnel, civilian employees, and contractors. 
It also is a valuable tool for budgeting purposes.
    This section also would clarify that information on full 
time equivalents derived from actual direct labor hours and not 
estimates should be used in the development of the Department's 
inventories.

 Section 322--Repeal of Conditions on Expansion of Functions Performed 
  Under Prime Vendor Contracts for Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair

    This section would repeal section 346 of the Strom Thurmond 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 
Law 105-261) as amended by section 336 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
    The committee notes that section 346 of Public Law 105-261 
and section 336 of Public Law 106-65 were intended to give 
Congress additional oversight on the then-emerging concept of 
prime vendor support (PVS) strategies for depot-level 
maintenance and repair. Congress' intention was for the 
provisions to apply only to PVS for depot-level maintenance and 
repair. The committee understands, however, that the 
provisions, as written, have recently been interpreted as 
applying to any prime-vendor contract, including medical, 
electronic commerce, and industrial prime-vendor contracts, as 
well as to performance-based logistics contracts. Because these 
concepts are now established contracting mechanisms within the 
Department of Defense, the committee understands the reporting 
requirements of section 346 of Public Law 105-261 have created 
an undue burden on the Department of the Defense and the 
military departments.

  Section 323--Pilot Program on Best Value for Contracts for Private 
                           Security Functions

    This section would create a three-year pilot program within 
the Department of Defense to implement a ``best value'' 
procurement standard for private security contracts in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This 
section also would require the contracting officer to provide a 
written justification for each ``best value'' contract awarded 
under this pilot program. Contracts awarded under this pilot 
program would continue until the end of their performance 
period, irrespective of whether the pilot program has been 
terminated. The Secretary of Defense would have the discretion 
to continue with a best-value program for private security 
contracts following termination of the best-value pilot program 
at the end of fiscal year 2013. The committee recognizes that 
such authority already exists in the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations but is rarely used; this section would facilitate 
the authorities for best-value contracts in these 
circumstances. Furthermore, this section would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report, by January 15 of each 
year until 2013, to the congressional defense committees 
identifying the contracts awarded under this pilot program and 
the considerations, other than cost, in the award of such 
contracts. The committee notes that nothing in this section is 
intended to affect contracts for private security functions 
that are awarded through the Department of State.

     Section 324--Standards and Certification for Private Security 
                              Contractors

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
issue policy guidance requiring the establishment of a third-
party certification process for specified operational and 
business practice standards to which private security 
contractors must adhere as a condition for selection for 
defense contracts for the performance of private security 
functions. In addition, all private security contractor 
employees who are required to carry weapons in the performance 
of their duties under a defense contract would be required to 
obtain basic weapons training certification from a reputable 
certifying body as a requirement of that contract. This section 
would not apply to intelligence activities.

Section 325--Prohibition on Establishing Goals or Quotas for Conversion 
of Functions to Performance by Department of Defense Civilian Employees

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
establishing numerical goals or quotas for the conversion of 
Department of Defense functions to performance by civilian 
employees unless such goals or quotas are based on the 
requirements outlined in section 235, section 2330a, or section 
2463 of title 10, United States Code. The section also would 
require that the Secretary use the Department's costing 
methodology guidance (Directive-type Memorandum 09-007, 
Estimating and Comparing Full Costs of Civilian and Military 
Manpower and Contractor support) or successor guidance in 
making such conversion decisions. The secretaries of the 
military departments may issue supplemental guidance to assist 
in decisions affecting their department. The Secretary of 
Defense would be required to provide to the congressional 
defense committees, by December 31, 2010, a report on the 
decisions to convert positions to civilian employee performance 
during fiscal year 2010. The Comptroller General would be 
required to provide an assessment to the congressional defense 
committees of the Secretary's report 120 days after the 
Secretary's report is submitted.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


 Section 331--Revision to Reporting Requirement Relating to Operation 
               and Financial Support for Military Museums

    This section would modify section 489 of title 10, United 
States Code, and require a biennial report on the condition of 
military museums rather than the current requirement to submit 
annual reports. Furthermore, this section would delete the 
requirement to submit the organizational structure of the 
reported museums.

 Section 332--Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to Corrosion 
                   Prevention Projects and Activities

    This section would amend section 2228(e) of title 10, 
United States Code, as amended by section 371 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to add a requirement that the annual report submitted to 
Congress by the Secretary of Defense on the funding provided 
for corrosion mitigation and control include the annual 
corrosion reports submitted by the military departments to the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense in compliance with section 
903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417). The reports 
submitted by the military departments would be part of the 
review by the Comptroller General of the United States required 
in section 371(e)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). This section would 
also amend section 2228(e)(C) of title 10, United States Code, 
to require that the report submitted by the Secretary include 
the funding requirement and funding provided for the previous 
fiscal year.

 Section 333--Modification and Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements

    This section would amend section 323 and repeal section 349 
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to eliminate out-of-date 
reporting requirements. This section would also repeal section 
355 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) to eliminate a redundant ground 
forces readiness reporting requirement.

          Section 334--Report on Air Sovereignty Alert Mission

    This section would require the Commander of United States 
Northern Command, in consultation with the Director of the 
National Guard Bureau, to report by March 1, 2011, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services on the Air Sovereignty Alert mission and 
Operation Noble Eagle. The report shall include the status of 
implementation of the recommendations made in the Government 
Accountability Office report entitled ``Actions Need to Improve 
Management of Air Sovereignty Alert Operations to Protect U.S. 
Airspace.''

 Section 335--Report on the SEAD/DEAD Mission Requirements for the Air 
                                 Force

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services, not later than 120 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility and 
desirability of designating the Suppression of Enemy Air 
Defenses/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses mission as a 
responsibility of the Air National Guard. In preparing the 
report, the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the 
National Guard Bureau, who shall be authorized to provide 
independent comment and analysis on the report.

          Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority


Section 341--Permanent Authority to Accept and Use Landing Fees Charged 
        for Use of Domestic Military Airfields by Civil Aircraft

    This section would add section 2697 of title 10, United 
States Code, and authorize the secretary of a military 
department to impose landing fees for use by civil aircraft at 
domestic military airfields for the purpose of funding 
operation and maintenance of such airfields.

   Section 342--Improvement and Extension of Arsenal Support Program 
                               Initiative

    This section would amend section 341 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to: repeal two functions of the Arsenal Support Program 
Initiative (ASPI), to disestablish the ASPI-related loan 
guarantees which the committee understands have never been 
utilized, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend ASPI 
through fiscal year 2012, to require the Secretary to 
prioritize the remaining nine functions of the ASPI, and to 
require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the 
ASPI priorities prior to the extension of authority taking 
effect.
    The committee remains concerned that the arsenals have had 
limited success in attracting ASPI tenants that enhance their 
core manufacturing mission and related workforce skills, as 
reported by the Government Accountability Office in November 
2009 (GAO-10-167R). Instead, in the committee's view, ASPI has 
become an expensive means of managing arsenal overhead. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has 
directed some $89.4 million to ASPI through September 2009, 
with a return on capital, defined as savings divided by 
invested capital, of less than 2 percent.
    Accordingly, this section would require the Secretary of 
the Army to submit a report to Congress within 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act that would address the three 
recommendations included in GAO-10-167R, namely:
          (1) Distinguish the Army's highest priorities from 
        among the ASPI purposes as part of an overall strategy 
        to achieve its desired results;
          (2) Establish performance goals for the ASPI program; 
        and (3) Establish outcome-focused performance measures 
        to assess the program the Army has made toward 
        addressing the purpose of ASPI.

 Section 343--Extension of Authority To Reimburse Expenses for Certain 
                          Navy Mess Operations

    This section would amend section 1014 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417) by extending until September 30, 2012, the 
authority of the Navy to purchase meals on behalf of embarked 
members of non-governmental organizations, host and partner 
nations, joint services, and U.S. Government agencies and 
foreign national patients treated on Navy ships and their 
escorts during the Navy's execution of humanitarian and civic 
assistance missions.

   Section 344--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Army Human 
                             Terrain System

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from 
obligating more than 50 percent of the remaining funds for the 
Army Human Terrain System (HTS) until several documents are 
submitted to the congressional defense committees. These 
documents include: the independent assessment of HTS called for 
by the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010; a 
validation of all HTS requirements, including any prior joint 
urgent operational needs statements; and certification that 
policies, procedures, and guidance are in place to protect the 
integrity of social science researchers participating in HTS, 
including ethical guidelines and human studies research 
procedures.

 Section 345--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 346--Limitation on Retirement of C-130 Aircraft From Air Force 
                               Inventory

    This section would prohibit retirement of any C-130 
aircraft from the Air Force inventory until the Director of the 
Air National Guard, the Commander of Air Force Reserve Command, 
and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force submit a written 
agreement to the Congressional defense committees describing 
the terms of the temporary transfer of C-130 aircraft from the 
reserve component to the active component.

  Section 347--Commercial Sale of Small Arms Ammunition in Excess of 
                         Military Requirements

    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
make available for commercial sale small arms ammunition and 
ammunition components. The section also would require the 
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance implementing this 
section within 90 days after date of enactment of this act. The 
Secretary shall submit a letter of compliance to the 
congressional defense committees within 15 days of issuing the 
guidance.

 Section 348--Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force Structure 
                      Announcement Implementation

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of fiscal year 2011 funds for the purpose of implementing the 
Air Force fiscal year 2011 Force Structure Announcement until 
45 days after the Secretary of the Air Force provides the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services a detailed report on the follow-on missions for 
bases affected by the 2010 Combat Air Forces restructure and 
certifies that the Air Sovereignty Alert mission will be fully 
resourced with required funding,personnel, and aircraft.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


  Section 351--Expedited Processing of Background Investigations for 
                          Certain Individuals

    This section would amend section 1564, title 10, United 
States Code, which provides for the use of expedited procedures 
for completing background investigations for the granting of 
security clearances in certain circumstances. This section 
would allow the Secretary of Defense to use this authority to 
assist the transition to a civilian career for military 
personnel who have been retired or separated for a physical 
disability pursuant to chapter 61 of title 10, United States 
Code. The committee notes that there is a strong demand by 
government agencies for individuals with high-level security 
clearances which few military personnel possess. Expediting 
security clearance processing would facilitate the hiring of 
individuals who have had their military careers cut short due 
to a physical disability. The committee encourages the 
Secretary of Defense, in prescribing the procedures to 
implement this authority, to determine whether spouses of these 
particular individuals also should be covered.

  Section 352--Adoption of Military Working Dogs by Family Members of 
  Deceased or Seriously Wounded Members of the Armed Forces Who Were 
                          Handlers of the Dogs

    This section would amend section 2583(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to allow an immediate family member of a 
military dog handler who was either killed in action, died of 
wounds received in action, or who received a medical discharge, 
to adopt the handler's military working dog.

  Section 353--Revision to Authorities Relating to Transportation of 
  Civilian Passengers and Commercial Cargoes by Department of Defense 
               When Space Unavailable on Commercial Lines

    This section would amend section 2649 of title 10, United 
States Code, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to 
transport civilian passengers and commercial cargoes on vessels 
operated by the Department of Defense, when such transportation 
is not commercially available. This section would expand the 
means by which transportation may be provided to include 
vehicles and aircraft operated by the Department. In addition, 
when such transportation is provided in response to an 
emergency, disaster response, or humanitarian request, this 
section would credit any amounts received in reimbursement to 
the appropriation, fund, or account incurring the expense of 
providing the transportation. Furthermore, for a five-year 
period, this section would allow the transportation of allied 
personnel for purposes of responding to contingencies or 
disasters. This section also would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit an annual report on the use of this authority 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services. To ensure uniformity in 
interpretation, section 2648 of title 10, United States Code, 
would be amended to clarify that transportation on vessels 
under that statute also would include vehicles and aircraft 
operated by the Department of Defense.

Section 354--Technical Correction to Obsolete Reference Relating to Use 
   of Flexible Hiring Authority To Facilitate Performance of Certain 
         Department of Defense Functions by Civilian Employees

    This section would make a technical correction to section 
2463 of title 10, United States Code, by striking an obsolete 
reference to the Department of Defense National Security 
Personnel System.

  Section 355--Inventory and Study of Budget Modeling and Simulation 
                                 Tools

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to perform an inventory of modeling and 
simulation tools used by the Department of Defense to develop 
and analyze the annual budget submission and to support 
decision making inside the budget process. This section would 
also require the Secretary of Defense to contract with a 
federally funded research and development center to examine the 
requirements for, and capabilities of, modeling and simulation 
tools used by the Department of Defense to support the annual 
budget process. This study would leverage the inventory 
performed by the Comptroller General as the starting point for 
an examination of the efficacy and sufficiency of modeling and 
simulation tools used by the Department in support of the 
budget process.

 Section 356--Sense of Congress Regarding Continued Importance of High-
               Altitude Aviation Training Site, Colorado

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
High-Altitude Aviation Training Site in Gypsum, Colorado, is a 
critical element of Department of Defense aviation training 
activities, and that the Department of Defense should take all 
appropriate measures to prevent encroachment on the training 
site that would negatively impact training activities.

 Section 357--Department of Defense Study on Simulated Tactical Flight 
                 Training in a Sustained G Environment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study on the effectiveness of simulated tactical 
training in a sustained g environment. The committee notes that 
the section is intended to evaluate the potential military 
applications of centrifuge motion platform simulators, which 
would enable pilots to experience g-forces associated with 
flight in an advanced flight simulator. Upon completion of the 
study, the Secretary would submit the results to the 
congressional defense committees.

 Section 358--Study of Effects of New Construction of Obstructions on 
                 Military Installations and Operations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
assess military installations and operations and determine 
areas that are vital to the national defense and training 
missions. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to designate a single organization to coordinate hazard 
determinations with the Secretary of Transportation.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for 
proposing to increase the authorized end strength of the active 
duty Army to 569,400 in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 
The committee believes this effort will continue to assist the 
Army with managing of the force, increasing readiness and dwell 
time for soldiers. The committee also recognizes the 
Secretary's efforts to support an increase in the Air Force end 
strength in order to support its growth in Nuclear Enterprise, 
Irregular Warfare/Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance, 
aircraft maintenance, acquisition, cyber warfare and medical 
fields, as well as the Navy's additional manpower requirements 
for 4,400 personnel to fill individual augmentees assigned to 
overseas contingency operations to execute non-traditional Navy 
missions, such as provisional reconstruction teams, detainee 
operations, civil affairs training, counter IED and combat 
support functions. However, the committee remains 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 eight years.

                         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, 2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2010              FY 2011                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2011      FY 2010
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................      562,400      569,400        569,400             0        7,000
Navy........................................      328,800      328,700        328,700             0         -100
USMC........................................      202,100      202,100        202,100             0            0
Air Force...................................      331,700      332,200        332,200             0          500
DOD.........................................    1,425,000    1,432,400      1,432,400             0        7,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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, 2011. The committee recommends 547,400 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Army, 324,300 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Navy, 202,100 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 
332,200 as the minimum active duty end strength for the Air 
Force.

                       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, 2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2010              FY 2011                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2011      FY 2010
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................      358,200      358,200        358,200             0            0
Army Reserve................................      205,000      205,000        205,000             0            0
Navy Reserve................................       65,500       65,500         65,500             0            0
Marine Corps Reserve........................       39,600       39,600         39,600             0            0
Air National Guard..........................      106,700      106,700        106,700             0            0
Air Force Reserve...........................       69,500       71,200         71,200             0        1,700
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total.............................      844,500      846,200        846,200             0        1,700
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, 2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2010              FY 2011                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2011      FY 2010
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................       32,060       32,060         32,060             0            0
Army Reserve................................       16,261       16,261         16,261             0            0
Naval Reserve...............................       10,818       10,688         10,688             0         -130
Marine Corps Reserve........................        2,261        2,261          2,261             0            0
Air National Guard..........................       14,555       14,584         14,584             0           29
Air Force Reserve...........................        2,896        2,992          2,992             0           96
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total.............................       78,851       78,846         78,846             0           -5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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, 
2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2010              FY 2011                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2011      FY 2010
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................       27,210       27,210         27,210             0            0
Army Reserve................................        8,395        8,395          8,395             0            0
Air National Guard..........................       22,313       22,394         22,394             0           81
Air Force Reserve...........................       10,417       10,720         10,720             0          303
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total.............................       68,335       68,719         68,719             0          384
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 414--Fiscal Year 2011 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, 2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2010              FY 2011                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2011      FY 2010
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................        1,600        2,520          2,520             0          920
Army Reserve................................          595          595            595             0            0
Air National Guard..........................          350          350            350             0            0
Air Force Reserve...........................           90           90             90             0            0
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      DOD Total.............................        2,635        3,555          3,555             0          920
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section would establish limits for fiscal year 2011 on 
the number of non-dual status technicians authorized for the 
Army and Air Force Reserve Components. The Department of 
Defense request for fiscal year 2011 included an increase in 
the statutory limit on non-dual status technicians for the Army 
National Guard from 1,600 to 2,520, a more than 55 percent 
increase. Further discussions with the Department informed the 
committee that the national guard believes the size of the 
Army's required non-dual status technician force should be 
5,000, a more than 300 percent increase over the current 
statutory limit. The rationale provided for such an increase 
was that more non-dual status technicians, who do not deploy, 
are needed at state headquarters in order to backfill dual-
status technicians who frequently deploy, disrupting support to 
national guard units. The committee understands that some 
growth will be required in the number of non-dual status 
technicians in order for the Army and Air Force reserve 
components to sustain effective performance as an operational 
reserve.
    To better define the overall requirements, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services within 180 days of enactment, that included an 
assessment on the requirements of the national guard for non-
dual status technicians. The committee has yet to receive the 
report. Furthermore, the Department provided data to the 
committee indicating that the use of temporary wartime 
authority to waive all end strength limitations, as well as 
temporary hiring authority, had allowed the number of national 
guard non-dual status technicians in fiscal year 2010 to 
increase by nearly 2,200. Given the wartime authorities, as 
well as permanent temporary hiring authorities provided 
elsewhere in this Act, the committee would have preferred to 
receive and assess the required report from the Secretary of 
Defense before establishing a new statutory limit for national 
guard non-dual status technicians, but did not want to hinder 
the ability of states to meet continuing wartime requirements. 
The committee will continue to evaluate those requirements 
following receipt of the required report from the Secretary of 
Defense.

 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 2011 to provide 
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count 
against the end strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2010              FY 2011                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2011      FY 2010
                                               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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations


                    Section 421--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize $138,540,700,000 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:


                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues its efforts to provide flexibility 
to the Department of Defense to manage the total force using 
authorities that protect critical skills and enhance the 
quality of the force. For example, the committee has included a 
series of provisions that would provide new benefits and rights 
to reserve military civilian technicians.
    The committee also recognizes the selfless sacrifices that 
our military men and women and their families are making on 
behalf of the nation and has recommended the inclusion of 
provisions that would improve the overall well being and 
readiness of the force. For example, the committee has included 
provisions that would improve the management of warrant 
officers, enhance the responsiveness of the boards authorized 
to correct military records, and promote programs that assist 
military families. Additionally, the committee includes a 
provision that would modify the authority to conduct the 
Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA) to include 
a pilot program for comprehensive career development counseling 
for military spouses.The committee again recommends additional 
funding to help local educational agencies that are providing 
support to military children by including $65.0 million for 
local educational agencies that are heavily impacted by the 
attendance of military dependents, and continued funding for 
family assistance centers across the nation to support reserve 
families. The committee also encourages the recognition of the 
contributions of military spouses and children of members who 
are serving or have served in combat by including a provision 
that would authorize a lapel button to be worn by these family 
members.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                    Army Freedom Team Salute Program

    The committee is concerned about the Army's decision to 
terminate the Freedom Team Salute program. Since its beginnings 
in 2005, Freedom Team Salute has recognized and honored the 
services of more than 2.3 million parents, spouses, employers, 
supporters, and Army veterans. Freedom Team Salute commemorates 
the service of our veterans and loved ones through an 
inexpensive commendation package that includes an official Army 
Lapel Pin, an Army decal, a certificate of appreciation and 
letter of thanks signed by the Secretary of the Army and the 
Chief of Staff, Army.
    The committee understands that there is no other program 
that supports veterans in the same way as the Freedom Team 
Salute program, which the committee believes is a valuable and 
enriching effort in support of Army veterans. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review funding 
options for re-instating the Freedom Team Salute program and to 
report the findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
May 1, 2011. The committee recommends that if the program is 
reinstated, the Army monitor the cost and efficiency of the 
program to ensure that it is funded in a responsible manner and 
that it achieves its intended results in a cost effective 
manner.

Award of Prisoner-of-War Medal to Service Members Held at Wauwilermoos, 
                              Switzerland

    Section 1128 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
secretary concerned to issue a prisoner-of-war medal to any 
service member taken prisoner and held captive under four broad 
conditions, including by foreign armed forces that are hostile 
to the United States, under comparable circumstances to those 
under which persons have generally been held captive by enemy 
armed forces.
    The committee understands that during World War II, airmen 
forced to make emergency landings in the neutral Swiss 
Confederation were interned under generous circumstances, some 
in hotels, and given strict instructions not to attempt to 
escape so that Switzerland could maintain its neutrality. Some 
service members who attempted to escape were transferred to 
Wauwilermoos, a facility in which, as documentation has 
indicated, internees were held under extremely inhumane 
conditions. The committee also understands that two service 
members have been awarded the prisoner-of-war medal for their 
internment at Wauwilermoos.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the rationale for awarding the prisoner-of-war medal to some 
Wauwilermoos internees and not to others, and to provide a 
written summary of the review and its conclusions to the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2011.
    The committee directs the Secretary to award the prisoner-
of-war medal to those Wauwilermoos internees, who upon review, 
the Secretary determines to be entitled to the award.

Committee's Concerns With the DOD Report on Child Custody and Database 
   To Track the Number of Cases Involving Child Custody Disputes of 
                      Members of the Armed Forces

    The committee received from the Department of Defense a 
report to Congress on child custody litigation involving 
service members of the armed forces required by section 572 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-288). The report was to include an evaluation 
``on all known reported cases since September 2003 involving 
child custody disputes in which the service of a member of the 
Armed Forces was an issue in the custody dispute'' as well as 
address a number of issues; to include a statement of the total 
number of cases in which members of the Armed Forces have lost 
custody of a child as a result of deployment, and the 
litigation history of all available reported cases involving 
child custody disputes. The committee is concerned the 
Department limited the scope of the report to cases where 
military service was the sole factor in determining custody 
instead of cases where it was an issue in the custody dispute.
    The committee is aware that during a hearing held by the 
House Veteran's Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity in 
February 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) witness 
testified that the department had to ``resort to anecdotal 
data'' in the course of preparing the report mandated by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The 
report discusses the challenges faced with gathering data 
through available case law research tools and the limited 
information to conduct detailed research required by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. From 
this, the committee concludes that there is not sufficient data 
available to ascertain the full scope of how many members of 
the Armed Forces experience the loss of child custody as a 
result of their service. Although the committee is encouraged 
with the Department's efforts to encourage states to change 
their laws to better support service members and its efforts to 
better educate service members who may have potential child 
custody issues; the committee continues to support the need for 
Congressional legislation to provide maximum protection for our 
service members and their children, who, while deployed, remain 
at risk of having that deployment used against them to 
determine or change child custody arrangements.
    The committee also remains concerned about the absence of a 
database on which to assess the impact of deployments on child 
custody arrangements and the adequacy of family care plans; but 
is encouraged by the data call the department has begun to 
better assess the scope of the issue. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain a 
database to track the number of cases involving child custody 
disputes of a member of the Armed Forces, and directs the 
Secretary of Defense to report on the outcome of the data call 
referenced in the report to congress on Child Custody 
Litigation involving service members of the Armed Forces, to 
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
on Armed Services of the House.

                    Fit, But Unsuitable Separations

    The committee is concerned that it is still possible that a 
service member could be found fit for continued service by a 
Physical Evaluation Board, but subsequently be deemed 
unsuitable for continued service due to the same medical 
condition that prompted the medical evaluation. The committee 
views this action as fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with 
the disability evaluation system reforms that have been enacted 
in recent years. The committee is aware that the military 
departments are considering changes to this practice, but there 
is no evidence that a decision has been made to implement a 
standardized policy within the Department of Defense.
    Accordingly, the committee directs Secretary of Defense to 
examine the use of and justification for the ``fit, but 
unsuitable'' separation process within the military departments 
and to report the findings and recommendations to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by May 1, 2011.

                      Military Leave for Training

    The committee is concerned that the number of military 
leave days afforded to reserve component members under section 
6323(a)(1) of Title 5 United States Code may not be sufficient 
to accomplish the required training as the reserve component 
transitions to an operational reserve. Current law authorizes 
15 days per fiscal year for active duty, inactive-duty 
training, funeral honors or engaging in field training. This 
was sufficient under the former paradigm of training on one 
weekend a month and two weeks during the summer. Reserve 
component members now are required to conduct more training to 
increase readiness for deployment. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Defense to review the impact and 
feasibility of increasing the number of military leave days 
authorized under section 6323(a)(1) of Title 5 United States 
Code and report on the outcome of the review to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by April 1, 2011.

                 Report on Medal of Honor Award Process

    The committee remains 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 notes that the committee report (H. 
Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 directed the Secretary of Defense 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 Secretary of 
Defense was directed to survey military leaders, both officers 
and noncommissioned 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 notes that the Department of Defense informed the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by letter that the report would not arrive by 
the March 31, 2010, deadline. The committee acknowledges that 
the Department indicated that the report will be submitted by 
July 31, 2010, and encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
complete its review and report its findings on the Medal of 
Honor as expeditiously as possible.

Retention of Military Technicians Who Lose Dual Status in the Selected 
                Reserve Due to Combat-Related Disability

    The committee commends the National Guard Bureau for its 
implementation of section 511 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
which provides the authority enabling military technicians 
(dual status) to continue to be employed as technicians when 
the loss of their military membership in the Selected Reserve 
is the result of a combat-related disability. However, the 
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not 
issued guidance to ensure the reserve component is implementing 
the statute uniformly. The committee urges the Department to 
issue instructions to the reserve components.

 Review of Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients From World War I

    The committee notes that section 552 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107), required the Secretary of each military department to 
review, among others, the service records of each Hispanic 
American war veteran who was awarded the Distinguished Service 
Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross before the date 
of the enactment of that Act, to determine whether that veteran 
should be awarded the Medal of Honor. The committee understands 
that the review occurred for Hispanic American service cross 
recipients from World War II and later periods based on the 
conference report (H. Rept. 107-333) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
    The committee believes that the statutory authority to 
conduct a review for Hispanic American service cross recipients 
to those from World War I exists in the underlying law, and 
directs the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, 
and the Secretary of the Air Force to expand their reviews of 
Hispanic American service cross recipients to those awarded 
from January 2, 1918, to December 6, 1941. The committee 
directs the secretaries to provide written notification of 
compliance 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.

Review of the House Committee on Armed Services Report on Professional 
                           Military Education

    The committee desires the views of the Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff', and the 
uniformed chiefs of the military services on the April 2010 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation's unanimous and 
bipartisan report ``Another Crossroads? Professional Military 
Education Two Decades After the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the 
Skelton Panel.''
    This report examined officer in-residence professional 
military education (PME) as a critical investment in the most 
important element of our military, people. The report concluded 
that the United States cannot afford to be complacent when it 
comes to producing leaders capable of meeting significant 
challenges, whether at the tactical, operational, or strategic 
levels of warfare, and that as a matter of national security, 
the country's continuing investment in the PME system must be 
wisely made. The report further found that today's PME system 
is basically sound; there are areas, however, that need 
improvement.
    The committee intends to work with the Department of 
Defense and the military services on PME on a continuing basis. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the uniformed chiefs 
of the military services to review the House Committee on Armed 
Services' report on professional military education and provide 
their individual views on the report's findings and 
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2010.

          Transferability of Individualized Education Programs

    The committee notes that military families face frequent 
moves when the parent in the uniformed services is assigned to 
a new duty location. These frequent moves create additional 
challenges for children with special needs to receive the care 
they need. The committee encourages local educational agencies 
to recognize and, to the extent practicable, adhere to the 
individualized education program that was previously developed 
for these children.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally


    Section 501--Age for Health Care Professional Appointments and 
                         Mandatory Retirements

    This section would authorize medical providers being 
considered for regular appointments to be exempted from the 
requirement that they be commissioned prior to age 42 so that 
they may be retired with 20 years of service by age 62. This 
section would also expand the category of officers below the 
grade of brigadier general, or rear admiral (lower half) in the 
Navy, who are exempt from the requirement to retire upon 
reaching age 62 to include not only physicians, dentists and 
nurses, but also other medical providers if they are providing 
health care, performing clinical duties, or performing health 
care-related administrative duties.

Section 502--Authority for Appointment of Warrant Officers in the Grade 
of W-1 by Commission and Standardization of Warrant Officer Appointing 
                               Authority

    This section would clarify that appointments in the regular 
grade of W-1, the secretary of a military department may 
provide by regulation that appointments be made by commission 
and that the President shall make such appointments within the 
military departments. This section would also specify that 
appointments in permanent reserve warrant officer grades would 
be made in the same manner as prescribed for regular warrant 
officer grades.

      Section 503--Nondisclosure of Information From Discussions, 
     Deliberations, Notes, and Records of Special Selection Boards

    This section would clarify that proceedings of special 
selection boards convened by the secretary of the military 
department concerned to consider the promotion of active-duty 
list or reserve active-status list officers may not be 
disclosed to any person not a member of the board, except as 
authorized or required to process the report of the board.

 Section 504--Administrative Removal of Officers From List of Officers 
                       Recommended for Promotion

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
administratively remove an officer from a promotion list if the 
officer is discharged or dropped from the rolls, transferred to 
retired status, or found to have been erroneously included in a 
zone of consideration. This section would apply the same 
standards to officers serving on the active-duty list and 
reserve officers serving on the active-status list.

Section 505--Eligibility of Officers To Serve on Boards of Inquiry for 
 Separation of Regular Officers for Substandard Performance and Other 
                                Reasons

    This section would amend sections 1187 (active duty) and 
14906 (reserves) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the 
pool of officers eligible to serve on officer discharge boards. 
This section would require all board members to be senior in 
rank or grade to the officer being considered for separation 
who is referred to as the respondent. For respondents below the 
grade of major or lieutenant commander, the board president 
would have to be in or above the grade of major or lieutenant 
commander. For respondents in or above the grade of major or 
lieutenant commander, the board president would have to be 
above the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander. Current law 
requires that all board members, regardless of the respondent's 
grade, must be in a grade above major or lieutenant commander, 
with the board president being above the grade of lieutenant 
colonel or commander.

  Section 506--Temporary Authority To Reduce Minimum Length of Active 
Service as a Commissioned Officer Required for Voluntary Retirement as 
                               an Officer

    This section would amend sections 3911(b), 6323(a)(2), and 
8911(b) of title 10, United States Code, to provide the 
secretaries of the military departments renewed authority to 
approve the voluntary retirement at 20 years of service for 
officers with 8 years commissioned service instead of 10 years, 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 
on September 30, 2013.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management


   Section 511--Preseparation Counseling for Members of the Reserve 
                               Components

    This section would amend section 1142 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require individual preseparation counseling 
already available for service members whose discharge from 
active duty is anticipated as of a specific date be made 
available to members of the reserve component.

  Section 512--Military Correction Board Remedies for National Guard 
                                Members

    This section would clarify the policy for members serving 
in a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the secretary 
concerned, to include members of the national guard, fall 
within the jurisdiction of the board operated by the secretary 
to correct military records and should benefit from the 
decision of the board.

 Section 513--Removal of Statutory Distribution Limits on Navy Reserve 
                        Flag Officer Allocation

    This section would amend section 12004 of title 10, United 
States Code, by removing the statutory distribution limits for 
Navy Reserve flag officers and would allow for flexible 
management as currently afforded to the other military 
services.

Section 514--Assignment of Air Force Reserve Military Technicians (Dual 
      Status) to Positions Outside Air Force Reserve Unit Program

    This section would amend section 10216(d) of title 10, 
United States Code, authorizing the assignment of Air Force 
Reserve military technicians (dual status) outside of a unit 
program. This section would also limit the number allowed for 
assignment outside of a unit program to no more than 50 at the 
same time.

 Section 515--Temporary Authority for Temporary Employment of Non-Dual 
                      Status Military Technicians

    This section would amend section 10217 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army or the 
Secretary of the Air Force to employ, on a temporary basis, a 
non-dual status technician to fill a vacancy created by the 
mobilization of a military technician (dual status) who 
occupies a position under section 10216 of title 10, United 
States Code. The duration of temporary employment would not 
exceed the length of the mobilization period of the military 
technician (dual status) or two years, whichever is shorter. 
The authority to hire a person under this section would expire 
two years after the date of enactment of this Act.

 Section 516--Revised Structure and Functions of Reserve Forces Policy 
                                 Board

    This section would amend section 10301 of title 10, United 
States Code, to revise the membership and operating framework 
of the Reserve Forces Policy Board so that it might provide 
independent advice and recommendations directly to the 
Secretary of Defense on matters affecting the reserve 
components. This section would reduce the membership of the 
board from 24 members to 20 members, 18 of whom would be voting 
members. This section would also require a senior enlisted 
member from one of the reserve components to serve on the board 
as a non-voting member to be an adviser on enlisted matters to 
the board chairman.

 Section 517--Merit Systems Protection Board and Judicial Remedies for 
                       National Guard Technicians

    Section 7701, title 5, United States Code, outlines 
procedures for federal civilian employees to appeal personnel 
grievances to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). 
However, under section 709 of title 32, United States Code, 
appeals of adverse personnel actions by national guard 
technicians may not be made beyond the adjutant general of the 
jurisdiction concerned. This section would extend the right to 
file MSPB appeals to national guard technicians.

         Subtitle C--Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements


  Section 521--Technical Revisions to Definition of Joint Matters for 
                  Purposes of Joint Officer Management

    This section would amend section 668 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the definition of ``joint matters.'' 
This technical change reverts to the original Goldwater-Nichols 
terminology ``integrated military forces'' vice the current 
term ``multiple military forces'' in the joint matters 
definition. This section would emphasize that joint matters is 
about integration of forces throughout the planning and 
operations process. This section would also amend (a)(1) to 
provide clarity to the definition of joint matters to reflect 
that an officer only has to participate in any one joint 
activity to be considered participating in joint matters.
    The change to subsection (a)(2) would allow for joint 
credit when military forces are integrated throughout planning 
and operations together or when one or multiple military forces 
operate with U.S. departments and agencies, military forces 
from other countries, or non-governmental persons or entities. 
As currently written, an officer involved in operations with 
other U.S. armed forces still needs to work with an agent from 
one of the organizations in subsection (a)(2)(A)-(C) to qualify 
for joint credit.

  Section 522--Changes to the Process Involving Promotion Boards for 
   Joint Qualified Officers and Officers With Joint Staff Experience

    This section would amend section 612 of title 10, United 
States Code, to comport with the standard in section 619a of 
title 10, United States Code, which allows the Secretary of 
Defense to waive joint qualified officer (JQO) requirements for 
officers in the science and technology (S&T) field and 
professional officers. These S&T and professional officers may 
now be designated as JQO's through the experience path.
    This section would also amend sections 615 and 618 of title 
10, United States Code, to comport with changes to section 662 
of title 10, United States Code, enacted by the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417). This section would update promotion board 
requirements for joint information and after action reports to 
match the new joint promotion objectives.

                Subtitle D--General Services Authorities


Section 531--Extension of Temporary Authority To Order Retired Members 
    of the Armed Forces to Active Duty in High-Demand, Low-Density 
                              Assignments

    This section would extend the authorities in section 
688a(f) of title 10, United States Code, from December 31, 
2010, to December 31, 2012. This section would also require the 
Secretary of the Defense to submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services, by April 1, 2011, containing an assessment of the 
need to extend the authority beyond December 31, 2012, and a 
plan, if appropriate, to eliminate the use of recalled retirees 
and, instead, to increase active duty manpower to meet future 
high demand, low-density requirements.

              Section 532--Correction of Military Records

    This section would require boards for the correction of 
military records, discharge review boards, and disability 
retirement and separation review boards operated under the 
jurisdiction of the secretaries of the military departments to 
ensure that the documents announcing decisions of the boards 
convey the findings and conclusions of the board in an itemized 
and orderly fashion with specific attention to each issue 
presented by the member in regard to that member's case. This 
section would also require that disability retirement and 
separation review boards be made available to enlisted members 
as well as officers. The section would also extend from 
December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2013, the personnel 
limitation that the manpower levels within the service review 
agencies of the military departments shall not be reduced below 
the manpower levels that existed on January 1, 2002, unless the 
secretary of the military department reports the scope and 
purpose of the reduction and a 90-day period elapses.

 Section 533--Modification of Certificate of Release or Discharge From 
    Active Duty (DD Form 214) To Specifically Identify a Space for 
                       Inclusion of Email Address

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
modify the DD Form 214, Certificate or Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, to include a specific field on the form in 
which a service member may include his or her email address.

Section 534--Recognition of Role of Female Members of the Armed Forces 
 and Department of Defense Review of Military Occupational Specialties 
                      Available to Female Members

    This section is a sense of Congress that honors women who 
have served, and women who are currently serving, as members of 
the armed forces and encourages people in the United States to 
recognize the service and achievements of female members of the 
armed forces and female veterans. It would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of military 
occupational positions available to female members and the 
collocation policy and other policies and regulations to 
determine whether changes are needed, including legislative 
change, if necessary, to enhance the ability of women to serve 
in the armed forces.

             Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters


    Section 541--Continuation of Warrant Officers on Active Duty To 
                      Complete Disciplinary Action

    This section would authorize the secretary of the military 
department concerned to continue a warrant officer on active 
duty and delay a pending separation or retirement without 
prejudice until any action to consider trying the member by 
court-martial has been completed.

Section 542--Enhanced Authority To Punish Contempt in Military Justice 
                              Proceedings

    This section would amend article 48 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice by expanding the authority by which a military 
judge may punish contempt in military proceedings.

  Section 543--Limitations on Use in Personnel Action of Information 
 Contained in Criminal Investigative Report or in the Index Maintained 
               for Law Enforcement Retrieval and Analysis

    This section would prohibit the use of information related 
to the titling or indexing of a member of the armed forces 
contained in any Department of Defense criminal investigative 
report in connection with any personnel action involving the 
member. This section would provide exceptions to the 
prohibition in connection with law enforcement activities; in a 
judicial or administrative action involving an alleged offense 
referenced in the criminal investigative report or index; or in 
a personnel action if the member has been adjudged guilty of 
the alleged offense as the result of a military non-judicial or 
judicial action; or as a result of a civilian judicial 
proceeding, and the record of the proceedings is presented in 
connection with the personnel action; and the member has the 
opportunity to present additional information in response to 
the record of the proceedings.

 Section 544--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 Service Members 
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. This section would also 
require 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 545--Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic Violence 
                                Programs

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
implement recommendations contained in the report of the 
Comptroller General of the United States titled ``Status of 
Implementation of GAO's 2006 Recommendations on the Department 
of Defense's Domestic Violence Program'' (GAO-10-577R).

   Section 546--Public Release of Restricted Annex of Department of 
     Defense Report of the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood 
    Pertaining to Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator of the Attack

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
release publicly the restricted annex of the Department of 
Defense Report of the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, 
dated January 2010. This section would also exempt parts of the 
restricted annex from public release, except: if the Secretary 
determines that if disclosed the materials may imperil any 
criminal investigation or prosecution related to the attack; 
and in accordance with section 1102 of title 10, United States 
Code, the memorandum summarizing the results of the medical 
quality assurance records relating to the care provided 
patients by the alleged perpetrator of the attack.

      Subtitle F--Member Education and Training Opportunities and 
                             Administration


      Section 551--Repayment of Education Loan Repayment Benefits

    This section would amend sections 2171 and 16301 of title 
10, United States Code, conforming payments made under those 
sections to the same repayment provisions currently in place 
for other bonus and incentive programs under section 303a of 
title 37, United States Code. This section would allow the 
secretary concerned to disburse a final education loan 
repayment with the settlement of service member's final 
military pay account when that service member is killed or 
seriously injured in the line of duty.

   Section 552--Active Duty Obligation for Graduates of the Military 
Service Academies Participating in the Armed Forces Health Professions 
              Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program

    This section would require graduates of the United States 
Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the 
United States Air Force Academy to serve the full period of the 
active duty service obligation associated with their military 
academy attendance notwithstanding that their participation in 
the Health Professions Scholarship Program requires them to 
resign their regular commission and serve as a reserve officer.

 Section 553--Waiver of Maximum Age Limitation on Admission to Service 
  Academies for Certain Enlisted Members Who Served During Operation 
              Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to waive the maximum age limitation for admission to 
a military service academy from 23 to 26 for an otherwise 
qualified enlisted member of the armed forces who was prevented 
from being admitted to the academy before the member reached 
the maximum age as a result of service in the theaters of 
operation for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
Freedom.

  Section 554--Report of Feasibility and Cost of Expanding Enrollment 
 Authority of Community College of the Air Force To Include Additional 
                      Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to report to 
Congress within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act the feasibility and the cost of expanding eligibility for 
enrollment in Community College of the Air Force to the Army, 
Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

               Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education


  Section 561--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 562--Enrollment of Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces 
   Who Reside in Temporary Housing in Department of Defense Domestic 
               Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

    This section would amend section 2164 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the discretion 
to prescribe regulations that would permit certain dependents 
who reside in temporary housing in lieu of permanent living 
quarters on a military installation the ability to attend 
Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and 
secondary schools.

          Subtitle H--Decorations, Awards, and Commemorations


    Section 571--Notification Requirement for Determination Made in 
   Response to Review of Proposal for Award of a Medal of Honor Not 
                 Previously Submitted in Timely Fashion

    This section would amend section 1130 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to submit the 
discussion and rationale regarding favorable recommendations to 
award the Medal of Honor to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the Member 
of Congress requesting the review.

Section 572--Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of Members of 
                            the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
design, commercially license to manufacture, and sell a spouse-
combat-veteran lapel button to recognize the contributions to 
national defense and the personal sacrifices made by the 
spouses of combat veterans. This section would also express the 
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should widely 
announce the availability of the lapel button and should 
encourage commanders to conduct ceremonies recognizing the 
support provided by spouses of military members where service 
members can present these lapel buttons to their family 
members.

 Section 573--Department of Defense Recognition of Children of Members 
                          of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
design, commercially license to manufacture, and sell a 
children of military service members commemorative lapel button 
to recognize the contributions to national defense and the 
personal sacrifices made by the children of military veterans. 
This section would also express the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should widely announce the availability of 
the lapel buttons and should encourage commanders to conduct 
ceremonies recognizing the support provided by children of 
military members where service members can present these lapel 
buttons to their family members.

Section 574--Clarification of Persons Eligible for Award of Bronze Star 
                                 Medal

    This section would clarify section 1133 of title 10, United 
States Code, to restrict award of the Bronze Star medal to only 
those members of a military force who were: (1) serving in a 
geographic area in which hostile fire/imminent danger pay or 
hazardous duty pay was authorized at the time events occurred 
for which the medal would be awarded; or (2) in receipt of 
hostile fire/imminent danger pay or hazardous duty pay as a 
result of the events for which the medal would be awarded.

      Section 575--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 576--Authorization for Award of Medal of Honor to Certain 
Members of the Army for Acts of Valor During the Civil War, Korean War, 
                             or Vietnam War

    This section would waive the statutory time limitation 
under section 3744 of title 10, United States Code and 
authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to: (1) 
Alonzo H. Cushing, who served in the United States Army during 
the Civil War; (2) John A. Sipe, who served in the United 
States Army during the Civil War; (3) Chaplain Emil J. Kapaun, 
who served in the United States Army during the Korean war; and 
(4) Robert L. Towles, who served in the United States Army 
during the Vietnam war.

   Section 577--Authorization and Request for Award of Distinguished-
Service Cross to Jay C. Copley for Acts of Valor During the Vietnam War

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
award the Distinguished-Service Cross to Jay C. Copley, who 
served in the United States Army during the Vietnam war. This 
section would waive the statutory time limitation under section 
3744 of title 10, United States Code.

 Section 578--Program To Commemorate 60th Anniversary of the Korean War

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish and conduct a program to commemorate the 60th 
anniversary of the Korean war and to coordinate and support the 
Korean war commemorative programs and activities of the federal 
government, state and local governments, and other persons and 
organizations that support the commemorative objectives 
specified in this section.

             Subtitle I--Military Family Readiness Matters


Section 581--Appointment of Additional Member of Department of Defense 
                   Military Family Readiness Council

    This section would expand the membership of the Department 
of Defense Military Family Readiness Council to include a 
spouse of a general or flag officer, and clarifies the 
appointment options for the enlisted representation.

 Section 582--Director of the Office of Community Support for Military 
                      Families With Special Needs

    This section would make a technical clarification to 
section 1781(c) of title 10, United States Code, as enacted by 
section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

     Section 583--Pilot Program of Personalized Career Development 
                    Counseling for Military Spouses

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a pilot program designed to provide career 
development counseling to, between 75 and 150, spouses of 
active duty service members, under the spouse tuition 
assistance authority in section 1784a of title 10, United 
States Code. The pilot program would include the development of 
strategies, step-by-step guidelines, and customizable 
milestones to: (1) promote comprehensive, introspective review 
of personal skills, experience, goals, and requirements with a 
view to developing a personalized plan for career development; 
(2) identify career options that are portable, personally 
rewarding, and compatible with personal strengths, skills, and 
experience; (3) instruct and encourage the use of sound 
personal and professional management practices; and (4) plan 
career attainment progression objectives and measure progress.
    This section would require the Secretary to make available 
at least one career counselor in each of the three geographic 
areas required by the pilot program. This section would also 
require the Secretary to consider methods to incentivize 
careers in critical civilian specialties needed in the 
Department of Defense, such as mental health, social work, and 
family welfare among others.

    Section 584--Modification of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

    This section would amend section 582 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) by authorizing service and state based programs to provide 
access to service members and their families of all components. 
This section would also require a process for evaluating the 
effectiveness of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, and 
provide information on employment opportunities during the 
post-deployment reconstitution phase. This section would also 
include resiliency training programs to the outreach services 
provided under the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.

  Section 585--Importance of Office of Community Support for Military 
                      Families With Special Needs

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special 
Needs is the best structure to determine what medical, 
educational, and other support services are required by 
military families with children who have a medical or 
educational special need and to ensure that those services are 
made available to those families. This section would also 
require that the Secretary of Defense allocate a separate line 
of funding to the Office of Community Support for Military 
Families with Special Needs, effective with the Program 
Objective Memorandum to be issued for fiscal year 2012.

Section 586--Comptroller General Report on Department of Defense Office 
     of Community Support for Military Families With Special Needs

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on the progress made in implementing the Office of 
Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs.

 Section 587--Comptroller General Report on Exceptional Family Member 
                                Program

    This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct an assessment of the Exception Family Member 
Program of the Department of Defense and to report the findings 
of the assessment to the congressional defense committees 
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

   Section 588--Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense 
                  Military Spouse Employment Programs

    This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review all Department of Defense spouse employment 
programs, and to report the findings of the review, including 
any recommendations for improving such programs, to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011.

Section 589--Report on Department of Defense Military Spouse Education 
                                Programs

    This section requires the Secretary of Defense to review 
all Department of Defense education programs designed to 
support spouses of members of the armed forces. The Secretary 
is required to report the findings of the review, including any 
recommendations for improving such programs, to the 
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

                       Subtitle J--Other Matters


 Section 591--Establishment of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
             Units for Students in Grades Above Sixth Grade

    This section would amend section 2031 of title 10, United 
Sates 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 authority must meet similar 
requirements of the JROTC program, and the service secretary 
who establishes a program under this authority must conduct a 
review of the program, and report on the impacts, if any, the 
program may have on the operations of JROTC in secondary 
educational institutions.

Section 592--Increase in Number of Private Sector Civilians Authorized 
              for Admission to National Defense University

    This section would authorize the change in the number of 
private sector civilians authorized for admission to the 
professional military education program at the National Defense 
University from 20 to 35.

 Section 593--Admission of Defense Industry Civilians To Attend United 
                States Air Force Institute of Technology

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to permit defense industry employees to receive instruction at 
the United States Air Force Institute of Technology. This 
section limits enrollment to 125 defense industry employees at 
any one time, on a space available basis, and requires the 
students be charged tuition for enrollment.

  Section 594--Date for Submission of Annual Report on Department of 
                        Defense STARBASE Program

    This section would amend section 2193b of title 10, United 
States Code, to extend the annual STARBASE program report 
deadline from 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, to 
March 31st of each year.

 Section 595--Extension of Deadline for Submission of Final Report of 
                Military Leadership Diversity Commission

    This section would extend the period authorized for the 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission for completing 
deliberations before submitting its final report from 12 months 
to 18 months.

  Section 596--Enhanced Authority for Members of the Armed Forces and 
  Department of Defense and Coast Guard Civilian Employees and Their 
           Families To Accept Gifts From Non-Federal Entities

    This section would amend chapter 155 of title 10, United 
States Code, by incorporating an expanded version of section 
8127 included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
2006 (Public Law 109-148).
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
issue regulations authorizing eligible members of the armed 
forces, eligible civilians, their families and survivors, to 
accept gifts from nonprofit organizations, private parties, and 
other sources outside the Department of Defense. Eligible 
service members and civilians include those who incurred an 
injury or illness: as a direct result of armed conflict; while 
engaged in hazardous service; in the performance of duty under 
conditions simulating war; through an instrumentality of war; 
in an operation or area designated as a combat operation or 
combat zone by the Secretary of Defense; or under other 
circumstances determined by the Secretary to warrant similar 
treatment. This section would prohibit the acceptance of gifts 
from foreign governments, international organizations, or their 
agents. This section would also repeal section 8127 of Public 
Law 109-148.

   Section 597--Report on Performance and Improvements of Transition 
                           Assistance Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to prepare a report 
on the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). This section would 
require that the report include: an analysis of the rates of 
post-separation employment rates compared to the general 
population; a summary of the evolution and development of TAP; 
a description of efforts to transform the TAP model from an 
end-of-service transition model to a life-cycle model; an 
analysis of current and future challenges separating members 
face when entering the civilian workforce, including surveys; 
and recommendations, including legislative recommendations, 
that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to improve 
TAP. The report would be required to be submitted within 270 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 598--Sense of Congress Regarding Assisting Members of the Armed 
            Forces To Participate in Apprenticeship Programs

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
commanders of units of the armed forces should make every 
effort to permit members of the armed forces who are assigned 
to the unit, but who are in the process of being separated or 
released from active duty, to participate in an apprenticeship 
program that is registered under the National Apprenticeship 
Act (29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.).

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible 
compensation programs are central to maintaining a high 
quality, combat ready force in the ninth year of war. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an across-the-board pay 
raise of 1.9 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 12th consecutive year that the 
pay raise would exceed the ECI level and would result in an 
average cumulative pay increase of 60 percent over the last 12 
years.
    The committee recognizes that compensation of service 
members while serving in a combat zone has been eroded by 
inflation since the beginning of combat operations in the 
Republic of Iraq. Accordingly, the committee recommends 
increases to hostile fire pay.
    The committee believes that more needs to be done to 
benefit military families. For example, the committee includes 
provisions that would authorize an increase in the family 
separation allowance and expansion of basic allowance for 
housing policy to include payment to both members of a dual-
military family when one member is assigned to sea duty.
    The committee notes that the benefits provided to wounded 
warriors and their loved ones needs to be further updated. The 
committee recommends a new payment to severely disabled service 
members to facilitate the employment of caregivers required by 
the service member, to include movement of household goods, if 
necessary. The committee also included a pilot program that 
would examine the effect of longer officer careers on the 
ability of the services to provide for the education and career 
broadening assignments that are critical to the development of 
well-rounded military leaders.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                         Career Retention Bonus

    The committee is concerned that service members are not 
being provided appropriate counseling and information before 
they decline or accept the $30,000 career retention bonus upon 
reaching 15 years of service. Acceptance of the bonus requires 
service members to participate in a retirement program that 
offers reduced benefits that could result in the loss of 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits over the lifetime 
of the service member. The committee understands that the 
Center for Naval Analysis has devoted considerable research 
into this matter and would be positioned to provide valuable 
information on what can be done to ensure that service members 
receive the information necessary to make well informed 
decisions about the career retention bonus. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to initiate an education 
program to improve the counseling and information provided to 
service members before they make a decision about the career 
retention bonus.

  Critical Language and Cultural Training of Special Operations Forces

    United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) deploys 
personnel to over 70 countries around the world and in every 
geographic combatant command. Personnel assigned to USSOCOM 
carry out unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, 
civil affairs operations, and security force assistance; all of 
which require deep language and culture expertise. Among the 
many skills required to carry out their missions is the ability 
to personally interact and collaborate with indigenous 
populations. Often in isolated locations, these missions 
succeed or fail based upon the operator's knowledge of the 
population's cultural sensitivities. The committee is aware 
that United States Special Operations Forces (USSOF) that 
require language skills are initially trained to the 
Department's 1/1 proficiency standard; however, the committee 
is concerned there is no mechanism in place, across all the 
services, to ensure this standard is maintained on a regular 
basis. Furthermore, the services do not consistently provide 
USSOF personnel Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) for 
sustaining a 1/1 or 1/+ standard, potentially contributing to 
the attrition of language skills.
    While the committee understands that the services provide 
its respective USSOF personnel FLPP once they reach the much 
more developed 2/2 certification, the committee encourages the 
services to provide FLPP to USSOF personnel at the 1/1 and 1/+ 
level.
    The committee understands that in order to educate its 
personnel regarding cultural sensitivities, USSOCOM provides 
advanced cultural immersion training and recruits first-
generation individuals with particular cultural backgrounds. 
The committee also recognizes USSOCOM's use of the Military 
Accessions Vital to National Interest program and the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands program to fill its ranks with 
culturally astute personnel; however, the committee is aware 
that there are obstacles to USSOCOM's full utilization of these 
programs. The committee directs the Commander, USSOCOM to 
provide a briefing, by September 1, 2010, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services on USSOCOM's objectives, strategies, and challenges 
regarding cultural immersion programs.

Local Procurement of Fresh Meat, Poultry, Seafood, Fish, and Produce by 
                     Commissary and Exchange Stores

    The committee believes more can be done to purchase fresh 
meat, poultry, seafood, fish, and produce from local markets 
within 150 miles of commissary and exchange stores. The 
committee recognizes the benefits of the ``Green the Capitol'' 
initiative and believes such a program at commissaries and 
exchanges at military installations may prove beneficial and 
environmentally responsible.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to assess how the Defense Commissary Agency and the exchange 
services procure fresh meat, poultry, seafood, fish, and 
produce for resale. This section should: calculate an estimate 
of the percentage of those goods raised, produced, or caught 
within 150 miles of the resale stores; determine if those 
methods of procurement can be changed to increase local 
procurement rates; determine the fiscal implications of such a 
change, to include cost savings of reduced transportation 
distances; determine the implications for patrons of such a 
change; and provide a recommendation on initiating a program to 
increase local procurement of fresh meat, poultry, seafood, 
fish, and produce. The committee directs the Secretary to 
report the findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
May 1, 2011.

     Procurement of Locally Caught Seafood and Fresh-Water Fish by 
                              Commissaries

    The committee is concerned that commissary stores do not 
procure locally caught seafood and fresh-water fish for sale 
within the United States. The committee believes that store 
managers should be providing such fresh seafood and fresh-water 
fish on a regular and recurring basis to commissary patrons.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
require commissary stores operated by the Defense Commissary 
Agency in the United States to procure fresh seafood and fresh-
water fish from local sources and sell it on a regular and 
recurring basis. The committee also directs the Secretary of 
Defense to evaluate the record for commissary stores regarding 
the procurement of locally caught seafood and fresh-water fish 
in the United States during the period beginning on January 1, 
2009, through December 31, 2011, and to report the findings and 
recommendations concerning the procurement of locally caught 
seafood and fresh-water fish in the future, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 1, 2012.

                           Reserve Retirement

    The committee understands that a Department of Defense 
legal review of section 647 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
has determined that the increments of 90 days of active duty 
that were intended to reduce the age at which reserve members 
may begin to receive retired pay below age 60 must be wholly 
earned within the same fiscal year. The committee believes that 
this interpretation of the law is incorrect.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to review the issues involved and seek the counsel of the 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services to obtain the 
information needed to make an informed decision. The committee 
directs the Secretary to report the findings and 
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2011.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances


      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2011 Increase in Military Basic Pay

    This section would increase basic pay for members of the 
uniform services by 1.9 percent effective January 1, 2011. This 
raise would continue to fulfill Congress' 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 2011 would be reduced from approximately 2.4 percent to 
1.9 percent.

 Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing for Two-Member Couples When 
                  One or Both Members Are on Sea Duty

    This section would authorize military members to receive a 
basic allowance for housing while on sea duty when married to 
another military member, regardless of the other member's sea 
duty status, pay grade, or sponsorship of dependents, if each 
member would otherwise be entitled to receive a basic allowance 
for housing.

Section 603--Allowances for Purchase of Required Uniforms and Equipment

    This section would increase the initial clothing allowance 
that may be paid to an officer upon entering service from $400 
to $500, and the additional allowance that may be paid to an 
officer upon subsequent entries on active duty of 90 days or 
longer from $200 to $250. This section would also authorize the 
secretaries of the military departments, with the approval of 
the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in the case of the Coast Guard when it is not 
operating as a service of the Navy, to increase the initial 
clothing allowance paid to an officer above the $500 cap 
established in this section. The committee believes that the 
secretaries of the military departments and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security should be authorized to determine if the 
initial clothing should be increased above $500 to more 
accurately reflect the value of the uniforms that officers are 
required to purchase upon entering service.

     Section 604--Increase in Amount of Family Separation Allowance

    This section would authorize an increase in the family 
separation allowance from $250 per month to $285 per month to 
compensate for an erosion of value due to inflation.

Section 605--One-Time Special Compensation for Transition of Assistants 
Providing Aid and Attendance Care to Members of the Uniformed Services 
                With Catastrophic Injuries or Illnesses

    This section would amend section 439 of title 37, United 
States Code, as established by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), to 
authorize the secretaries concerned to pay a one-time special 
compensation, not to exceed $3,500, to a service member with a 
combat related catastrophic injury or illness for the 
transition of assistants providing aid and attendance care.

   Section 606--Expansion of Definition of Senior Enlisted Member to 
   Include Senior Enlisted Member Serving Within a Combatant Command

    This section would increase the rate of pay of individuals 
designated as the senior enlisted members of the combatant 
commands to match the pay provided to the Sergeant Major of the 
Army, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, the Chief 
Master Sergeant of the Air Force, the Sergeant Major of the 
Marine Corps, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast 
Guard, and the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 Section 607--Ineligibility of Certain Federal Civilian Employees for 
  Reservist Income Replacement Payments on Account of Availability of 
               Comparable Benefits Under Another Program

    This section would clarify that a member of a reserve 
component would not be eligible for income replacement payments 
under section 910(b) of title 37, United States Code, if the 
member is also a civilian employee of the federal government 
entitled to a differential payment under section 5538 of title 
5, United States Code, or another comparable program 
established for employees of the federal government.

           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 and reenlistment bonus for persons 
with prior service, and income replacement payments until 
December 31, 2011.

   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, 2011.

 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, 2011.

  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, 
2011.

 Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of 
                Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays

    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, 2011.

 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, 2011.

 Section 617--Treatment of Officers Transferring Between Armed Forces 
               for Receipt of Aviation Career Special Pay

    This section would require that officers who transfer from 
one armed force to another armed force would receive the same 
aviation career special pay as other officers in the gaining 
armed force with the same number of years of aviation service 
performing similar aviation duties in the same weapon system, 
notwithstanding any additional active duty service obligation 
incurred as a result of the transfer. This section would also 
require, until December 31, 2015, the secretary concerned to 
pay aviation career special pay to an officer who transferred 
or transfers from one armed force to an armed force under the 
jurisdiction of the secretary until the officer has received a 
comparable level of benefits with other similarly situated 
officers. In calculating the number of years of benefits, the 
secretary concerned would include any year that the officer 
received aviation career special pay before the transfer.

Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Special Pay for Duty Subject 
    to Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger or for Duty in Foreign Area 
                 Designated as an Imminent Danger Area

    This section would authorize an increase in hostile fire 
and imminent danger pay from $225 per month to $260 per month 
to compensate for an erosion of value due to inflation.

    Section 619--Special Payment to Members of the Armed Forces and 
 Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Killed or Wounded in 
   Attacks Directed at Members or Employees Outside of Combat Zone, 
       Including Those Killed or Wounded in Certain 2009 Attacks

    This section, for the purposes of all federal laws, 
regulations, and policies, would treat service members and 
Department of Defense civilian employees killed or wounded in 
the attack at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009, and the 
attack at the recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas on 
June 1, 2009, as having been killed or wounded as a result of 
an act of an enemy of the United States in a combat zone or 
while serving with Armed Forces in a contingency operation.
    This section would further amend title 37, United States 
Code, to add a new authority retroactive to November 6, 2009, 
that would provide special compensation to service members and 
DOD civilians attacked by an individual whom the Secretary of 
Defense determines to have knowingly targeted that member or 
civilian on account of that service member's service or that 
civilian's employment or affiliation with the DOD. The amount 
of the compensation would be equal to that of service members 
and civilians killed or wounded in the combat theater or while 
serving with Armed Forces in a contingency operation.
    This section also would assert that nothing in the 
provision would be construed to prohibit, authorize, or require 
the award of the Purple Heart.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


       Section 631--Extension of Authority To Provide Travel and 
Transportation Allowances for Inactive Duty Training outside of Normal 
                          Commuting Distances

    This section would extend until December 31, 2011, the 
authority for the secretary concerned to reimburse an eligible 
member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve for travel 
expenses for travel to an inactive duty training location to 
perform inactive duty training when the member is required to 
commute a distance from the member's permanent residence to the 
inactive duty training location that is outside the normal 
commuting distance.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider 
revising the requirements of the outside the local commuting 
distance'' definition used in paragraph U7160 of the Joint 
Federal Travel Regulation implementing section 408a of title 
37, United States Code, to provide for reimbursement in 
extraordinary circumstances in which travel by means other than 
land vehicle is not practicable.

  Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Attendance of 
        Designated Persons at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Events

    This section would amend chapter 7 of title 37, United 
States Code, by adding a new section to authorize travel and 
transportation for designated persons to travel to qualifying 
Yellow Ribbon events.

 Section 633--Mileage Reimbursement for Use of Privately Owned Vehicles

    This section would amend sections 5704 and 5707 of title 5, 
United States Code, to conform the mileage reimbursement rate 
for privately owned vehicles established by the Administrator 
of General Services to the rate established by the Internal 
Revenue Service. This section would also eliminate the 
requirement that the periodic review of the cost of travel 
conducted by the Administrator of the General Services include 
privately owned vehicles. Review of privately owned airplanes 
and privately owned motorcycles, however, would still be 
required to be included in the Administrator's periodic 
investigations. This section would apply to all federal 
government employees and members of the uniformed services 
traveling on behalf of the federal government in a privately 
owned automobile, by establishing a consistent rate that 
provides adequate compensation for employees who perform 
temporary duty travel.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


 Section 641--Elimination of Cap on Retired Pay Multiplier for Members 
    With Greater Than 30 Years of Service Who Retire for Disability

    This section would authorize service members who serve on 
active duty for more than 30 years and who are retired with a 
disability to retain their eligibility to receive a retired pay 
multiplier based on their years of service that would result in 
a benefit that is greater than the 75 percent cap imposed on 
disability retirements.

   Section 642--Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for 
              Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action

    This section would require that the calculation of retired 
pay for reserve component service members who are retired or 
placed on the temporary disability retired list be based on the 
member's total years of service in lieu of active duty years of 
service when the retirement is based on a disability incurred 
under circumstances for which the member was awarded the Purple 
Heart.

    Section 643--Elimination of the Age Requirement for Health Care 
               Benefits for Non-Regular Service Retirees

    This section would authorize reserve members entitled to 
retired pay who are under the age of 60 to receive health care 
benefits authorized for other service members entitled to 
retired pay.

  Section 644--Clarification of Effect of Ordering Reserve Component 
 Member to Active Duty To Receive Authorized Medical Care on Reducing 
     Eligibility Age for Receipt of Non-Regular Service Retired Pay

    This section would ensure that reserve members ordered to 
active duty to receive medical care for wounds, injuries, or 
illness incurred while serving under circumstances that would 
allow such active service to be the basis for entitlement to 
retired pay before age 60 receive appropriate credit for the 
purposes of calculating the age at which members would be 
entitled to retired pay.

  Section 645--Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Recipients of 
   Pre-Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Affected by Required Offset for 
                 Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

    This section would authorize surviving spouses of retirees 
who died before the implementation of the Survivor Benefit 
Program to receive payments under the Special Survivor 
Indemnity Allowance at the same level of benefit paid to 
surviving spouses of retirees that participated in the Survivor 
Benefit Plan. This section would also require that the spouses 
be eligible to receive payments under the Dependency and 
Indemnity Compensation program operated by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. This section would also authorize retroactive 
payment of benefits beginning on October 1, 2008, and would 
terminate all eligibility for payments on September 30, 2017.

       Section 646--Payment Date for the Retired and Retainer Pay

    This section would require military retired and retainer 
pay to be paid on the first day of each month instead of the 
first business day of the month. The committee intends that the 
mandate to pay on the first day of the month will require that 
payment processes be installed to ensure payment before the 
first day of the month when the first day of the month occurs 
on a weekend or holiday so as to avoid the delay of payments 
after the first of the month that now occurs under the current 
system.

    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations


 Section 651--Shared Construction Costs for Shopping Malls or Similar 
       Facilities Containing a Commissary Store and One or More 
            Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Activities

    This section would clarify that the Secretary of Defense 
may designate the Defense Commissary Agency to manage 
construction programs using funds derived from commissary 
surcharge accounts and to receive funds from nonappropriated 
fund instrumentalities when the Defense Commissary Agency is 
designated to manage joint construction programs that include 
such instrumentalities.

Section 652--Addition of Definition of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 
 Telephone Services for Use in Contracts To Provide Such Services for 
               Military Personnel Serving in Combat Zones

    This section would clarify that the competitive contracting 
requirements for procuring personal telephone services in 
combat zones established in section 885 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
applies to unofficial calling centers provided by a 
nonappropriated fund activity and does not apply to wireless 
cell phone services.

Section 653--Feasibility Study on Establishment of Full Exchange Store 
                    in the Northern Mariana Islands

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a 
full-service exchange store to support the members and 
dependents within the military community residing in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

           Subtitle F--Alternative Career Track Pilot Program


  Section 661--Pilot Program to Evaluate Alternative Career Track for 
Commissioned Officers To Facilitate an Increased Commitment to Academic 
      and Professional Education and Career-Broadening Assignments

    The committee continues to be concerned about the widely 
accepted notion among military leaders, and often acknowledged 
in personnel management studies, that officer careers are not 
adequately designed to provide for the education and career 
broadening assignments that are critical to the development of 
well-rounded modern military leaders. The committee believes 
that the complex international environment confronting the U.S. 
military requires the officer corps to not only be proficient 
in conventional warfare from a specific service perspective, 
but to also develop a broad knowledge of the roles of the other 
services, allied military forces, civilian government agencies, 
intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental agencies, 
as well as a strategic knowledge of politics and economics. 
This extensive, but justifiable mission may not be executable 
within the traditional time periods and career gates that were 
established in a previous era for a different international 
environment. Career paths should provide the time, experience, 
and intellectual development to generate the comprehensive 
knowledge and well-grounded grasp of strategic affairs. This 
holistic vision of officer development requires a diverse and 
flexible career path that does not exist in today's personnel 
system that is marked by mandatory retirement standards and a 
rigid up-or-out policy.
    This section would authorize an active duty pilot program 
to provide a select cadre of volunteers the opportunity to 
participate in a separate career track marked by expanded 
career opportunities extending over a longer career. The 
secretaries of the military departments, under regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, would offer officers 
with between 13 and 18 years of service the opportunity to 
participate in the alternative career track. This section would 
require participating officers to agree to an additional active 
duty service obligation of at least five years and to accept 
further active duty service obligations, as determined by the 
secretary of the military department, as a result of entry into 
education programs, selection for career broadening 
assignments, acceptance of additional special and incentive 
pays, or selection for promotion, each to be served 
concurrently with existing active duty service obligations. 
This section would also authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of 
Defense, to establish separate basic pay and special and 
incentive pay and promotion systems unique to the officers 
participating in the alternative career track without regard to 
the requirements of titles 10 and 37, United States Code, thus 
allowing officers to be compensated at higher rates and 
promoted ahead of their contemporaries to ensure that 
participating officers are provided adequate incentives. This 
section would authorize each secretary of a military department 
to select up to 50 officers annually to participate in the 
alternative career track. The committee envisions that officers 
selected for the alternative career track would reflect 
diversity in job specialties to ensure that support functions, 
as well as operational missions, benefited from the assignment 
of officers selected to serve longer careers. The secretaries 
of the military departments, with the approval of the Secretary 
of Defense, would be authorized to establish separation and 
retirement policies for officers serving in the alternative 
career track without regard to grade and years of service 
requirements established in title 10, United States Code. 
Participants serving in grades below brigadier general, or rear 
admiral (lower half) in the Navy, would serve without regard to 
the limits on the numbers of officers in those grades 
established in title 10, United States Code. Participants 
serving in grades above colonel, or captain in the Navy, and 
below the grade of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the 
Navy, would be counted for the purposes of general and flag 
officer limits on grade and total number of such officers when 
serving in a military position, but would be excluded from 
limits on grade and total number of such officers when serving 
in positions not typically occupied by a military officer. 
Officers serving in grades lieutenant general, or vice admiral 
in the Navy, and general, or admiral in the Navy, would be 
counted for the purposes of general and flag officer limits on 
grade and total number of such officers in title 10, United 
States Code. The secretaries of the military departments would 
retain the authority to involuntarily return officers to the 
standard career path where the officer would retain the grade, 
date-of-rank, and basic pay table earned while a participant in 
the alternative career track, but would revert to the special 
and incentive pay authorities established in title 37, United 
States Code. The committee believes that participants should be 
groomed to meet the requirements to become joint qualified.
    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of 
Defense, to operate the pilot program for not more than 15 
years after the date of enactment of this Act. The secretaries 
of the military departments would be authorized to begin the 
program at any time: (1) before the expiration of a five-year 
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) 
120 days after reporting the detailed program structure of the 
alternative career track, associated personnel policy 
decisions, implementing instructions and regulations, and a 
summary of specific laws that would be waived, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services. The secretary of the military department, with the 
approval of the Secretary of Defense, would be authorized to 
terminate the pilot program at any time. This section would 
require the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
Defense, to report, the reasons for terminating the pilot 
program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services not later than 90 days after 
terminating the pilot program. The secretaries of the military 
departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, 
would be authorized to recommend changes to the pilot program 
at any time by reporting their findings and recommendations to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services and waiting for 120 days to elapse. This 
section would also require the secretaries of the military 
departments, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, 
during the pilot program to annually report his findings and 
recommendations concerning the progress of the pilot program to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


   Section 671--Participation of Members of the Armed Forces Health 
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program in Active Duty 
                Health Profession Loan Repayment Program

    This section would expand the pool of eligible participants 
for the Active Duty Health Professions Loan Repayment Program 
(ADHPLRP) to include members participating in the Health 
Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) when the duration of the 
HPSP scholarship is less than is required to complete the 
normal length of the course of study required for the specific 
health profession. Current law restricts the use of ADHPLRP by 
HPSP participants to those who are fully-qualified or in their 
last year of study or specialty training.

 Section 672--Retention of Enlistment, Reenlistment, and Student Loan 
        Benefits Received by Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would bar the secretary concerned from 
requiring service members employed as dual status military 
technicians to repay enlistment, reenlistment, or affiliation 
bonuses, or to terminate participation in an educational loan 
repayment program that were paid or began during service that 
preceded the military technician employment period.

Section 673--Cancellation of Loans of Members of the Armed Forces Made 
                        From Student Loan Funds

    This section would define, for the purposes of eligibility 
for student loan cancellation for public service under section 
1087ee of title 20, United States Code, that a ``year of 
service'' is equal to deployments of six months or longer in 
hostile fire or imminent danger zones (or less than six months 
in the case the service member was discharged or released from 
active duty due to an injury or disability incurred or 
aggravated by his or her service).

                   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 health care provided to service 
members. After nine years of conflict, the military health 
system has had difficulty meeting current demands, as evidenced 
by the continued shift from the direct care system to the 
purchased care system. The committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense is not adapting its approach to recruit 
and retain military medical providers quickly enough to 
maintain capability during changing circumstances. 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 propose many of the objectionable proposals of years 
past, such as: onerous TRICARE fee increases that place the 
burden of improving the system on beneficiaries; efficiency 
wedges that cut the health care budgets of the services without 
sound underlying analytics; and the conversion of military 
medical positions to civilian medical positions. However, the 
committee is concerned that the budget request did not contain 
sufficient transformative steps to address the growing costs of 
providing health care to Department of Defense beneficiaries. 
The committee notes that little, if any, progress has been made 
towards the development of a comprehensive, multi-faceted 
strategy for moving the military health system forward. The 
committee is encouraged that the Secretary of Defense continues 
to express a willingness to engage in a thoughtful dialogue 
with Congress to develop this comprehensive strategy, but notes 
that this dialogue has not yet begun.
    For the past few years, Congress has encouraged the 
Department of Defense to improve the health status of the 
beneficiary population and improve the cost-effectiveness of 
the care provided to beneficiaries by adopting proven 
practices. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), contained many 
initiatives to improve preventive and wellness care, but 18 
months after it was signed into law, the committee is still 
waiting for most of these provisions to be fully implemented. 
The committee notes that Public Law 110-417 also gave the 
Department of Defense great latitude and authority to conduct 
demonstration projects to test other methods of improving the 
health of beneficiaries while reducing costs, but has not made 
use of that authority.
    The committee is concerned that substandard or unacceptable 
behavior displayed by students and residents during training 
programs for military Medical Corps officers may not be 
completely documented in official military personnel records. 
The committee believes that military Medical Corps officers and 
trainees must meet high standards of both clinical skill and 
military leadership.
    The committee is concerned that when the Department of 
Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs pursue joint or 
combined health care operations, an insufficient amount of 
joint strategic analysis and planning is done. The committee 
therefore encourages the Departments to develop a strategic 
planning framework for future projects. The committee also 
notes that, neither it, nor the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, have been provided with appropriate notification of 
health care facilities that have been considered for joint or 
combined operations.
    The committee notes that in cases of dependents of a member 
or a former member who are ineligible to receive care under 
TRICARE, the Department of Defense currently expects the 
managed care support contractor and civilian source of medical 
care to recoup the costs of the care provided. The committee 
believes that in cases in which a civilian source of medical 
care provided services in good faith and followed proper 
identification procedures to determine eligibility, those 
civilian medical providers should not be financially penalized. 
The current policy may serve as a disincentive for civilian 
sources of medical care to participate in the TRICARE program.
    The committee remains committed to ensuring that wounded 
warriors receive the care, rehabilitation, and support they 
need and deserve. The committee also remains concerned that 
there are still not enough mental health resources to fulfill 
the needs of our service members and their families, and will 
continue to provide vigilant oversight to improve the mental 
health care available to Department of Defense beneficiaries.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                    Comparative Cognitive Test Study

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
comparison study on the effectiveness and reliability of 
various computerized test batteries when used as pre- and post-
deployment assessment tools for neurocognitive functioning. The 
purpose of the study is to obtain evidence-based outcomes of 
various neurocognitive assessment tools to aid in the detection 
of brain injuries when a service member returns from 
deployment. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the comparison test to the congressional 
defense committees by September 30, 2011.

 Comparative Effectiveness of Neuroimaging Modalities on the Detection 
                       of Traumatic Brain Injury

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a 
report that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of 
neuroimaging modalities as imaging biomarkers for the detection 
of mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injuries. The 
neuroimaging modalities to be evaluated should include, but be 
not limited to, the following:
          (1) Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound
          (2) Computed Tomography (CT)
          (3) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
          (4) Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography 
        (SPECT)
          (5) Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 
the report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 
2012.

     Continuation of Health Insurance for Reservists on Active Duty

    Section 704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) authorized the Secretary 
of Defense to pay a stipend to a member of the reserve 
components ordered to active duty for the purpose of 
maintaining civilian health care coverage for a dependent whom 
the Secretary determines to possess a special health care need 
that would be best met by remaining in the member's civilian 
health plan. The committee is aware that there are dependents 
with special health care needs that may be in the middle of 
treatment or about to begin the process of treatment, and that 
continuation in the member's civilian health plan would be 
advantageous to the continuity of care for such a dependent. 
The committee believes that individuals in such unique and 
special circumstances should have the ability to receive a 
well-planned transfer from their civilian plan to TRICARE. 
Currently, active duty dependents who have special health care 
needs and must transfer from one region to another are 
highlighted from one managed care contractor to another to 
ensure a smooth transition. The committee believes such 
transfers should also be afforded to similarly situated reserve 
dependents.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the date 
of enactment of this Act on the extent to which the authority 
under section 704 of Public Law 110-181 has been used. The 
report should also include a description of the process to be 
used to ensure the smooth transition of dependents with special 
health care needs from their civilian health care plan to 
TRICARE.

                Delays in Awarding New TRICARE Contracts

    The committee notes the delays that have characterized the 
current efforts to award the next round of TRICARE support 
contracts, known as T3. This process has incurred multiple 
delays before being awarded, and the current award is in doubt 
after the Government Accountability Office sustained the 
protests in two of the three TRICARE regions due to serious 
shortcomings in the proposal evaluation. The committee is 
concerned that these delays which are the result of inadequate 
processes by the TRICARE Management Activity will hamper 
Department of Defense efforts to improve the health care 
provided to beneficiaries, while gaining control over health 
care costs.
    The committee is concerned, as discussed in a related item 
of special interest in Title VIII of this Act, that the 
acquisition expertise of the TRICARE Management Activity may 
not be sufficient to support the broad range of acquisition 
activities needed to support the military health system. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 
effective acquisition management personnel, structure, 
processes, and oversight are put in place to support the 
provision of health care by the Department of Defense.

         Development of Non-Addictive Topical Pain Therapeutics

    The committee remains concerned about chronic and acute 
pain management and the deleterious effects of improperly 
managed pain on service members and veterans. The committee has 
acted previously by requiring in section 711 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) that the Secretary of Defense develop and implement a 
comprehensive policy on pain management by the military health 
care system. The committee is aware of reports of prescription 
pain medication misuse by members of the armed forces. 
Prescription painkiller misuse can impact the quality of life 
for service members and their families. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense and the pain management infrastructure 
being stood up by the Department of Defense to evaluate the 
potential role of emerging pain therapeutics, to include 
topical analgesic formulations, in order to provide our men and 
women in uniform with effective means of pain management. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
on this evaluation to the congressional defense committees by 
March 31, 2011.

                  Exposure Registry Feasibility Study

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report on the feasibility of establishing an active registry 
for each incidence of exposure of occupational and 
environmental chemical hazards, to include waste disposal, 
during conflicts, to monitor possible health risks and provide 
necessary treatment to those exposed. The report should discuss 
processes in which service members exposed to toxic chemicals 
could be included on the registry and procedures to provide 
medical examinations to service members who are eligible to be 
included on the registry. The report should also seek to 
leverage existing medical surveillance systems. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the report to the 
congressional defense committees by March 31, 2011.

 Feasibility of TRICARE Prime in Certain Commonwealths and Territories 
                          of the United States

    The committee is aware that TRICARE Prime is not currently 
available as an option for Department of Defense beneficiaries 
in certain commonwealths and territories of the United States. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
study examining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of 
offering TRICARE Prime in the Territory of Guam, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 
the Territory of American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marianas Islands and to submit a report on the study 
to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the 
date of enactment of this Act.

                  Former Military Medics and Corpsmen

    The committee notes the large number of military medics and 
corpsmen, many with combat experience, that leave the military 
and rejoin civilian communities every year. The committee 
encourages federal, national, and state emergency medical 
technician certification authorities to take into account the 
medical coursework and training received by former military 
medics and corpsmen when developing certification tests and 
standards.

                  Genitourinary Trauma in the Military

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the current state of medical training and research for 
genitourinary trauma within the Department of Defense to 
determine if there are any deficits with regard to the care 
that can be provided in combat zones. The committee further 
directs the Secretary to submit a report on this review to the 
congressional defense committees not later than one year after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

 Health Information Technology Interoperability Between the Department 
           of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs

    Section 1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the 
establishment of an interagency program office to implement, by 
September 20, 2009, electronic health record systems or 
capabilities that allow for full interoperability of personal 
health care information between the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee notes that 
the interagency program office has been unsuccessful in 
developing or adopting effective standards to enable full 
interoperability of electronic health records, despite 
significant funding increases and leadership from the 
Administration. The committee notes that the requirements of 
section 1635 will not be fulfilled until electronic health 
record systems or capabilities that allow for full 
interoperability of personal health care information between 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for all service members are in operation.

                Medical Technology and Spectrum Sharing

    The committee is aware of new technologies that assist 
wounded warriors, such as those who have paralyzed or impaired 
limbs, or other traumatic injuries, to reanimate their injured 
limbs and muscle tissue. Such technologies utilize micro-
stimulators that are controlled by low-powered radio 
frequencies. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to take into account the medical benefits of these new 
technologies for active duty service members as part of 
spectrum sharing decisions. The committee also directs the 
Secretary to submit a report on any spectrum sharing issues for 
parts of the spectrum under the control of the Department of 
Defense related to micro-stimulators to the congressional 
defense committees within one year of the date of enactment of 
this Act.

          Medical Training for Chemical-Biological Casualties

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate 
all medical training programs for chemical and biological 
casualties. The committee directs the Secretary to use a 
comprehensive set of metrics in evaluating the efficacy of 
current training models. The committee also directs the 
Secretary to submit a report on these evaluations to the 
congressional defense committees within one year of the date of 
enactment of this Act.

           Outreach Tools Using an Interactive Virtual Agent

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
considered using interactive virtual agents on either websites 
or stand-alone computers to help reduce barriers to individuals 
seeking mental health care. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on all health care related projects or programs that 
use an interactive virtual agent not later than 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

Pre-Deployment Counseling for Unmarried Service Members With Dependent 
                                Children

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
feasibility of establishing a pre-deployment counseling and 
services advisory panel. The study should include the 
practicality of appointing, from among individuals in the 
private sector qualified for such purpose, a panel of 
individuals to: review the pre-deployment counseling and 
services provided by the military departments to unmarried 
members of the Armed Forces with dependent children; identify 
best practices among such counseling and services; and 
recommend such improvements in such counseling and services 
(including improvements in such best practices) as the panel 
considers appropriate. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on the findings to the congressional 
defense committees by March 31, 2011.

  Study on the Treatment of Service Members of the Active and Reserve 
              Component for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report evaluating the 
barriers to treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for 
service members of both the active and reserve components 
within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. The 
report may use timely information developed in the preparation 
of other reports currently being prepared for or previously 
submitted to Congress. The report should, at a minimum, address 
the following:
                  (1) An overview of current programs in place 
                to identify and provide treatment for Post-
                Traumatic Stress Disorder to service members.
                  (2) An overview of outreach programs 
                currently in place to educate service members 
                of the signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 
                available treatment programs, options for 
                treatment, and support groups.
                  (3) An overview of programs currently in 
                place to reach out to families, including 
                children, of both the active and reserve 
                components to educate them of the signs of 
                Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and to provide 
                support to families coping with Post-Traumatic 
                Stress Disorder.
                  (4) An assessment of barriers to service 
                members receiving treatment for Post Traumatic 
                Stress Disorder, including an assessment of the 
                effects stigma, privacy, and career advancement 
                concerns play in service members not receiving 
                treatment.
                  (5) An assessment and identification of other 
                factors that may deter service members from 
                seeking treatment for Post Traumatic Stress 
                Disorder.
                  (6) An assessment of the effectiveness of 
                current programs and policies.
                  (7) Recommendations for improvements to 
                outreach and educational policies and programs.
                  (8) Recommendations for improvements to 
                family outreach and treatment programs.
                  (9) Recommendations for improvements to 
                existing programs or for new programs needed to 
                expand and improve identification and treatment 
                of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

                Suicide and the Individual Ready Reserve

    The committee notes the challenges members of the 
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) face in obtaining support 
services when not mobilized. The committee also notes that 
suicide rates are rising across the services and reserve 
components. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to consider the feasibility and potential benefit of a program 
that would ensure that members of the IRR who have served at 
least one tour in either the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, and who are not assigned to units that 
drill regularly, receive at minimum, quarterly counseling calls 
from properly trained personnel to determine the IRR member's 
emotional, psychological, and medical needs so long as the 
covered service member is in the IRR.

             TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense began 
implementation of the TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment 
System (OPPS) in May 2009, to bring its reimbursement rates for 
hospital outpatient services into alignment with Medicare 
rates, as required by section 1079 of title 10, United States 
Code. The committee notes that although the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services began using a similar 
prospective payment system for outpatient care under Medicare 
in August 2000, the Department of Defense delayed implementing 
the system until the Medicare transition to OPPS was complete. 
The committee notes that the new TRICARE OPPS will change 
reimbursement rates for hospital outpatient services. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to closely 
monitor implementation of TRICARE OPPS to ensure that it does 
not unintentionally decrease access to health care for military 
beneficiaries.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits


 Section 701--Extension of Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health 
                               Care Costs

    This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
increasing the premium and copayment for TRICARE Prime, the 
charge for inpatient care for TRICARE Standard, and the premium 
for TRICARE Standard for members of the Selected Reserve until 
September 30, 2011.

       Section 702--Extension of Dependent Coverage Under TRICARE

    This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow TRICARE beneficiaries to extend health 
care coverage to dependent children up to age 26 so that 
TRICARE beneficiaries would have the same ability to extend 
coverage to dependent children afforded to others as a result 
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
111-148).

                 Section 703--Survivor Dental Benefits

    This section would make dependent survivors eligible to 
enroll in the TRICARE dental program even if they were not 
enrolled prior to the death of their sponsor.

     Section 704--Aural Screenings for Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require members of the armed forces to 
receive pre- and post-deployment aural screenings.

  Section 705--Temporary Prohibition on Increase in Copayments Under 
          Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy Benefits Program

    This section would limit the cost-sharing requirements for 
drugs provided through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program to 
amounts not more than $3 for generic drugs, $9 for formulary 
drugs, and $22 for non-formulary drugs. The cost-sharing 
schedules established by this section would end September 30, 
2011.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration


                 Section 711--Administration of TRICARE

    This section would add a subparagraph to section 1073 title 
10, United States Code, that states that except as otherwise 
provided in chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Defense has sole responsibility for administering 
the TRICARE program.

  Section 712--Updated Terminology for the Army Medical Service Corps

    This section would update section 3068 of title 10, United 
States Code, to ensure the statutory description of the Army 
Medical Service Corps accurately reflects the current structure 
and organization of the corps.

  Section 713--Clarification of Licensure Requirements Applicable to 
  Military Health-Care Professionals Who Are Members of the National 
             Guard Performing Duty While in Title 32 Status

    This section would clarify that national guard medical 
personnel serving in a title 32, United States Code, status 
while responding to actual or potential disasters are 
authorized to practice their profession in any location 
authorized by the Secretary of Defense regardless of local 
licensing restrictions. With the expansion of authority under 
section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, the national 
guard, for example, may be authorized by the Governor, with 
concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to evacuate hospitals 
and nursing homes in advance of a major hurricane, but current 
law may not protect the national guard medical care providers 
from licensing issues.

   Section 714--Annual Report on Joint Health Care Facilities of the 
      Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit to the 
appropriate congressional committees, concurrent with the 
annual submission of the President's budget, a report on which 
Department of Defense or Department of Veterans Affairs health 
care facilities are being considered for joint, combined, or 
any other type of operation where one of the departments will 
be operating in or with the other department's health care 
facility.

Section 715--Improvements to Oversight of Medical Training for Medical 
                             Corps Officers

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
perform a review of training programs for military Medical 
Corps officers to ensure that their academic and military 
performance has been properly documented in their military 
personnel records. This section would also require the 
Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report on these reviews within one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

 Section 716--Study on Reimbursement for Costs of Health Care Provided 
                       to Ineligible Individuals

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study on the cost incurred by the government on 
behalf of individuals ineligible to receive care under the 
TRICARE program. This section would also require the Secretary 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on 
the study within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, as well as any recommendations for legislative action 
required to address any findings of the study.

Section 717--Limitation on Transfer of Funds to Department of Defense--
 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Project

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to Congress a report providing notice of any proposed 
transfer of funds to the Joint Department of Defense-Department 
of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created 
by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

     Section 718--Enterprise Risk Assessment of Health Information 
                          Technology Programs

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an Enterprise Risk Assessment Methodology study of all 
Department of Defense health information technology programs.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Section 721--Improving Aural Protection for Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
examine methods to improve aural protection for members of the 
armed forces.

 Section 722--Comprehensive Policy on Neurocognitive Assessment by the 
                         Military Health System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and implement a comprehensive policy on neurocognitive 
assessment for deployed members of the armed forces.

          Section 723--National Casualty Care Research Center

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a National Casualty Care Research Center.

  Section 724--Report on Feasibility of Study on Breast Cancer Among 
                   Female Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
feasibility of conducting a case-control study on the incidence 
of breast cancer among female service members who served in 
either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 Section 725--Assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by Military 
                               Occupation

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder 
incidence by military occupation.

       Section 726--Visiting NIH Neuroscience Fellowship Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a program to be known as the Visiting National 
Institutes of Health Senior Neuroscience Fellowship Program at 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Defense 
Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 
Brain Injury.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

                                OVERVIEW

    On March 17, 2009, the committee appointed a Panel on 
Defense Acquisition Reform from among members of the committee 
to carry out a comprehensive review of the defense acquisition 
system. The review was motivated by the committee's general 
sense that the Department of Defense's (DOD's) acquisition 
system was not responsive enough to today's mission needs, not 
rigorous enough in protecting taxpayers, and not disciplined 
enough in the acquisition of weapons systems for tomorrow's 
wars. The panel's review largely substantiated the committee's 
concerns. The committee notes that the House of Representatives 
has already passed legislation, unanimously supported by the 
committee, to implement reforms recommended by the panel, the 
Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to 
Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE 
Acquisition Act of 2010).
    The committee notes that while the IMPROVE Acquisition Act 
of 2010 is intended to address the full scope of the defense 
acquisition system, there remain numerous acquisition policy-
related matters outside the scope of the IMPROVE Acquisition 
Act of 2010 that are within the committee's jurisdiction and 
are addressed in this title. The committee included a provision 
which would expand the Department's authority for rapid 
acquisition in concert with the committee's decision to provide 
significant additional funding for rapid acquisition in title 
XV of this Act. The committee builds upon legislation included 
in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) authorizing the 
Department to designate major subprograms under major defense 
acquisition programs by including provisions in the title that 
would clarify the application of multiple acquisition-related 
laws to major subprograms, and would require the Secretary of 
Defense to designate the F135 and F136 engine programs of the 
F-35 Lightning II aircraft program as major subprograms.
    The committee included several provisions relating to 
strategic materials in this title to ensure that the Department 
of Defense retains access to these materials and is able to 
mitigate vulnerabilities created when items of military 
equipment are dependent on them. The committee continues and 
extends its work providing oversight on contracting in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 
this title, and addresses a variety of other matters relating 
to the industrial base, energy-related acquisition matters, and 
other matters of acquisition policy. The committee emphasizes 
its intention to continue robust oversight of defense 
acquisition.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


          Acquisition Oversight for TRICARE Management Agency

    As discussed in a related item of special interest in title 
VII of this Act, the committee is concerned about the 
acquisition expertise of the TRICARE Management Agency (TMA). 
The committee is aware of significant shortcomings in the 
recent past in the training and certification status of those 
undertaking acquisition functions at TMA. These shortcomings 
are concerning because TMA is responsible for acquisitions 
budgeted at levels equivalent to those of a major defense 
acquisition program. The committee also notes that protests on 
two out of three regional TRICARE contract awards were upheld 
in 2009 by the Government Accountability Office due to 
significant shortcomings in proposal evaluation.
    The committee is aware that TMA has reorganized its 
acquisition activities and has appointed a new chief 
acquisition officer in recent months. The committee strongly 
supports the decision to enhance the extent and quality of 
acquisition expertise at TMA. The committee also notes that the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (USD AT&L) acts as the service acquisition executive 
for TMA and ultimately provides oversight of acquisition 
activities at TMA. The committee urges USD AT&L to continue to 
provide a heightened level of oversight to TMA while the 
acquisition function in TMA is being enhanced and TRICARE 
regional contracts are finalized.

             Acquisition Process for Information Technology

    The committee recognizes the need for reform of the 
acquisition process within the Department of Defense. The 
committee has taken several steps to achieve comprehensive 
acquisition reform, including passage of the Weapon Systems 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and section 
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84), which called for an alternative 
acquisition process for information technology (IT) systems, 
and the establishment of the Panel on Defense Acquisition 
Reform which carried out a comprehensive review of the defense 
acquisition system.
    The committee endorses the findings of the Panel on Defense 
Acquisition Reform, and encourages the Department of Defense to 
integrate its findings regarding the acquisition of IT systems 
as it implements section 804 of Public Law 111-84. The full 
findings of the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform can be 
found in H.R. 5013, but include:
          (1) Determine clear performance metrics for specific 
        programs from the start;
          (2) Foster an ongoing dialogue during the technology 
        development process between the system developers and 
        the warfighters;
          (3) Promote an open architecture approach that allows 
        for more modularization of hardware and software;
          (4) Develop a plan for how to strengthen the IT 
        acquisition workforce;
          (5) Implement alternative milestone decision points 
        that are more consistent with commercial product 
        development for IT;
          (6) Develop a process for competitive prototyping in 
        the IT environment;
          (7) Develop a new test and evaluation approach that 
        merges developmental and operational testing in a 
        parallel fashion;
          (8) Place greater emphasis on the up-front market 
        analysis; and
          (9) Conduct a rigorous analysis of contracting 
        mechanisms and contract incentive structures to 
        determine which work best for IT acquisitions.

                      Advanced Technology Clusters

    The committee is aware of recent Department of Defense 
(DOD) and Small Business Administration efforts through the DOD 
Office of Small Business Programs and its laboratory network to 
initiate regional Advanced Technology Clusters (ATCs) to 
encourage the development of innovative advanced technologies, 
including robotics and autonomous systems, to address national 
security, homeland security, and first responder challenges. 
The committee is encouraged that the Department has made 
progress in marshalling existing statutory authorities in 
support of ATC and defining a method to collaborate with and 
leverage resources from the Small Business Administration. 
However, the committee is concerned that greater effort and 
commitment must be made in order to secure the support needed 
for these fledgling ATCs to succeed. To date, ATCs in Hawaii, 
Michigan, Hampton Roads, Virginia, and the Pacific Northwest 
have been established, each offering expertise in advanced 
technology and coordinating application of the current 
authorities contained in the following: (1) Technology 
Transition--Defense Production Act, Technology Transition, and 
Manufacturing Technology; (2) Industrial Policy--Defense 
Industrial Base Capabilities, Civil-Military Integration, and 
Independent Research and Development/Bid and Proposal; (3) 
Technology Transfer, Homeland Security Tech Transfer, Anti-
Terrorist Capabilities; and (4) Small Business--Mentor Protege 
Program and SBIR/STTR.
    The committee urges the Department of Defense to enhance 
regional ATCs, resource the clusters, collaborate and share 
resources with other federal agencies, and assist the expansion 
of regional clusters in encouraging the development of 
innovative advanced technologies, including robotics and 
autonomous systems, to address national security, homeland 
security, and first responder challenges.

       Application of Berry Amendment to Tents and Related Items

    The committee is aware that the Director, Defense Logistics 
Agency has chosen to interpret the requirement to buy certain 
articles from domestic sources per subsection (b) of section 
2533a of title 10, United States Code, in such a manner that it 
applies expressly to tents, tarpaulins, or covers, but not to 
the materials and components of tents, tarpaulins, or covers. 
The committee is concerned that this narrow interpretation of 
the statute is inconsistent with the law. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Director, Defense Logistics Agency to 
review the interpretation of the current statute to ensure that 
it is compliant with both the law and with congressional intent 
and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than October 1, 2011, explaining how the committees' 
concerns were addressed.

       Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan

    The committee notes that section 841 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) created the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The deadline for submission of the final report of 
the commission was extended for one year by section 822 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) to reflect additional time needed to accommodate 
the delays that occurred in establishing the commission in the 
final year of the previous Administration. The committee notes 
that section 841 mandated that the commission's final report 
provide its findings and recommendations on a number of 
critical policy issues relating to contingency contracting. The 
committee urges the commission to use the additional year to 
focus on these policy issues so that the committee can benefit 
from the timely submission of the commission's findings and 
recommendations in its final report while significant 
reconstruction expenditures remain in execution and under 
consideration by Congress.

  Competition Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Federal Prison 
                               Industries

    The committee notes that section 827 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to acquire 
products using competitive procedures if such a product was 
listed in the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) catalog, and if 
FPI has more than a five percent share of the DOD market for 
the category that includes the product. The committee notes 
that Congress intended this policy to limit the extent to which 
FPI's unique status under federal procurement law affects the 
Department's access to the commercial marketplace for entire 
categories of products while maintaining FPI's ability to serve 
as a supplier to the Department. The committee further notes 
that the Secretary of Defense is required to identify and 
publish a list of the product categories for which this 
competition requirement applies and to modify the list as new 
data is received.
    The committee notes that the implementation of this section 
relies critically on how product categories are defined. Overly 
broad categories can effectively nullify the requirements of 
the section while overly narrow categories increase the 
administrative burden of these requirements. The committee 
believes that in order for the application of section 827 to be 
consistent with congressional intent, product categories should 
be defined so that the products within a category are part of a 
marketplace with similar market participants. Categories that 
aggregate large numbers of dissimilar market participants can 
lead to the Department being denied access to an entire 
commercial market. The committee notes that in the past, combat 
helmets have sometimes been treated as items which required 
mandatory sourcing from Federal Prison Industries. The 
committee further notes that combat helmets fall within the 
broad and diverse category of personal armor, which may have 
contributed to a mandatory sourcing designation. Likewise, the 
committee is concerned that the lists may be published 
irregularly, which limits the planning horizon for market 
participants, and that non-competitive awards may be made to 
FPI prior to the effective date of newly published lists (after 
which a procurement preference for FPI may not apply).
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to: review 
the list of product categories used in complying with section 
827 to ensure that these categories contain similar market 
participants and are consistent with the need to protect the 
Department's access to the commercial market; to establish 
consistent dates for the publication of an updated list; and to 
notify industry of such dates. Lastly, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of 
contract awards made to FPI (including awards of contract 
options on existing contracts) since the enactment of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181) to ensure that non-competitive awards are not 
being made to FPI following the publication of a new list of 
product categories, but prior to the effective date of such a 
list. The Secretary should submit a report on such a review to 
the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days 
after enactment of this Act.

    Denial of Award Fees to Contractors for Jeopardizing Government 
                               Personnel

    The committee notes that section 823 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) authorized the Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny award 
fees to contractors who jeopardize the health or safety of 
government personnel. The committee notes that section 823 
provides the Secretary with considerable discretion in the 
application of this authority due to the diverse nature of the 
incidents for which this authority may be applicable. The 
committee believes that this authority provides an important 
tool for the Secretary to correct instances where negligent 
contractor behavior becomes apparent only after significant 
levels of contractor profit have already been awarded. However, 
the proper application of the authority is necessary for it to 
serve its intended purpose.
    Accordingly, 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 September 1, 2011, 
on incidents which satisfy the criteria identified in section 
823(b). The report should list covered incidents occurring in 
the calendar year preceding the submission of the report, 
whether or not the Secretary exercised the authority provided 
by section 823 in relation to the incident, and whether the 
Secretary proposed the contractor for debarment in relation to 
the incident.

               Employment Impact of Military Construction

    The committee notes that Department of Defense contracts, 
while properly focused first and foremost on fulfilling 
national security objectives, are also a significant source of 
employment. In particular, contracts for military construction 
produce significant local employment benefits. The committee 
notes that maximizing the local employment benefits of military 
construction contracts, consistent with achieving national 
security objectives and the effective use of defense resources, 
is an important national interest.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study 
ways of maximizing the local employment benefits of military 
construction contracts including: incentives for hiring locally 
licensed labor; the increased use of small businesses for 
subcontractors and local procurements; a review of existing 
small business subcontracting goals and the effects of an 
expansion of such goals; and any other measures the Secretary 
deems appropriate. The study should also include an evaluation 
of potential costs to the Department that each option 
considered would incur. The committee further directs the 
Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees containing the findings of the study by March 1, 
2011.

  Matters Relating to the Common Database for Tracking Contracts and 
              Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to 
enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding matters 
relating to contracts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. Section 813 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
later clarified that the requirements of section 861 of Public 
Law 110-181 also apply to grants and cooperative agreements. In 
response, the agencies promulgated new business rules requiring 
all personnel working under U.S. contracts, grants, and 
cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan to register in 
the Department of Defense's Synchronized Pre-deployment 
Operational Tracker (SPOT) database.
    The committee has become aware that many nongovernmental 
organizations (NGO) have expressed concern about these new 
requirements. The NGOs believe that providing the U.S. 
Government detailed personal information for their Iraqi and 
Afghan employees puts the neutrality of their organizations at 
risk and endangers the safety and security of these local 
national employees. In testimony before the committee on March 
23, 2010, on these concerns, representatives from the 
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID 
assured the committee that they would address the concerns of 
the NGOs in a way that would still meet the needs of the 
agencies. The committee encourages the agencies to find and 
implement a solution quickly and stresses the importance of the 
work performed by these NGOs. The committee also emphasizes 
that the statute only requires an accounting of total numbers 
of personnel, unless those personnel are performing private 
security functions. The committee encourages the agencies not 
to collect detailed personal information on local national 
personnel working under a U.S. contract, grant, or cooperative 
agreement unless such personnel are performing a private 
security function; require access to U.S. facilities, services, 
or support; or desire consideration for refugee or special 
immigrant status under the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 
(subtitle C of title XII of Public Law 110-181).
    The committee continues to be concerned about the slow 
progress made by the Department of Defense, the Department of 
State, and USAID in fully implementing the requirements of 
section 861 of Public Law 110-181. The committee has tracked 
the implementation of the memorandum of understanding and the 
SPOT database with interest and is disappointed by the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) most recent 
assessment, which found that the agencies continue to face 
significant challenges tracking contractor personnel and 
contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense and its partner agencies to fully 
implement the SPOT database and take appropriate steps to 
ensure it is accurate and complete. The committee recommends 
that such steps include penalties on contractors who do not 
comply with their SPOT database requirements. In testimony 
before the committee on March 23, 2010, representatives from 
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID 
indicated that part of the reason the SPOT database was 
incomplete and inaccurate was that many of their contractors 
were remiss in entering the information needed. The committee 
encourages the agencies to include, in any new or modified 
contracts, penalties for contractors who fail to enter and 
update their required SPOT database information and that 
contracting officers exercise those penalties as appropriate.
    The committee emphasizes that an accurate and complete 
database on contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only 
required by section 861 of Public Law 110-181, but is in the 
best interest of the agencies, Congress, and the public. A 
fully accurate and complete SPOT database would allow the 
agencies to better manage and coordinate their contracts, would 
enable more effective oversight by Congress, and would 
facilitate greater transparency in government spending to the 
public. Furthermore, both GAO and the Special Inspector General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction have stressed to the committee 
that if the SPOT database were accurate and complete, it would 
be a valuable tool to assist them in audits and investigations.

                    Titanium Supply for Defense Uses

    The committee notes that titanium is an increasingly 
important element in the supply chain of the Department of 
Defense as well as in the supply chains of an increasing 
variety of commercial firms. The market for titanium and 
titanium parts has changed significantly in recent years, 
though it remains a market heavily influenced by foreign 
suppliers. The committee further notes that section 2533b of 
title 10, United States Code, requires the Department of 
Defense, with a few limited exceptions, to procure titanium 
produced in the United States.
    The rapidly evolving nature of the market for titanium, 
coupled with recent changes in section 2533b, has created 
significant uncertainty about the status of the domestic 
titanium manufacturing and production base and about the 
Department's requirements for titanium. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the state of the 
domestic titanium manufacturing base to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2011. The report should:
          (1) Identify projected levels of supply, over the 
        next five years, for titanium and titanium parts 
        produced in the United States (as such term is defined 
        in section 2533b of title 10, United States Code, as 
        amendment by section 813 this Act) for Department of 
        Defense end items, or components thereof, including a 
        discussion of the different metal grades, for each of 
        the following categories: aircraft; missile and space 
        systems; ships; tank and automotive items; weapon 
        systems; and ammunition;
          (2) Provide a projection of the Department's demand 
        for titanium and titanium parts over the same time 
        period and categories, including the projected value of 
        such items;
          (3) Identify any grade or category of titanium or 
        titanium parts for which the Department's demand is 
        likely to exceed the domestic supply available to the 
        Department;
          (4) Estimate the percentage and value of titanium and 
        titanium parts that are not produced in the United 
        States due to exceptions to domestic sourcing 
        requirements applicable to specialty metals in end 
        items or components sourced from qualifying countries 
        and specialty metals contained in commercial off the 
        shelf components;
          (5) Identify representative examples of end items or 
        components (such as engine and airframe components) 
        previously manufactured in the United States that are 
        no longer obtained from the United States industrial 
        base.
          (6) Evaluate the overall impact of section 2533b on 
        the domestic titanium manufacturing and production 
        base;
          (7) Evaluate the impact of exceptions to domestic 
        sourcing in section 2533b on the domestic titanium 
        manufacturing and production base; and
          (8) Make such recommendations relating to measures to 
        improve the health of the domestic titanium 
        manufacturing and industrial base as the Secretary 
        deems appropriate.

                   Undefinitized Contractual Actions

    The committee notes that section 809 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) requires the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance to 
ensure the implementation and enforcement of requirements 
applicable to undefinitized contractual actions (UCA). UCAs 
expose the Department to substantial risk in terms of cost and 
of contract performance, and section 809 was intended to 
address the length and proliferation of UCAs. The committee 
notes that the Department issued its guidance in August 2008 
and substantially updated it in October 2009. This guidance 
instituted a semi-annual reporting requirement that allows the 
Department to track UCAs and ensure their compliance with the 
relevant requirements. The committee believes that the updated 
guidance, together with additional modifications adopted in 
accord with recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
recommendations, has worked substantially to address the 
concerns that led to the enactment of section 809. At the same 
time, the committee was troubled that GAO found several 
instances where UCAs that qualified for inclusion were not in 
the latest semi-annual report. The committee urges the 
Department to ensure that local commands are informed of, and 
properly motivated to comply with, the Department's guidance on 
UCAs.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management


       Section 801--Disclosure to Litigation Support Contractors

    This section would amend section 2320 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to disclose 
technical data to a litigation support contractor for the 
purpose of assisting the Department of Defense in preparing for 
litigation. This section would require that the litigation 
support contractor: use the technical data only for the purpose 
of fulfilling its contract with the Department; take all 
reasonable steps to protect the technical data; and not use the 
technical data to compete with the owner of the technical data 
on any government or non-government contract. This section 
would take effect 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

   Section 802--Designation of F135 and F136 Engine Development and 
               Procurement Programs as Major Subprograms

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, to designate the 
F135 and F136 engine development and procurement programs as 
major subprograms in accordance with section 2430a of title 10, 
United States Code, and would require the Secretary to use the 
milestone B decision for the F135 and F136 engine development 
and procurement programs as the baseline for the reporting 
requirements referred to in section 2430a(b) of title 10, 
United States Code.
    This section would specify the application of section 2433a 
of title 10, United States Code, (commonly referred to as Nunn-
McCurdy) to the engine subprograms designated under this 
section. If an engine subprogram designated under this section 
were to breach one of the Nunn-McCurdy thresholds for critical 
cost growth, the Secretary of Defense may satisfy the Nunn-
McCurdy requirements for reevaluating the engine subprogram if 
the Secretary fully reevaluated the engine subprogram 
(including associated reporting in a Selected Acquisition 
Report) as part of the fiscal year 2010 review caused by a 
Nunn-McCurdy breach of the F-35 program. If the Secretary does 
not take such actions for an engine subprogram as part of the 
Nunn-McCurdy review of the F-35 program in fiscal year 2010, or 
if future program changes result in unit cost growth that 
exceeds a Nunn-McCurdy critical cost growth threshold, an 
engine subprogram would still be subject to the requirements of 
section 2433a of title 10, United States Code.

   Section 803--Conforming Amendments Relating to Inclusion of Major 
    Subprograms to Major Defense Acquisition Programs Under Various 
                    Acquisition-Related Requirements

    This section would amend several sections of title 10, 
United States Code, to clarify the application of various 
acquisition-related requirements to major subprograms of major 
defense acquisition programs. Major subprograms are designated 
pursuant to section 2340a of title 10, United States Code. This 
section would cover major subprograms under the certification 
requirements for milestone A of section 2366a and the 
certification requirements for milestone B of 2366b of title 
10, United States Code. This section would also cover major 
subprograms under the operational test and evaluation 
requirements of section 2399 and the independent life-cycle 
cost estimate and manpower estimate requirements of section 
2434 of title 10, United States Code.

Section 804--Enhancement of Department of Defense Authority To Respond 
    to Combat and Safety Emergencies Through Rapid Acquisition and 
                 Deployment of Urgently Needed Supplies

    This section would amend section 806 of the Bob Stump 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314), as amended by section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 
Law 108-375), to expand the Department of Defense's ability to 
use the rapid acquisition authority provided under section 806 
of Public Law 107-314 to respond to combat and safety 
emergencies. This section would extend the authority by 
allowing the authority to be used to:
          (1) Acquire supplies in addition to items of 
        equipment;
          (2) Prevent casualties in addition to addressing 
        causes of fatalities; and
          (3) Purchase up to $200.0 million in supplies, 
        annually, an increase of $100.0 million.

    Section 805--Prohibition on Contracts with Entities Engaging in 
            Commercial Activity in the Energy Sector of Iran

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
entering into any contract with an entity that engages in 
commercial activity in the energy sector of the Islamic 
Republic of Iran.

Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 
                            and Limitations


    Section 811--Extension of Authority To Procure Certain Fibers; 
                      Limitation on Specification

    This section would amend section 829 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 
procure fire-resistant rayon fiber for the production of 
uniforms. This section would also amend section 829 to prohibit 
the issuance of any solicitation which specifies the use of 
fire-resistant rayon fiber.

       Section 812--Small Arms Production Industrial Base Matters

    This section would strike subsection (c) of section 2473 of 
title 10, United States Code, which narrowly defines the small 
arms production industrial base as consisting of only three 
manufacturers. This section would also require full and open 
competition for any small arms parts procurement program.
    The committee is concerned about the potential atrophy of 
the existing qualified military specification producers 
currently comprising the small arms production industrial base 
as well as respective vendors' industrial capacity, and 
believes this could create an undue risk to warfighters in the 
event a production surge would be needed to meet requirements. 
The committee recognizes the need to preserve the critical 
elements of the small arms production industrial base and notes 
the benefits full and open competition could provide, 
particularly in the areas of small arms technological 
innovation and more competitive pricing in small arms and 
critical small arms parts manufacturing. The committee expects 
the Secretary of Defense to maintain stewardship of the 
established small arms production industrial base, which has 
demonstrated high quality and performance.

Section 813--Additional Definition Relating to Production of Specialty 
                    Metals Within the United States

    This section would amend section 2533b of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the definition of the term ``produced'' 
used in that section. This section would define ``produced'' to 
mean ``melted, or processed in a manner that results in 
physical or chemical property changes that are the equivalent 
of melting.'' The term would not include finishing processes 
such as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, tempering, 
grinding, or shaving.

                    Subtitle C--Studies and Reports


Section 821--Studies To Analyze Alternative Models for Acquisition and 
     Funding of Technologies Supporting Network-Centric Operations

    This section would require an independent federally funded 
research and development center and the Joint Staff to carry 
out concurrent studies that analyze alternative models for 
acquisition and funding of interconnected systems for network 
centric operations and recommend changes from the present 
service-based approach.

  Section 822--Annual Joint Report and Comptroller General Review on 
                  Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan

    This section would amend the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) by adding a new 
section 865 that would require the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID) to annually submit 
to the relevant committees of Congress (as those committees are 
defined in section 864 of Public Law 110-181) a joint report on 
United States contracts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. The report would include information 
on any significant developments or issues with respect to 
contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan during the 12-month reporting 
period. The report would also include a description of the 
agencies' plans for strengthening interagency coordination of 
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan and in future contingency 
operations.
    This section would also require the Comptroller General to 
review the joint report and interagency coordination of 
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan and submit to the relevant 
committees of Congress a report on such review. The Comptroller 
General would be required to review how the agencies are using 
the data contained in the common databases established pursuant 
to section 861(b)(4) of Public Law 110-181 and assess the 
agencies' plans for strengthening interagency coordination of 
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and future contingency 
operations. This section would require the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of USAID 
to provide the Comptroller General with full access to 
information on contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan for the 
purposes of this review and report.

  Section 823--Extension of Comptroller General Review and Report on 
                  Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan

    This section would amend section 863 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to extend, for fiscal year 2011, the requirement for the 
Comptroller General to conduct a review and report on 
contracting in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan.

Section 824--Interim Report on Review of Impact of Covered Subsidies on 
                     Acquisition of KC-45 Aircraft

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees an interim 
report on any review of a covered subsidy under section 886 of 
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) within 60 days after the 
initiation of the review.

Section 825--Reports on Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 
                                 System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and a 
federally funded research and development center selected by 
the Secretary to analyze the Joint Capabilities Integration and 
Development System (JCIDS) to identify improvements in the 
JCIDS process. This section would require the Secretary to 
submit reports on both analyses within six months after the 
date of enactment of this Act, and would also require the 
Secretary to begin implementing a plan to address problems in 
JCIDS within one year after the date of enactment. This section 
would require that problems identified in the analyses also be 
addressed as part of a program to manage performance in 
establishing joint military requirements and would allow the 
consolidation of the plan into any report relating to a program 
to manage performance in establishing joint military 
requirements. The committee notes that legislation which has 
passed the House of Representatives, the Implementing 
Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value 
in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (Improve Acquisition Act of 
2010), includes a provision, section 103, that requires the 
establishment of a program to manage performance in 
establishing joint military requirements.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


 Section 831--Extension of Authority for Defense Acquisition Challenge 
                                Program

    This section would extend the expiration date of the 
Defense Acquisition Challenge Program from 2012 to 2017.

           Section 832--Energy Savings Performance Contracts

    This section would clarify the application of the enhanced 
competition requirements for task and delivery order contracts 
included in section 843 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to energy savings 
performance contracts. Energy savings performance contracts are 
developed using a detailed energy audit and through the 
negotiation of guaranteed energy savings between the 
contracting agency and the contractor. The committee recognizes 
that this process entails significant upfront costs, which are 
intended to be recouped out of the contract after it is 
awarded. This section would clarify the requirements for the 
notification of potential bidders and for the review of 
expressions of interest from bidders prior to entering into an 
energy savings performance contract and would deem such 
requirements to satisfy the requirements of section 843, which 
is codified at section 2304c(d) of title 10, United States 
Code, and section 253j(d) of title 41, United States Code.

 Section 833--Consideration of Sustainable Practices in Procurement of 
                         Products and Services

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and issue guidance directing the secretary of each 
military department and the head of each defense agency to 
consider sustainable practices in the procurement of products 
and services. This section would not apply to the acquisition 
of weapon systems.

   Section 834--Definition of Materials Critical to National Security

    This section would amend section 187 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the definition of materials critical to 
national security. The revised definition would ensure that 
strategic materials whose supply to the Department of Defense 
can potentially be disrupted are monitored and addressed by the 
Strategic Materials Protection Board established under section 
187 of title 10, United States Code.

    Section 835--Determination of Strategic or Critical Rare Earth 
                   Materials for Defense Applications

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
undertake an assessment of the supply chain for rare earth 
materials and determine which rare earth materials, if any, are 
strategic materials and which are materials critical to 
national security. Following such an assessment, the Secretary 
would be required to develop a plan to ensure the long-term 
availability of rare earth materials identified as strategic 
materials or materials critical to national security, with a 
goal of establishing domestic sources for such materials by 
December 31, 2015. In developing such a plan, the Secretary 
would be required to: consider including such materials in the 
National Defense Stockpile; identify, in consultation with the 
United States Trade Representative, any trade practices that 
limit the Secretary's ability to meet the goals of the plan; 
assess financing options, such as loan guarantees, to private 
entities to provide the capacity required to ensure the 
availability of such materials; evaluate the benefits of 
funding under Title III of the Defense Production Act (Public 
Law 81-774); consider research and development funding; assess 
other means of establishing domestic sources by December 31, 
2015; and develop a plan to eliminate supply-chain 
vulnerability by the earliest date practicable for materials 
for which, after exhausting all prior considerations, a 
domestic source cannot be established by December 31, 2015. 
This section would require the Secretary to submit a report, 
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to the 
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Senate Committee on 
Finance, the House Committee on Financial Services, and the 
House Committee on Ways and Means, containing the findings of 
the assessment and plan.

   Section 836--Review of National Security Exception to Competition

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review the implementation of the national security exception to 
full and open competition provided in section 2304(c)(6) of 
title 10, United States Code (commonly known as the Competition 
in Contracting Act). The review would include an examination 
of: the pattern of usage; the range of items or services being 
acquired; the justification and approval process; compliance 
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; issues relating to 
follow-on procurements; and possible additional uses for the 
exception. The committee intends that the examination of 
possible additional uses in this review would include, at a 
minimum, a review of any legislative proposals requesting 
national security-related exceptions to full and open 
competition submitted to the Department of Defense's Office of 
Legislative Counsel in the five years preceding the date of 
enactment of this Act. This section would require the Secretary 
to submit a report on the review to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 
270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Finally, this 
section would require the Secretary, upon completion of the 
review, to submit draft regulations relating to the 
implementation of the national security exception to full and 
open competition to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
the House Committee on Armed Services, and the House Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform.

  Section 837--Inclusion of Bribery in Disclosure Requirements of the 
      Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

    This section would amend section 872(c) of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(Public Law 110-417) to include information about a federal 
contractor relating to violations of any law relating to 
bribery of a country which is a signatory of the Convention on 
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International 
Business Transactions in the federal awardee performance and 
integrity information system.

Section 838--Requirement for Entities With Facility Clearances That Are 
      Not Under Foreign Ownership Control or Influence Mitigation

    This section would require a corporation holding a facility 
clearance granted by the Department of Defense that is not 
subject to foreign ownership control or influence to establish 
a government security committee to ensure that such corporation 
maintains policies and procedures that meet requirements under 
the national industrial security program. The committee notes 
that corporations subject to foreign ownership control or 
influence are already required, in most cases, to have a 
government security committee.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


 Advisory Panel on Improving Interagency National Security Coordination

    Section 1054 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) 
authorized the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, 
and the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) to jointly establish a 
standing advisory panel to ``advise, review, and make 
recommendations on ways to improve coordination among the 
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID on 
matters relating to national security, including reviewing 
their respective roles and responsibilities.'' The committee 
believes this panel will provide invaluable objective 
information and recommendations to the agencies, as well as to 
Congress, about how to improve coordination and collaboration. 
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of State, and the Administrator of USAID to stand up 
this important panel immediately. The committee further 
encourages the Secretaries and Administrator to task this panel 
with studying and reporting recommendations on how the agencies 
should collaborate on creating interagency training, education, 
and rotational assignment opportunities for their personnel, 
and how the agencies should incentivize their personnel and 
organizations to enable and encourage such opportunities.

              Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage

    The committee continues to be concerned about the 
implications and potential consequences of global climate 
change. However, one of the possible benefits associated with 
climate change is the opening of a Northwest Passage and the 
potential expansion of trade through the Arctic Ocean. The 
Department of the Navy has indicated that polar ice has 
decreased by 67 percent since 1979 and that the Arctic Ocean is 
projected to be ice free for short periods of time starting in 
the year 2038. The committee is encouraged that the Department 
of the Navy, working in concert with the respective combatant 
commanders, has prepared an Arctic Roadmap to address future 
operations but believes that additional effort needs to be 
placed on this strategic capability. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by May 30, 2011, that includes 
the following:
          (1) An assessment of the strategic national security 
        objectives and restrictions in the Arctic Region;
          (2) An assessment on mission capabilities required to 
        support the strategic national security objectives and 
        a timeline to obtain such capabilities;
          (3) An assessment of an amended unified command plan 
        that addresses opportunities of obtaining continuity of 
        effort in the Arctic Ocean by a single combatant 
        commander;
          (4) An assessment of the basing infrastructure 
        required to support Arctic strategic objectives, 
        including the need for a deep-water port in the Arctic; 
        and
          (5) An assessment of the status of and need for 
        icebreakers to determine whether icebreakers provide 
        important or required mission capabilities to support 
        Arctic strategic national security objectives, and an 
        assessment of the minimum and optimal number of 
        icebreakers that may be needed.

Augmentation of Army Brigade Combat Teams To Advise and Assist Foreign 
                            Security Forces

    In recent years, the Department of Defense has created 
hundreds of training teams using service members from all of 
the military services to mentor, advise, and partner with 
security forces in both the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. These teams have totaled up to 10,000 
U.S. military personnel per rotation, most often from the 
ground forces. While these teams act as units, they are not 
units that exist in any of the services' doctrinal structure. 
Instead, they are typically sourced with personnel who were 
identified individually, generally company- and field-grade 
officers and senior non-commissioned officers who are taken 
from other units.
    In the past, the Army faced some difficulty in sourcing 
these teams without affecting the readiness of its overall 
force. As a result of these challenges, the Army has shifted 
its approach and is now replacing many of the individual 
training teams in Iraq with brigade combat teams that are 
specially augmented with leaders to carry out the advisory and 
assistance mission, referred to as advisory and assistance 
brigades. Similarly, in Afghanistan, the U.S. military is 
planning for the use of units similar to advisory and 
assistance brigades, referred to as mobility brigades-security 
force assistance, for this mission. While still a work in 
progress, the Army projects that using brigades with an 
augmentation for the advisory and assistance mission, instead 
of individual training teams, will: decrease the burden on the 
services of having to identify and source individuals; improve 
command and control for the training mission; and allow for 
improved mission effectiveness.
    The committee is aware of the Government Accountability 
Office's prior evaluations of the readiness of U.S. forces and 
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review 
the Army's plans for augmenting its brigade combat teams to 
perform the advisory and assistance mission and the use of the 
teams to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
to report the results of this review to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. This 
review should evaluate: the extent to which the Army has 
defined intended roles and missions for these brigades, 
including for ongoing operations or other commitments; the 
extent to which the Army has defined requirements for these 
types of brigade combat teams, including personnel, equipment, 
and training requirements; and the Army's ability to source 
these requirements, including any impacts on overall readiness.

  Certification and Accreditation Process for Information Technology 
                                Programs

    The committee understands the certification and 
accreditation (C&A) process for information technology (IT) 
programs is a critical component of the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) information assurance posture. The committee is concerned 
that C&A processes have neither kept pace with the rapid pace 
of technological changes, nor the marginal changes in DOD 
policy. For example, as the Department of Defense implements 
the alternative acquisition process for IT systems required by 
section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), it should also examine the C&A 
process to ensure that the entire acquisition and fielding 
process is optimized.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
evaluate the C&A process and make changes as needed to keep 
pace with the existing and projected technical environment. The 
committee supports the July 2009 DOD memorandum detailing the 
implementation of Information System Certification and 
Accreditation Reciprocity as an important step in updating the 
C&A process. The committee encourages the Department of Defense 
to consider certain additional actions as it reviews the C&A 
process, including:
          (1) Requiring automated software vulnerability 
        analysis throughout the development and deployment 
        lifecycle of an IT system;
          (2) Requiring that all category 1 software 
        vulnerabilities are remediated;
          (3) Implementing a process for shielding web 
        applications in a runtime mode to protect them from 
        exploitation in situations where it is not possible to 
        remediate existing software vulnerabilities of legacy 
        web-enabled national security systems; and
          (4) Enhancing the testing and evaluation process in 
        order to evaluate code execution as a component of the 
        accreditation decision.

   Common Alignment of World Regions in the Internal Organization of 
      Departments and Agencies With International Responsibilities

    The committee is concerned that inconsistent regional 
alignments in the internal organization of departments and 
agencies increase the difficulty of executing interagency 
national security policy. In February 2009, the Assistant to 
the President for National Security Affairs, General James L. 
Jones, announced that the Administration would implement a 
common regional alignment. The committee notes that no action 
has been taken to date. The committee supports the National 
Security Advisor's vision and encourages the President to 
commission a study to assess the need for and implications of a 
common alignment of world regions in the internal organization 
of departments and agencies with international 
responsibilities. The committee encourages this study to assess 
the problems resulting from different geographic boundaries 
within the various agencies, potential obstacles to 
implementing a common alignment, and the advantages and 
disadvantages of a common alignment. The study should also 
provide a determination by the President as to what action the 
administration intends to take on this matter and when, and 
what legislative action, if any, would be required by Congress.

                    Intelligence Information Sharing

    The committee is concerned that Department of Defense 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program 
guidance does not provide sufficient overarching direction and 
priorities for sharing intelligence information across the 
defense intelligence community. As highlighted in a recent 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report requested by the 
committee, the military services do not have a coordinated 
acquisition strategy, resulting in the current lack of ability 
and capacity of the military services to fully share ISR 
information collected by the warfighter. Each military service 
has proceeded at its own pace, and continues to proceed at its 
own pace, to conform to standards that facilitate sharing of 
ISR information. The committee believes that until all 
participants in the defense intelligence community successfully 
share intelligence information, inefficiencies will continue, 
and data collection efforts may be unnecessarily duplicative, 
with the result being shortfalls in the effectiveness of 
efforts to support the warfighter.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense to implement the recommendation of GAO report, GAO-10-
265NI, which recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the military service secretaries, develop 
intelligence information sharing guidance, such as a concept of 
operations, and to provide such direction and prioritization to 
the intelligence community. The committee also directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees, the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, by September 1, 2010, on the actions planned or 
taken to implement this recommendation.
    Finally, the committee requests the Comptroller General 
evaluate the Secretary's report and determine whether it is 
consistent with, and adequately addresses the recommendation, 
and to provide the committee with an update on the conclusions 
of this evaluation as soon as it is practicable.

  Personnel Management Policy and Plans Affecting Special Operations 
                                 Forces

    The committee remains concerned that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) has yet to finalize DOD Directive 5100.01, titled 
``Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major 
Components'', that establishes a means by which the Commander 
of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) could coordinate 
with the service secretaries for matters related to Special 
Operations Forces (SOF) personnel management policy and plans 
as they relate to accessions, assignments, compensation, 
promotions, professional development, readiness, retention, 
sustainment, and training of all SOF personnel. The committee 
is aware that each existing service-specific memorandum of 
agreement that defines service responsibilities and support to 
USSOCOM is being reviewed, and is encouraged that the 
Department of the Navy has recently completed its review 
including an appendix that defines responsibilities and 
relationships for personnel management of SOF assigned to 
USSOCOM.
    The committee appreciates this service-specific approach, 
but is concerned that individual service reviews and subsequent 
updated or enacted agreements that defines relationships with 
respect to SOF personnel management may be inconsistent across 
the services. The committee therefore encourages the Secretary 
of Defense to finalize Directive 5100.01 within 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act and continue to review 
the aforementioned service-specific agreements to ensure a 
holistic approach with respect to personnel management policy 
and plans that affect SOF and USSOCOM. The committee believes 
that such agreements should establish a means by which the 
service secretaries and the Commander of USSOCOM can consult 
with one another to manage and mitigate concerns across the 
entire special operations community as they relate to 
accessions, assignments, compensation, promotions, professional 
development, readiness, retention, sustainment, and training.

         Senior Workforce in the Business Transformation Agency

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009, the committee expressed concern about the lack of 
permanent billets for senior executive service staff within BTA 
and the deleterious effect that would have on hiring and 
promotions within the agency. In the past two years, the 
committee notes that no corrective actions were taken, 
resulting in the loss of senior staff due to the lack of 
promotion opportunities. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer and the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide written 
notification of compliance to the House Committee on Armed 
Services on actions being taken to address the committee's 
concerns within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

                       Strategic Management Plan

    The committee is aware that the Strategic Management Plan 
(SMP) required by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) is a document that 
continues to evolve since it was originally submitted in July 
2008. The committee applauds the Department of Defense's 
efforts to develop this congressional reporting requirement 
into a management tool to improve the performance of the 
business functions of the Department. The committee encourages 
the Department to strengthen the management framework in the 
SMP and further refine the data that is collected and included 
in the report to make it an even more useful performance 
analysis tool. For example, the SMP should incorporate 
performance goals captured by other documents, such as the 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan and the reports 
required by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 
2002 (Public Law 107-347). The committee also recommends that 
the SMP include a number of other performance measures, such as 
information sharing standards, facility recapitalization rates, 
and tracking for critical workforce specialties within the 
Department.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


    Section 901--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 902--Realignment of the Organizational Structure of the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense to Carry Out the Reduction Required by Law 
          in the Number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense

    This section would amend certain statutory provisions in 
United States Code related to the organizational structure of 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). These changes 
would reduce the number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense 
and implement the realignment of the organizational structure 
of OSD as directed by section 906 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. These changes would 
provide a logical construction for the organization of the most 
senior officials within OSD by removing the wide variance in 
the status and stature of officials with the same title, and 
providing the same title to officials of generally equal status 
and stature. Additionally, this section would remove the 
prescription on certain specific titles of officials and 
organizations within OSD allowing the Department to provide a 
more consistent, recognizable application across the entire 
enterprise.

                  Section 903--Unified Medical Command

    This section would provide legal authority to the Secretary 
of Defense to establish a unified medical command to provide 
medical services to the armed forces and other health care 
beneficiaries of the Department of Defense as defined in 
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code. This section also 
would require the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan to 
establish a unified medical command. Further, this section 
would amend title 10, United States Code, to specify that one 
of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense will be for Health 
Affairs, responsible for health care policy formulation and 
oversight.

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities


              Section 911--Integrated Space Architectures

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
Director of National Intelligence to maintain the capability to 
conduct integrated national security space architecture 
planning, development, coordination, and analysis.
    The Department of Defense's (DOD) space architecture 
function was originally established in 1995 as the Department 
of Defense Office of the Space Architect (DODOSA). In 1998, 
DODOSA became the Office of the National Security Space 
Architect, and in 2004 was combined with the National Security 
Space Integration Directorate by the DOD Executive Agent for 
Space to become the National Security Space Office (NSSO). Its 
purpose was to bridge defense and intelligence space 
capabilities, programs, and organizations by developing 
integrated national security space architectures and provide 
recommendations to guide space decisions and investments.
    The committee is aware of ongoing discussions within the 
Department regarding the disposition of the NSSO. However, 
absent a clear mandate to conduct integrated space architecture 
planning, development, coordination, and analysis that is 
independent or outside of any individual military service or 
intelligence community organization, the committee is concerned 
that space architecture work will be stove-piped and will not 
reflect enterprise-wide interests and priorities. The committee 
believes senior decision makers should have the benefit of an 
independent capability to oversee, assess, and coordinate, 
where appropriate, the national security space activities of 
the defense and intelligence communities. The committee 
recognizes that the preponderance of national security space 
expertise resides in the individual military services and 
intelligence community organizations, and believes this 
expertise can be effectively leveraged to support enterprise-
wide architecting.
    This section would not be intended to limit rapid 
acquisition efforts such as Operationally Responsive Space 
(ORS); however, the committee does endorse efforts that expand 
user access to ORS capabilities and data.
    Given the challenges associated with space acquisitions, 
the expensive nature of modern satellite development programs, 
and a limited cadre of space professionals, the committee 
believes that major decisions regarding national security space 
should be approached in a holistic and strategic manner to 
identify opportunities to: coordinate and cooperate on space 
capabilities, technologies, and resources; leverage expertise; 
promote greater information sharing; and minimize duplication 
wherever feasible.

                Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters


Section 921--5-Year Extension of Authority for Secretary of Defense To 
Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection 
                               Activities

    This section would amend existing statutory authority for 
the use by the Department of Defense of intelligence commercial 
activities as security for intelligence collection activities 
by granting the Secretary of Defense a 5-year extension of 
authority to approve such activities.
    Section 431 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 102-88) first granted the 
Secretary authority to approve the use of commercial activities 
as security for intelligence collection activities. Since that 
time, Congress has extended this authority six times, in 
increments of two, three and four years, with the current 
authority set to expire on December 31, 2010. Regular reports 
to Congress enable effective congressional oversight and make 
possible a 5-year extension of this authority.

       Section 922--Space and Counterspace Intelligence Analysis

    This section would require the Director of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency to designate a lead integrator for foreign 
space and counterspace defense intelligence analysis, and to 
authorize the lead integrator to conduct original intelligence 
analysis and production within the areas of responsibility of 
such lead integrator. This section would also require a 
notification to the congressional defense committees and 
intelligence committees of any changes in the designation of 
the lead integrator.
    The National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) has 
been the designated lead integrator for space and counterspace 
intelligence. However, the Defense Intelligence Agency recently 
issued guidance prohibiting NASIC from conducting original 
intelligence analysis in certain counterspace mission areas 
despite its technical expertise and historical knowledge.
    The committee believes it is important for a lead 
integrator to maintain technical proficiency in the areas for 
which it is given lead integrator responsibilities. This 
proficiency can be maintained by conducting original 
intelligence analysis, when necessary or appropriate, and also 
developing competitive, or alternative, analysis consistent 
with the objectives of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458).

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


   Section 931--Revisions to the Board of Regents for the Uniformed 
               Services University of the Health Sciences

    This section would amend section 2113a of title 10, United 
States Code, to add four individuals appointed by the chairmen 
and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services to the Board of 
Regents for the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences.

 Section 932--Increased Flexibility for Combatant Commander Initiative 
                                  Fund

    This section would amend section 166(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to fund up to $10.0 million of research, development, test, and 
evaluation initiatives from funds authorized under the 
Combatant Commander Initiative Fund.

 Section 933--Two-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Temporary 
  Waiver of Reimbursement of Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental 
   Personnel at Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security 
                                Studies

    This section would amend section 941(b) of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(Public Law 110-417) to extend for two fiscal years the 
temporary authority for the five Regional Centers for Security 
Studies of the Department of Defense to waive the reimbursement 
of costs required under section 184(f) of title 10, United 
States Code, for personnel of nongovernmental organizations and 
international organizations to participate in activities of the 
centers.

Section 934--Additional Requirements for Quadrennial Roles and Missions 
                             Review in 2011

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
consider information operations, strategic communications, and 
detention and interrogation activities as part of the 2011 
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review required by section 118b 
of title 10, United States Code.

  Section 935--Codification of Congressional Notification Requirement 
    Before Permanent Relocation of Any United States Military Unit 
                  Stationed Outside the United States

    This section would amend chapter 6 of title 10, United 
States Code, by inserting a new section 162a that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days 
before the permanent relocation of a military unit stationed 
outside of the United States. That notification would include a 
description of the impact that relocation would have on United 
States national security policy.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Counter-Drug Activities

    The budget request contained $1.13 billion for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $107.4 
million, for operational tempo, which is contained within the 
operating budgets of the military services. The budget is 
organized in fiscal year 2011 to address four broad national 
priorities: (1) international support; (2) domestic support; 
(3) intelligence and technology support; and (4) demand 
reduction.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 
2011 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows 
(in millions of U.S. dollars):

FY11 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request...............  $1,131.4
International Support.........................................    $580.9
Domestic Support..............................................    $216.8
Intelligence and Technology Support...........................    $193.6
Demand Reduction..............................................    $140.0
FY11 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request Recommendation  $1,131.4

                            Counterterrorism


                      Counterterrorism Initiatives

    The committee notes that the United States has made 
significant gains in the effort to disrupt, defeat, and 
dismantle al Qa'ida and its extremist allies. According to open 
sources, over the course of 2009, the United States was able to 
successfully kill or capture hundreds of al Qa'ida fighters and 
members of affiliated organizations, a substantial increase 
over prior years. The committee further notes that the effort 
to enlist regional allies in the fight against al Qa'ida and 
its extremist allies has also led to notable successes, in 
particular the recent capture of the second in command of the 
Afghan Taliban, a former Taliban finance minister, and two 
Taliban ``shadow governors'' in the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan. The Republic of Yemen has also taken effective, 
though as yet incomplete, measures to eliminate the threat from 
al Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula. The committee believes that 
the Administration as a whole, and in particular the men and 
women of the United States military deserve our thanks and 
congratulations for this significant progress.
    The committee believes, however, that much work remains to 
be done before the fight against al Qa'ida is finished and the 
threat to the United States is eliminated. The committee has 
focused its efforts in this year's National Defense 
Authorization Act in four main areas. First, the committee has 
acted to improve force protection from terrorists and their 
allies at home and abroad. Second, the committee has enhanced 
the capacity of the United States military, particularly the 
United States Special Operations Forces (USSOF), who have been 
integral in successes to date, to act directly against 
terrorist organizations. Third, the committee has built upon 
past efforts and begun new initiatives to counter extremist 
ideology and improve cooperation in the fight against al Qa'ida 
and its allies. Fourth, the committee has enhanced or expanded 
several critical authorities related to counterterrorism.
    To better protect our troops at home, the committee has 
provided $100.0 million in this title to implement the initial 
recommendations of the Fort Hood Follow-On Review conducted by 
the Department of Defense in the wake of the shooting at Fort 
Hood that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounded 30 
other people. The Follow-On Review was charged with identifying 
and addressing possible deficiencies in force protection and 
the identification of Department of Defense employees who could 
pose a credible threat to themselves or others as well as other 
related issues. In a related effort in this title, the 
committee has required the Secretary of Defense to begin an 
additional, more comprehensive review of force protection. This 
review will address such issues as standoff distances for 
building, protective standards related to weapons of mass 
destruction, standards for access to Department of Defense 
bases, and enhanced information sharing between federal 
agencies and intelligence agencies to better identify threats, 
including those that might originate from persons who have 
access to Department of Defense bases. Finally, to address 
force protection concerns in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, the committee has included the authority in title 
15 of this Act for the Secretary of Defense to obligate up to 
$200.0 million to address urgent force protection needs in 
Afghanistan and to utilize rapid acquisition authority in 
carrying out this function. The committee believes that these 
efforts, taken together, will substantially reduce potential 
vulnerabilities of our servicemen and women at home and on the 
battlefield.
    The committee has also acted to enhance the ability of the 
USSOF to carry on the fight against al Qa'ida and its extremist 
allies. These forces have been on the front lines of this 
fight, and the efforts of USSOF have been integral in weakening 
that terrorist organization. To further enhance the ability of 
USSOF to find, fix, and eliminate terrorists who threaten the 
United States, the committee has provided nearly $10.0 billion 
for USSOF and counterterrorism capabilities throughout the 
bill, which represents an increase of almost $800.0 million 
over fiscal year 2009. Of this number, $205.0 million is 
provided to address unfunded requirements identified by the 
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). In title 12 
of this Act, the committee has also provided a 25 percent 
increase in authority for the so-called Section 1208 program, 
which permits the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to 
foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals 
facilitating military operations by USSOF to combat terrorism. 
Finally, the committee notes that General Stanley McChrystal, 
among others, has commented on the urgent need to develop 
language skills in the United States military to enhance the 
capacity to conduct counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. The 
committee has responded to this need and placed a renewed focus 
on the development of critical language and cultural skills 
among USSOF, urging the Department of Defense to provide 
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay in a uniform manner for all 
members of USSOF who have achieved a 1/1 and 1+ standard of 
proficiency and directing the Commander of USSOCOM to brief the 
committee on his command's cultural immersion objectives, 
challenges, and strategies.
    The committee has also acted on a variety of fronts to 
counter the ideology of extremists, to curb their ability to 
use the internet for recruiting and fundraising, and to enhance 
United States and allied efforts to infiltrate and combat 
terrorist networks. The committee has provided additional funds 
in several ways to focus research on efforts to counter 
terrorists' ideology: providing an increase of $5.0 million for 
the Minerva Initiative in title 2 of this Act, an increase of 
$10.0 million for counter-ideology programs and to address 
science and technology gaps in DOD activities to counter 
adversarial ideologies, and a total of $9.0 million to support 
the social science researchers who are assisting the Department 
of Defense in understanding the cultural and ideological basis 
of our adversaries in the current fights. This year, the 
committee has taken additional steps to counter the use of the 
internet by extremists. To gain a more full understanding of 
those activities already conducted by the Department and to 
ensure that those actions are coordinated, the committee has 
directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the activities 
taken by the Department in this area. The committee has also 
provided an additional $2.5 million in title 2 of this Act in 
the Combating Terrorism Technical Support program for an 
extensive study to determine the state of the virtual media 
environment occupied by today's extremist and terrorist 
enemies. Finally, the committee has included two new 
initiatives in this year's National Defense Authorization Act 
designed to enhance the ability of the United States and allied 
forces to infiltrate and combat enemy forces. Therefore, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to institutionalize 
the Legacy program and similar programs. The Legacy and similar 
programs, based on a successful European model, assisted with 
the development of an indigenous capacity to infiltrate and 
disrupt local terrorist networks. The committee has also noted 
that many innovative programs for mapping complex and social 
landscapes, understanding relationships among key actors in 
insurgencies, identifying the key goals of marginalized groups 
that could lead them to be recruited by terrorists, and 
integrating whole-of-government approaches in support of 
indigenous institutions to reduce the appeal of terrorist 
groups have failed in the past for lack of institutionalized 
support. The committee notes that it is precisely this sort of 
information that is vital for understanding the environment in 
which terrorist groups live and operate, and therefore is of 
great benefit in the effort to eliminate such terrorist groups. 
The committee has therefore directed the Secretary to provide a 
plan by September 1, 2010, for supporting and sustaining the 
variety of innovative programs in these areas.
    The committee has acted to expand several critical 
authorities used by the Department of Defense in combating 
terrorism. The committee expands the authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to build the capacity of foreign military forces, 
the ``1206 program,'' by increasing funds by $150.0 million 
over fiscal year 2010 levels. Out of the funds provided by the 
committee for the 1206 program, not less than $75.0 million 
would be used to enhance the capacity of the Yemeni security 
forces to combat al Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, the 
terrorist group that attempted to down Northwest Airlines 
flight 253 over Detroit, Michigan on December 25, 2009. The 
committee has also extended and expanded the Coalition Support 
Program, now allowing reimbursements to any nation who provides 
logistical and military assistance to support the fight against 
al Qa'ida, the Taliban, and other militant extremists in 
Pakistan, in addition to the current authority to reimburse 
nations for logistical and military support for United States 
military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
Enduring Freedom. The committee has extended the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund authority by one year to ensure that the 
transition of the program from the Department of Defense to the 
Department of State is conducted smoothly and without an 
interruption to the vital aid intended to assist Pakistan in 
combating militant extremists. Finally the committee requires 
that the next Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review examine 
critical core missions relating to counterterrorism including: 
strategic communications; information operations; and 
interrogation and detention.
    The committee believes that the initiatives outlined above, 
combined with the host of other programs and authorizations 
provided in this bill, will substantially enhance the ability 
of the brave men and women of the United States military to 
protect themselves at home and abroad and will provide them 
with the additional tools they need to disrupt, dismantle, and 
eventually defeat al Qa'ida and their extremist allies.

                Countering Extremist Use of the Internet

    The committee is concerned that while extremist groups are 
becoming increasingly more sophisticated in their use of the 
internet, the U.S. Government has been slow to mobilize an 
effective counter-response to the proliferation of extremist 
websites that are used for recruiting, training, propaganda, 
and fundraising. The committee understands that there are a 
range of significant policy, legal, technical, and management 
challenges to dealing with the increasing use of the internet 
to promulgate extremist views.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees within 120 
days after the date of enactment of this Act a report on the 
actions that the Department of Defense is taking to counter 
extremists' use of the internet. More details on this 
requirement can be found in the classified annex accompanying 
this report.

                    Countering Network-Based Threats

    The committee applauds the Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) 
program achievements supporting both unconventional and 
irregular approaches to warfare. The committee is especially 
interested in the ``Attack the Network'' approach used in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under 
the Legacy program. The doctrinal program was based on a 
previously successful European model and began as a research 
and development pilot project. Proven to be immediately 
effective in disrupting terrorist network activities, saving 
lives, and building a leave-behind indigenous capability, 
Legacy successes have been documented and validated in an 
independent Department of Defense commissioned study carried 
out by the RAND Corporation.
    The committee notes that network-based threats come in many 
forms. Whether in the form of terrorism, insurgencies, narco-
trafficking, organized crime, piracy, or gangs, these networks 
are a persistent danger that will continue to grow around the 
world. These destructive and illegal networks find sanctuary 
within indigenous populations around the world and particularly 
flourish where governance and law enforcement is weak. The 
committee cannot emphasize enough that defeating these networks 
will require the persistent presence, local knowledge, and 
specialized training that a program such as Legacy employs.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct the following activities:
          (1) Assess the applicability of the Legacy program in 
        other areas where network-based threats are present or 
        where conditions are conducive to supporting these 
        threats;
          (2) Establish an appropriate management structure 
        within the Department for Legacy and other similar 
        programs;
          (3) Coordinate with interagency partners, including 
        but not limited to, the Department of State, the 
        Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, 
        and the Department of Homeland Security to synchronize 
        Legacy with other capacity building and intelligence 
        programs; and
          (4) Develop a plan to institutionalize, within the 
        U.S. Government, the capability necessary to 
        institutionalize and train foreign forces to gather and 
        exploit counterinsurgency intelligence at a local level 
        within the U.S. Government.

         Defense Threat Reduction Agency Mission and Resourcing

    The committee recognizes that countering the use of weapons 
of mass destruction (WMD) by our adversaries is a national 
priority, and that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) 
plays a central role in our efforts. The committee is aware 
that the recent Quadrennial Defense Review report calls for 
increased investment in preventing proliferation and countering 
WMD. The committee is also aware that the fiscal year 2011 
budget request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency reflects 
these priorities and requirements. In particular, the budget 
request for DTRA contained increased investments to secure 
vulnerable fissile materials worldwide, expand global 
biological threat reduction initiatives, develop arms control 
monitoring and verification capabilities, combat WMD terrorism, 
develop and acquire technology and train forces to locate and 
identify radiological or nuclear threats, develop post-
detonation nuclear forensics capabilities, and provide 
countering WMD reach-back support to the warfighter. The 
committee is supportive of these priorities and expects the 
Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to carefully 
oversee execution of the additional funding.

     Rotary-Wing Assets for United States Special Operations Forces

    The committee is aware that rotary-wing aviation assets are 
critical enablers supporting the armed forces, and in 
particular United States Special Operations Forces (USSOF), 
engaged in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. 
The committee is aware that rotary-wing shortfalls exist in 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 
and elsewhere as noted in Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities (TUTC) hearings and the 
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee also notes 
that the recent personnel growth of USSOF has far outpaced the 
organic rotary-wing capacity of U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM).
    The committee is encouraged that both the QDR and the 
fiscal year 2011 budget request address service-wide and 
USSOCOM rotary-wing shortfalls and provide modest but targeted 
improvements in force structure, training, acquisition 
timelines, and service-life-extension programs for support to 
USSOF. The committee is pleased that the Department has 
increasingly leveraged general purpose rotary-wing assets to 
support USSOF worldwide missions and requirements. However, the 
committee remains concerned that proposed solutions may not 
offer timely relief, and that continued shortfalls in OEF, OIF 
and elsewhere may impede operations where USSOF presence will 
continue for the foreseeable future. The committee is aware 
that the Joint Staff's Review of Helicopter Assets (ROHA), as 
cited in testimony before TUTC, recommended significant 
adjustments in force management of rotary-wing platforms. The 
committee is aware, however, that the ROHA is presently being 
updated, and is discouraged that the Department has yet to 
provide the ROHA to the committee despite several requests, and 
despite its citing in official testimony before TUTC.
    The committee believes USSOCOM should take the appropriate 
steps to ensure that rotary aviation assets are appropriately 
managed and resourced. The committee understands that USSOCOM 
and U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) plan to 
establish a special operations aviation command to address 
critical needs. The committee is concerned that USSOCOM has not 
discussed in detail the command's plans to address its rotary 
aviation needs. The committee therefore encourages the 
Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Special Operations, Low-Intensity Conflict, and Interdependent 
Capabilities, and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations 
Command to continue to aggressively identify and implement 
solutions such as the expanded use of general purpose rotary-
wing assets, improvements in USSOF rotary-wing organic force 
structure, accelerated acquisition timelines, and the expanded 
use of non-standard aviation platforms and aviation foreign 
internal defense activities, and to openly communicate 
solutions, future plans and actions with the congressional 
defense committees.

         Strategies for Countering Irregular Warfare Challenges

    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to place 
greater emphasis on pursuing efforts to develop innovative, 
non-material, and multi-disciplinary methodologies and 
strategies for disrupting irregular and asymmetric threats and 
threat enablers, such as insurgency, radicalization, improvised 
explosive device activity, threat financing, and associated 
infrastructures. The committee believes that such approaches 
could offer broader capabilities to the Department, interagency 
and international partners, as well as better leverage the 
collective resources of the entire federal government to:
          (1) Map the complex social and cultural landscape of 
        areas of interest;
          (2) Understand the relationships between centers of 
        power, bases of support, and key influencers that 
        provide critical infrastructure and enable violent 
        extremist organizations (VEO);
          (3) Identify common goals among marginalized groups 
        and institutions within areas of interest that have the 
        potential to be recruited by terrorist groups;
          (4) Integrate whole-of-government approaches in 
        support of indigenous groups and institutions to reduce 
        the appeal of local terrorist organizations and thus 
        their local effectiveness; and
          (5) Degrade any enabling factors within fragile 
        societies that allow for VEOs to flourish.
    The committee notes that the Department, under the auspices 
of the Irregular Warfare Support Program, the Rapid Reaction 
Technology Office, and the Asymmetric Warfare Group, has 
developed and implemented a few pilot projects to test concepts 
employing non-material, multi-disciplinary methodologies. 
However, while some of these concepts have shown promise, they 
often fail to reach full operational capability. The committee 
notes that these failures occur for various reasons, most 
notably because of unstable funding or lack of proper 
management, or both. The committee emphasizes the need for the 
Department of Defense, other U.S. Government agencies and 
international partners to pursue, test, and implement novel 
approaches that address the current threat environment.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
to the congressional defense committees, by September 1, 2010, 
a plan for supporting and sustaining innovative approaches to 
address the stated goals above, including such approaches that 
incorporate and blend legal, law enforcement, intelligence, and 
military tactics, techniques and procedures.

                        Interagency Coordination


        Center for Strategic Communications and Public Diplomacy

    The committee continues to support the development of 
capabilities within the U.S. Government to effectively engage 
with global communities. In section 1055 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417), the committee directed the National Security 
Council to conduct a comprehensive review of strategic 
communications (SC) and public diplomacy (PD) activities within 
the federal government. A component of that review called for a 
study of whether to establish an independent organization to 
serve as a critical mass within the U.S. Government that would 
foster intergovernmental and nongovernmental innovation to 
support various government clients.
    The committee was dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the 
analysis supporting the response to section 1055. The report 
required by section 1055 does not provide sufficient 
justification to support that conclusion that an independent 
organization for SC and PD is not needed. The committee is 
aware of 10 other studies since 2003 that have indicated the 
need for such an organization, which contradicts the section 
1055 report recommendation. The committee urges the National 
Security Council to give due consideration to such an option.

                       Force Protection Policies

    The January 2010 report by the Department of Defense 
Independent Review Related to Fort Hood made a number of 
critical observations related to underlying contributing 
factors in the shootings that occurred on November 5, 2009. 
These factors include the fact that no senior Department of 
Defense (DOD) official is assigned overall responsibility for 
force protection policy and that there is no integrating DOD 
policy regarding force protection (Finding 3.1); DOD force 
protection programs and policies are not focused on internal 
threats (Finding 3.2); there is no formal guidance 
standardizing how to share force protection threat information 
across the services or the combatant commands (Finding 3.4); 
DOD installation access control systems and processes do not 
incorporate behavioral screening strategies and capabilities, 
and are not configured to detect an insider threat (Finding 
3.7).
    These findings recognize that force protection policies 
have evolved over the past two decades, but have not been 
updated in holistic manner to deal with changing organizational 
responsibilities and an expansion of the threat spectrum to 
include those emanating from within the base perimeter as well 
as from without. As the scope of interested parties in ensuring 
force protection has also grown, it is clear to the committee 
that current policies and procedures have not kept pace with 
this evolving threat environment. The committee recognizes the 
need for a comprehensive review and clarification of force 
protection policies and guidance, and has included a provision 
to address these concerns elsewhere in this Act.

               Funding of National Security Requirements

    The committee supports the goal of building and funding a 
balanced United States national security strategy. The 
committee is concerned that current levels of national security 
spending across defense, homeland security, and non-defense 
foreign engagement programs strain to meet the national 
security requirements of the United States, especially in 
programs external to the Department of Defense.
    The committee encourages the President, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National 
Intelligence, and the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, to develop and implement measures aimed at improving 
coordination of security policy and budget planning in order to 
improve cooperation and further national security goals. The 
committee notes that such efforts should include the 
consideration of a unified set of national security priorities.

                 Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center

    The committee is aware that the Department of Homeland 
Security, along with the Department of State and the Department 
of Justice, is chartered to operate the interagency Human 
Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC). Its purpose is to 
foster greater integration of U.S. Government efforts to 
counter migrant smuggling, trafficking in persons, and 
clandestine terrorist travel. HSTC carries out this mission 
though the broad dissemination of all-source information, 
preparation of strategic assessments, identification of issues 
for enhancing interagency coordination, and coordination of 
interagency initiatives.
    The committee believes that some of the capabilities of 
HSTC could provide valuable support for certain global missions 
of the Department of Defense, and in particular the U.S. 
Special Operations Command. The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to find additional ways to increase 
cooperation with HSTC in areas of common interest in which the 
Department of Defense has personnel with particular skills and 
expertise, such as in analysis of international smuggling 
routes, social networks, terrorist financing, and document 
exploitation.

      Policy and Guidance for Defense Support of Civil Authorities

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
approach toward meeting its defense support of civil 
authorities, or civil support, mission has been evolving since 
prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and 
continues to evolve today. The committee notes that the recent 
Quadrennial Defense Review report revealed a new approach to 
consequence management response forces. Specifically, the 2nd 
and 3rd Consequence Management Response Forces will be replaced 
with smaller units focused on providing command, control and 
communications capabilities for Title 10 follow-on forces, and 
the Department will draw on existing National Guard forces to 
build a Homeland Response Force in each of the ten Federal 
Emergency Management Agency regions. The committee recognizes 
the potential for this organizational construct to strengthen 
the links between federal, state and local authorities.
    While supportive of these recent changes, the committee is 
concerned that civil support policy and guidance has not kept 
pace with the Department's evolving approaches to meeting the 
civil support mission. A recent Comptroller General report 
(GAO-10-386) noted ``a lack of alignment across DOD's policies, 
strategy, and doctrine for its civil support mission, making it 
difficult to determine DOD's capability requirements.'' For 
example, at least six DOD directives relevant to civil support 
pre-date the establishment of the United States Northern 
Command, the entity currently responsible for planning, 
organizing, and executing homeland defense and civil support 
missions within the continental United States, Alaska, and 
territorial waters. The committee is aware that the Department 
concurred with related recommendations of another recent 
Comptroller General report (GAO-10-364). This report 
recommended that the Secretary of Defense update civil support 
policy and guidance delineating the role, responsibilities, and 
relationships between DOD entities, and direct the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, to establish a timeline to develop and issue a 
partner guide that identifies roles and responsibilities of DOD 
entities and agreed-upon approaches for interagency 
coordination for homeland defense and civil support efforts. 
The committee notes that, according to its response to GAO-10-
364, the Department expects to have implemented these two 
recommendations by September 2011.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
written notification of compliance to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 
15 days of the date on which the Secretary determines that the 
Department has completed actions necessary to implement the two 
specified Comptroller General recommendations. In the event 
that the Secretary determines that these two recommendations 
will not be implemented by September 30, 2011, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide written 
notification to the aforementioned committees containing an 
updated timeline for completion of actions necessary to 
implement the two recommendations.

Report on the Potential Use of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
      Organization Initiatives To Support Humanitarian Mine Action

    Each year, landmines and explosive remnants of war cause 
thousands of causalities in more than 60 countries around the 
world. In recent years, our military has made great 
improvements by developing technologies and tactics to detect 
and neutralize explosive remnants of war and improvised 
explosive devices. The committee is aware that the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) has 
made significant advances in the detection and neutralization 
of explosive devices and that some JIEDDO-developed initiatives 
may have the potential to be used by U.S. Humanitarian Mine 
Action programs. The committee therefore directs the 
Comptroller General to provide a report on the following areas:
          (1) A survey of JIEDDO-developed initiatives that may 
        have humanitarian demining applications;
          (2) Recommendations to improve interagency 
        coordination between the Departments of Defense and 
        State with respect to the Joint Improvised Explosive 
        Device Defeat Fund, and relevant humanitarian demining 
        funding activities of the Department of Defense and the 
        Department of State; and
          (3) Recommendations to improve demining and disarming 
        efforts through the use of new or existing JIEDDO-
        initiated technology, training, and equipment, 
        including new joint testing strategies between the 
        Departments of Defense and State in foreign countries 
        including Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other identified 
        countries with respect to emerging demining and 
        disarming technologies.
    The report shall be distributed to the congressional 
defense committees and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by March 1, 2011. 
Relevant classified information should be submitted in a 
classified annex.

                   Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base

    The committee remains concerned about the health and long-
term viability of the solid rocket motor industrial base. 
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends additional 
procurement funding to maintain a warm production line for 
Minuteman III solid rocket motors. However, such action does 
not fully address the challenges associated with sustaining 
currently-deployed strategic and missile defense systems or 
maintaining an intellectual and engineering capacity to support 
the next-generation rocket motors. These challenges are made 
worse by the proposed termination of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration's (NASA) Constellation program. 
Defense officials have estimated that the cost of propulsion 
systems could increase from 40 to 100 percent because 
infrastructure costs currently shared by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and NASA would be passed on to the Department of 
Defense.
    After extensive briefings with the Department and industry, 
the committee believes there is an opportunity to identify a 
more strategic, long-term, defense-wide approach to the 
development, acquisition, and production of solid rocket motors 
that would benefit the industrial base and could be leveraged 
for future strategic strike (both nuclear and non-nuclear), 
missile defense, and space launch systems.
    First, the committee believes the Department should invest 
in a substantive defense-wide research and development (R&D) 
activity specifically focused on design, development, and 
technology maturation associated with a 40-inch diameter class 
rocket motor. The committee understands that the industrial 
base capabilities necessary to support a 40-inch diameter class 
rocket motor can be applied to larger size motors that may be 
required for a next-generation intercontinental ballistic 
missile or submarine-launched ballistic missile and is also 
useful for missile defense and prompt global strike 
applications. However, the committee notes that strategic 
propulsion development activities have declined in recent 
years. The Navy terminated its R&D program in 2008; numerous 
technology demonstrations funded by the Air Force ended in 
2009. The committee further recommends the Department foster 
competition and maintain at least two viable developers through 
this R&D effort.
    Second, the committee believes the Department should align 
its long-term solid rocket motor production plans to maximize 
the use of existing production capabilities. For example, the 
Navy will require solid rocket motor production through 2023 to 
support its Trident D5 life extension program. At this point, 
production could transition to the Air Force to support life 
extension of the Minuteman III beyond 2030 or a follow-on 
system. Thereafter, production could transition back to the 
Navy in the mid-2030 timeframe to support a Trident D5 follow-
on system. Solid rocket motor production for missile defense 
systems should also be taken into account.
    Finally, the committee believes that the health and long-
term viability of the solid rocket motor industrial base is a 
government-wide challenge. Any DOD strategic plan should 
include NASA, and any NASA plan should include the Department 
of Defense. The committee encourages the Department to give 
full consideration to the committee's preferences in the 
preparation of the solid rocket motor industrial base 
sustainment plan required by section 1078 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84).

                             Other Matters


             Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program

    The committee notes that several major acquisition programs 
under the purview of the Department of Defense (DOD) have been 
plagued by cost growth, schedule delays, and under-performance. 
The Department often emphasizes transformation and reform in 
its acquisition policies and procedures, however, the trend to 
poor program performance continues. The committee recognizes 
that transformation combined with a smart acquisition process 
should result in affordable and interoperable weapon systems 
and platforms. Open architecture systems are an example of a 
transformational technology that has resulted in cost savings 
or avoidance to the Department.
    A great source for transformational technologies and ideas 
is the small business community which harbors many of the 
nation's innovative thinkers and creative minds. Not only are 
small businesses vital to our economy, the committee considers 
them a vital source for developing innovative and cost-saving 
technologies in areas of military need. The Department has had 
success leveraging this source, primarily through the Small 
Business and Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I and Phase II 
awards. The committee remains concerned though over the dismal 
record of success inserting such technologies into major 
defense acquisition programs and into the commercial market, 
despite the many transition organizations, processes, and 
initiatives designed to do just that. The Defense Science Board 
stated, in their July 2009 report titled ``Fulfillment of 
Urgent Operational Needs,'' that ``the Department of Defense 
lacks the ability to rapidly field new capabilities to the 
warfighter in a systematic and effective way.''
    The committee notes that SBIR Phase III awards, funded by 
non-SBIR sources, are intended to help move SBIR-funded 
projects to the marketplace or into a program of record. The 
committee remains troubled that the Department has not 
effectively capitalized on the successes of SBIR Phase I and II 
innovations. Findings from the National Research Council and 
the Department of Defense indicate that a lack of stable 
funding and lack of a transition path are significant 
inhibitors. To address these inhibitors, the committee notes 
the precedent set by Navy Program Executive Office Submarine 
(PEO SUBS), during fiscal years 2008 through 2010, who 
undertook an effort to solve this problem using funding for the 
insertion of technologies developed by small businesses. 
Funding was made available to small business projects 
identified in program acquisition plans for high-risk/high-
reward component technology development for inclusion in the 
procurement process. The committee notes that there are other 
examples of funding that has allowed for expedited small 
business awards that met program of record interoperability and 
affordability goals. The committee notes the National Research 
Council's 2009 report, titled ``An Assessment of the SBIR 
Program at the Department of Defense,'' states that SBIR 
``Phase III transitions at PEO SUBS account for approximately 
86 percent of all Navy Phase III contracts, and Navy in turn 
accounts for 70 percent of all DOD Phase III contracts.'' The 
committee applauds the efforts of the Navy and encourages the 
acquisition community within the Department of Defense to 
expand its work on improving the transition of small business 
research and development ideas.
    The committee has included a provision, section 1054, in 
this title that would establish the Department of Defense Rapid 
Innovation Program. The committee has also included $500.0 
million in title XV of this Act to fund the program. In 
executing this program, the committee urges the Secretary of 
Defense, working through the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L), to:
          (1) Develop and implement a competitive program 
        designed to stimulate innovative technologies; reduce 
        lifecycle costs; address technical risks; improve the 
        timeliness and thoroughness of test and evaluation 
        outcomes; and rapidly insert such products into 
        military systems that meet critical national security 
        needs, such as, but not limited to: force protection, 
        sensors, complex data handling, advanced 
        communications, advanced materials, nano-manufacturing, 
        chemical/biological standoff detection, language 
        translation, and cyber security;
          (2) Develop and implement clear goals and metrics for 
        the program that would enhance the insertion or 
        commercialization success of those technologies 
        identified in paragraph (1);
          (3) Evaluate and prioritize projects based on the 
        following:
                  (a) Phase II Small Business Innovation 
                Research (SBIR) projects;
                  (b) Non-SBIR projects that support ACAT I-IA, 
                II, III and IV programs;
                  (c) Projects executed by the defense 
                laboratories and the test and evaluation 
                community;
                  (d) Projects cost-shared with state, local, 
                or other government funds; and
                  (e) Issue annual solicitations from the 
                military departments, the defense agencies, and 
                the U.S. Special Operations Command 
                applications for funding;
          (4) Fund projects proposed by the PEOs or Program 
        Managers that are determined most likely to be fielded 
        or commercialized within three years;
          (5) Ensure technology transition decisions are 
        localized as much as possible between the program 
        manager, the acquisition manager, and the user;
          (6) The amount for each project under this program 
        would nominally not exceed $3,000,000, but projects 
        with a cost greater than that would be evaluated on a 
        case-by-case basis approved by the USD AT&L and
          (7) Selected projects would be funded for no more 
        than two years, except on a case-by-case basis approved 
        by the USD AT&L.
    The committee further notes that section 1054 would 
explicitly provide that nothing in section 1054 shall be 
interpreted to require any official of the Department of 
Defense to provide funding to any earmark as defined pursuant 
to House Rule XXI, clause 9 or any congressionally directed 
spending item as defined pursuant to Senate Rule XLIV, 
paragraph 5. The committee notes that no bill or report 
language located anywhere else in this report or in this Act 
should be interpreted to require the use of funding from the 
Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program for any earmark 
as so defined.

   Feasibility Study for Transfer of Aircraft to Non-Federal Entities

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, with 
participation of the Defense Logistics Agency, the military 
departments and other relevant federal agencies (to include the 
General Services Administration, the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Department of Homeland Security), to 
study the feasibility and advisability of developing criteria 
for transferring aircraft from a military department to non-
federal entities for the purposes of restoring and flying the 
aircraft. The study should, at a minimum, consider the 
following criteria for allowing such transfers:
          (1) Public safety as well as the safety record of the 
        non-federal entities to which aircraft are proposed to 
        be transferred;
          (2) Prevention of the release of sensitive or 
        proprietary information or technology and other 
        security concerns;
          (3) Cost, including any potential costs, both one-
        time and recurring, to the military departments;
          (4) Requirements for demilitarization of aircraft 
        pursuant to section 2572 of title 10, United States 
        Code;
          (5) Statutory considerations and identification of 
        existing federal statutes prohibiting or otherwise 
        impeding a proposed transfer;
          (6) Liability concerns, and other legal matters 
        including restrictions against the sale or transfer of 
        the aircraft by recipient entities to any other entity;
          (7) Status and availability of aircraft for transfer 
        and of spare parts necessary to keep the transferred 
        aircraft airworthy and whether such parts are needed to 
        sustain any existing departmental assets;
          (8) The Department of Defense's goals for the long-
        term preservation of available aircraft, including 
        protection against vandalism, accidents, or complete 
        destruction of the aircraft through a crash or other 
        means;
          (9) Public access to aircraft proposed to be 
        transferred, including such access in museums, public 
        displays or air shows;
          (10) Criteria by which the military departments 
        should evaluate a request for transfer of aircraft;
          (11) The ability of the non-federal entity to which 
        an aircraft is proposed to be transferred to comply 
        with any standards set by the Secretary of Defense;
          (12) Reversionary rights to the aircraft for the 
        military department of origin should the recipient 
        entity file for bankruptcy, cease operations or fail to 
        comply with standards set by the Secretary of Defense; 
        and
          (13) Any other information the Secretary of Defense 
        deems relevant to determining the feasibility and 
        advisability of conducting such transfers.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report 
the findings of the study along with any recommendations the 
Secretary of Defense may have relating to establishing criteria 
for transferring aircraft to non-federal entities for the 
purposes of restoring and flying the aircraft to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by April 15, 2011.

              Impact Assessment of Cybersecurity Standards

    The committee is aware that there have been discussions 
within the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding instituting 
voluntary standards and guidelines that follow best practices 
within the Department of Defense in future DOD contracts where 
a contractor is responsible for maintaining minimum standards 
for safeguarding, proper handling, and cyber intrusion 
reporting of unclassified DOD information. The committee is 
interested in determining the cost and policy impacts of making 
these standards and guidelines that follow section 20 of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
278g-3) mandatory in contract language.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office to submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by February 1, 2011, that assesses the cost impacts to 
potential contractors and the Department of Defense of 
including these mandatory minimum standards in future 
contracts. This report shall also include an examination of the 
policy impact on the Department of Defense of including these 
requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulation system, as 
well as an analysis of how automated reporting might facilitate 
improved cyber intrusion reporting of unclassified DOD 
information between industry and the Department of Defense.

        Knowledge Management for Information Operations Programs

    In the conference report (H. Rept. 111-288) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 
the committee expressed concern with the Department of 
Defense's information operations (IO) and strategic 
communications programs, particularly with the budget 
transparency and financial accountability for these types of 
programs, as well as the enterprise-wide oversight and 
coordination mechanisms necessary to prevent waste, fraud and 
abuse.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense has 
made significant strides in its justification of the IO budget 
request, but the process to collect and analyze reporting data 
is time intensive. The committee encourages the Department of 
Defense to make the necessary investments to develop a 
knowledge management system to collect and disseminate 
information related to strategic communication, information 
operations, and related activities from all of the services, 
agencies, and combatant commands in a more effective manner. To 
the extent that it is possible, this system should be portal-
based and leverage business analytic tools.

                       Military Liaison Elements

    The committee is aware of an ongoing review of the Military 
Liaison Elements (MLE) program being conducted by the 
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The 
committee understands that this review is being conducted in 
conjunction with the geographic combatant commanders, on a 
country-by-country basis, and with the relevant country teams. 
The committee understands that the review is intended to 
outline program requirements as defined by the geographic 
combatant commanders and sourced by USSOCOM.
    The committee expects that this review will further define 
military liaison requirements, authorities, and 
responsibilities as they relate to defense activities within 
the MLE program purview. The committee looks forward to the 
results of the review and working with the Department, USSOCOM, 
and other germane congressional committees, as required, to 
ensure proper resourcing and program implementation.

          Rebalancing of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Force

    The committee recognizes the dedication and courageous 
professionalism of the Joint Service Explosive Ordnance 
Disposal (EOD) force, and acknowledges the bravery associated 
with defeating improvised explosive devices (IED), countering 
weapons of mass destruction, and eliminating explosive hazards 
from the battlefield. The committee further recognizes that EOD 
forces are indispensable combat enablers and contribute 
significantly to security, stability, counterinsurgency, and 
counterterrorism objectives.
    The committee also recognizes that the services have made 
extraordinary efforts to revitalize the EOD force in support of 
unprecedented operational requirements in the Republic of Iraq 
and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and that this highly 
specialized EOD force will remain an essential combat enabler 
for each service in the years to come.
    The committee, however, notes that recent growth in the EOD 
force has been funded primarily through Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO) requests and therefore may constitute a 
potentially unsustainable force structure. The committee is 
also aware that the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO) through OCO requests has procured 
substantial amounts of materiel, including up-armored vehicles, 
robotics, and electronic warfare equipment for the EOD force. 
The committee is therefore concerned about the long-term 
sustainment and maintenance of these systems as responsibility 
is transferred to the base budget for the EOD force within each 
individual service.
    The committee notes that the Department's response to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services report (S. Rept. 110-77) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 stated that authorized EOD force levels were 
inadequate and would remain inadequate to meet future 
asymmetric threats, even if the operational tempo in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
decreased. The committee also notes that because of 
overwhelming requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, EOD forces 
have been primarily focused on defeating improvised explosive 
devices and have had difficulty maintaining critical 
competencies in other advanced EOD skills, such as countering 
weapons of mass destruction, supporting domestic response 
forces, and underwater mine countermeasures. While improvements 
have been made, the committee remains concerned that the 
Services have not rebalanced the EOD force structure and 
maintained full-spectrum capabilities to ensure success in a 
wide range of contingencies as directed by the 2010 Quadrennial 
Defense Review.
    The committee encourages the Department to further define 
Joint Service EOD force structure requirements, correct 
identified inadequacies, rebalance force levels to meet future 
global requirements, and consider a consolidated budget 
justification display covering all programs and activities of 
the EOD force including procurement, operations and 
maintenance, and research, development, testing and evaluation.

    Report on Acquisition Strategy for Organizational Clothing and 
                          Individual Equipment

    The committee is aware that organizational clothing and 
individual equipment (OCIE) programs for the military services 
continue to be funded primarily through overseas contingency 
operation requests. The committee believes there should be 
better accountability and transparency in long-term planning, 
programming, and investment by the military services for the 
acquisition of OCIE. Further, a long-term investment strategy 
could better position the domestic OCIE industrial base to 
rapidly respond to new threats or requirements as well as 
accelerate industry investments that would further advancements 
in survivability and weight reduction for OCIE programs.
    The committee 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 that would include the 
following:
          (1) A plan to incorporate organizational clothing and 
        individual equipment (personnel protection equipment 
        and battle dress uniforms) into the President's annual 
        base budget request;
          (2) A survey and assessment of the capabilities, 
        capacities, risks, and long-term sustainment 
        requirements of the domestic industrial base of the 
        United States, including critical subcontractor 
        suppliers, in meeting the requirements of the military 
        departments for organizational clothing and individual 
        equipment requirements;
          (3) An assessment of organizational clothing and 
        individual equipment programs and related research, 
        development, and acquisition objectives, priorities, 
        and funding profiles for these programs;
          (4) An assessment of existing initiatives used by the 
        military departments to maintain the current level of 
        readiness, jointness, and management of programs for 
        the development, production, and fielding of 
        organizational clothing and individual equipment to 
        include the Cross-Service Warfighter Equipment Board, 
        the Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board, and 
        advance planning briefings for industry.

    Report on Department of Defense Support to State Defense Forces

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense submit a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Service not later than 120 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act that assesses Department of 
Defense support to State Defense Forces, as defined in section 
109(c) of title 32, United States Code. This report shall 
include an assessment of current Department support to State 
Defense Forces, current limitations on provision of support, 
and Defense Support to Civil Authorities activities that 
support state-level defense forces, first responders and 
Department of Homeland Security agencies.

  Study on the Feasibility of the Democratic Republic of Georgia as a 
                          Transportation Base

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
study of establishing in the democratic Republic of Georgia, at 
the invitation of the government of Georgia, a transportation 
base for supplying U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. 
The committee further directs that, not later than December 31, 
2010, the Secretary submit to the Committee on Armed Services 
in the House and the Committee on Armed Services in the Senate 
a report containing the results of that study.

                         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 
2011 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the 
total amount transferred under this authority to $3.5 billion. 
This section would also require prompt notification to Congress 
of each transfer made.

Section 1002--Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Operations 
          in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti for Fiscal Year 2010

    This section would increase the authorizations in title XV 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) to reflect fiscal year 2010 funding 
requests for operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
the Republic of Iraq, and the Republic of Haiti submitted by 
the Department of Defense after the passage of Public Law 111-
84. This section would increase the authorizations by the total 
amount of the President's request for each account in title XV.

              Section 1003--Budgetary Effects of this Act

    This section would specify that the budgetary effects of 
this Act for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
2010 (Public Law 111-139) will be determined by reference to a 
statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by 
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities


  Section 1011--Unified Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in 
                                Colombia

    This section would extend, by one year, the unified 
counter-drug and counterterrorism 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 1011 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84).

  Section 1012--Joint Task Forces Support to Law Enforcement Agencies 
                 Conducting Counterterrorism 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 1012 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

Section 1013--Reporting Requirement on Expenditures To Support Foreign 
                        Counter-Drug Activities

    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 1013 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84).

 Section 1014--Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain Foreign 
                              Governments

    This section would extend, by one year, the duration of 
authority for assistance under section 1033 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), as most recently amended by section 1014(a) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84).

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards


  Section 1021--Requirements for Long-Range Plan for Construction of 
                             Naval Vessels

    This section would amend section 231 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a 
long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels with each 
submission of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The long-
range plan would be required to have 3 distinct sections each 
spanning a period of 10 years. The first section would be a 
detailed construction plan for the first 10 years, the second a 
probable construction plan for the second 10 years, and the 
third a notional construction plan for the last 10 years. This 
section would require that during the intervening years between 
submissions of the QDR, the plan may not be modified unless the 
change is accompanied by an addendum to the QDR which explains 
and justifies the decrease with respect to the national 
security of the United States. This section would further 
require that the plan fully comply with section 5062(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, to maintain a minimum of 11 
operational aircraft carriers and to phase the construction of 
such carriers as to minimize the total cost of procurement.

  Section 1022--Requirements for the Decommissioning of Naval Vessels

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
notify the congressional defense committees of the Navy's 
intention to decommission any battle force vessel of the active 
fleet of the Navy in accordance with established procedures 
similar to those used for prior approval reprogramming 
requests. This section would require the notification from the 
Secretary to contain reasons for the retirement of the vessel, 
the operational impact on other ships of the same class, a 
certification from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
that the retirement would not adversely affect the requirements 
of the various combatant commanders to fulfill missions 
critical to national security, and a detailed budgetary 
analysis of retaining the vessel in commission.

 Section 1023--Requirements for the Size of the Navy Battle Force Fleet

    This section would limit the number of battle force vessels 
the Secretary of the Navy may decommission, in fiscal year 2011 
and subsequent fiscal years, to no more than two thirds the 
number of vessels scheduled for commissioning into the battle 
force fleet for the particular year. This limitation would 
apply until the total number of vessels in the battle force 
fleet reaches 313. Submarines would be excluded from any 
restriction concerning decommissioning.

      Section 1024--Retention and Status of Certain Naval Vessels

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
retain the vessels USS Nassau (LHA 4) and USS Peleliu (LHA 5) 
in a commissioned and operational status until delivery to the 
Navy of the vessels USS America (LHA 6) and the vessel 
designated LHA 7, respectively.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

    Section 1031--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 U.S. armed forces 
through fiscal year 2011.
    The authority to offer and make rewards by acting through 
government personnel of allied forces is currently in use in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

   Section 1032--Prohibition on the 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 
using funds available to the Department of Defense from October 
1, 2010, until December 31, 2011, to release any detainee at 
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the 
United States, its territories, or possessions. The section 
would also prohibit the use of funds available to the 
Department from October 1, 2010, until December 31, 2011, for 
the transfer of any such detainee into the United States, its 
territories, or possessions until 120 days after the President 
submits to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive 
plan for the disposition of any such detainee that includes at 
a minimum:
          (1) A proposal for the disposition of the individual;
          (2) An assessment of the risks posed to U.S. national 
        security by the individual;
          (3) The proposed measures that would be taken for 
        mitigating those risks;
          (4) The proposed location or locations at which the 
        individual would be held;
          (5) The costs associated with executing the plan, 
        including any necessary technical or financial 
        assistance that would be provided to state and local 
        law enforcement agencies;
          (6) A summary of the results of required consultation 
        with the chief executive of the state, District of 
        Columbia, territory, or possession to which the 
        individual would be transferred; and
          (7) A certification by the Attorney General that 
        under the plan the individual poses little or no 
        security risk to the United States, its territories, or 
        possessions.

 Section 1033--Certification Requirements Relating to the Transfer of 
 Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
         Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using any of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for the 
transfer of any detainee at United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the custody or effective control of a 
foreign country or any other foreign entity. This prohibition 
would apply unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
Congress, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and at 
least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual, 
that the government of the country or the recognized leadership 
of the entity to which the individual would be transferred:
          (1) Is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or 
        a designated foreign terrorist organization;
          (2) Maintains effective control of any detention 
        facility within which the individual may be held;
          (3) Is not threatened in a manner that could 
        substantially affect its ability to exercise control 
        over the individual;
          (4) Has agreed to take effective steps to ensure that 
        the individual cannot take action to threaten the 
        United States, its citizens, or its allies in the 
        future;
          (5) Has taken such steps that the Secretary of 
        Defense determines necessary for ensuring that the 
        individual cannot engage or re-engage in any terrorist 
        activity; and
          (6) Has agreed to share any information with the 
        United States that is related to the individual or his 
        or her associates that could affect the security of the 
        United States, its citizens, or its allies.
    This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense 
from using any funds for the transfer of any such detainee to 
the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any 
other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any 
individual transferred from United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same country or entity who engaged 
in terrorist activity subsequent to their transfer. The 
Secretary of Defense would be authorized to waive this 
additional prohibition if the Secretary of Defense certifies 
that such a transfer would be in the national interest of the 
United States.

 Section 1034--Prohibition on the Use of Funds To Modify or Construct 
  Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred From 
           United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using any of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act to modify or construct any facility in the United States, 
its territories, or possessions to house any detainee 
transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the 
custody or under the effective control of the Department of 
Defense. This prohibition would not apply to the modification 
of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba. This section would also require the Secretary to submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report on the merits, 
costs, and risks of using any facility in the United States, 
its territories, or possessions to house any such detainee for 
the purposes of detention or imprisonment. The report would 
include each of the following elements:
          (1) A discussion of the merits associated with any 
        proposed facility that would justify using that 
        facility instead of the facility at United States Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as that 
        facility's contribution to effecting a comprehensive 
        policy for continuing military detention operations;
          (2) The rationale for selecting the specific site for 
        any proposed facility, including the details of the 
        selection processes and criteria used;
          (3) A discussion of the potential risks to any 
        community in the vicinity of the proposed facility, the 
        measures that could be taken to mitigate those risks, 
        and the likely costs of implementing those measures;
          (4) A discussion of any necessary modifications to 
        any proposed facility for ensuring that transferred 
        detainees may not establish contact with any 
        individual, including contact with any other person 
        detained at the facility, that is not approved by the 
        Department of Defense, together with the likely cost of 
        making those modifications;
          (5) A discussion of any support to the proposed 
        facility site that would likely be provided by the 
        Department of Defense, which identifies the types of 
        support, the number of required support personnel for 
        each type, and the estimated cost of support;
          (6) A discussion of any off-site support that would 
        likely be provided by the Department of Defense for 
        operating the proposed facility, which identifies the 
        types of possible support, the number of required 
        support personnel for each type, and the estimated cost 
        of support; and
          (7) A discussion of the legal issues that could be 
        raised as a result of detaining or imprisoning any 
        individual at the proposed facility that could not be 
        raised as a result of detaining individuals at United 
        States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Section 1035--Comprehensive Review of Force Protection Policies

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a comprehensive review of Department of Defense 
policies, regulations, instructions, and directives pertaining 
to force protection within the Department, including 
requirements levied from outside entities, such as the E-verify 
rule and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12. This 
section would require that the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit a report on this review to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by June 1, 
2011.

      Section 1036--Fort Hood Follow-On Review Implementation Fund

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
deposit up to $100.0 million of fiscal year 2011 operation and 
maintenance funds into a fund to begin to address the 
recommendations of the Fort Hood Follow-on Review. Funds in the 
Fort Hood Follow-on Review Implementation Fund could be 
transferred in: military personnel; operation and maintenance; 
procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; 
defense health program; or defense working capital funds to 
address the recommendations of the review. This section would 
provide the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer 
unused funds transferred from the Fort Hood Follow-on Review 
Implementation Fund back to the fund. This section also would 
require that the Secretary of Defense notify the congressional 
defense committees in advance and in writing of any proposed 
obligations under the fund. Finally, this section would require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a quarterly report of 
commitments, obligations, and expenditures of the fund.

   Section 1037--Inspector General Investigation of the Conduct and 
    Practices of Lawyers Representing Individuals Detained at Naval 
                     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would require the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense to investigate certain lawyers who 
represent individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, regarding certain conduct and practices. 
This section would require the Inspector General to initiate 
the investigation 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, unless the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General: 
(1) determine that the Inspector General's investigation cannot 
be performed without interfering with, or otherwise 
compromising, any related criminal investigation, prosecution, 
or other legal proceeding; and (2) submit such determination to 
Congress. This section would also require the Inspector General 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services a report describing the 
results of the investigation within 90 days of its completion.

                    Subtitle E--Studies and Reports


  Section 1041--Department of Defense Aerospace-Related Mishap Safety 
                         Investigation Reports

    This section would require the secretary of a military 
department to provide, upon written request to the secretary 
concerned from any of the congressional defense committees, a 
briefing on the privileged report's findings, causal factors 
and recommendations contained in a Department of Defense 
aerospace-related accident investigation report.

    Section 1042--Interagency National Security Knowledge and Skills

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
commission an appropriate, independent non-profit organization 
to study and assess the current state of interagency national 
security knowledge and skills possessed by Department of 
Defense civilians and uniformed personnel. This section would 
also require the organization to make recommendations for 
strengthening such knowledge and skills and require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report containing the findings 
and recommendations of the study to the congressional defense 
committees by December 1, 2011.
    The committee believes that the ability of national 
security professionals to work effectively across department 
and agency boundaries is critical to national security. The 
committee encourages the Department and all agencies with 
national security responsibilities to pursue efforts to 
strengthen the interagency national security knowledge and 
skills of their personnel. The committee expects this report to 
provide the Department and Congress a thorough baseline 
assessment and concrete, actionable recommendations that can be 
pursued in the near-term future.

    Section 1043--Report on Establishing a Northeast Joint Training 
                            Regional Center

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
analyze and report back to the congressional defense committees 
on the need for a joint regional training center capability in 
the northeastern United States.

   Section 1044--Comptroller General Report on Previously Requested 
                                Reports

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
submit a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives, not later than March 1, 2011, that would 
evaluate the sufficiency, adequacy, and conclusions of the 
following three reports: the report on Air Force fighter force 
shortfalls required by the report of the House of 
Representatives which accompanied the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), the report on procurement of 4.5 generation fighters as 
required by section 131 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2218), and the report on combat 
air forces restructuring as required by the report of the House 
of Representatives numbered 111-288) which accompanied the 
conference report for the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 
111-84). The Comptroller General's report would examine the 
potential costs and benefits of the service life extension 
program costs to sustain the legacy fleet to meet inventory 
requirements, the falcon structural augmentation roadmap of F-
16s, and any additional programs designed to extend the service 
life of legacy fighter aircraft. Additionally, this section 
would prohibit retirement of fighter aircraft from the Air 
Force or the Air National Guard inventory in 2011 until 180 
days after receipt of the Comptroller General's report.

                 Section 1045--Report on Nuclear Triad

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
modernization and sustainment of the nuclear triad over the 
next 20 years no later than March 1, 2011.

              Section 1046--Cybersecurity Study and Report

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study of the use of modeling and simulation tools to 
identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and to develop 
strategies to deter malicious activity intended to compromise 
Department of Defense information systems. This section would 
require that the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on 
this study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2012.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


                  Section 1051--National Defense Panel

    This section would amend section 118 of title 10, United 
States Code by replacing the Independent Review Panel appointed 
by the Secretary of Defense with a National Defense Panel. The 
chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services will each 
appoint two members, and the Secretary of Defense shall appoint 
two panel co-chairs. This section would require the panel to 
submit to the Secretary of Defense a report that sets the 
parameters and provides guidance to the Secretary on the 
conduct of the review. This section would also require the 
panel to review 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 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and conduct an assessment of 
the assumptions, strategy, findings, and risks of the report of 
the QDR. It would also require the Panel to issue a report to 
Congress on the assessment of its reviews not later than three 
months after the publication of a report of a QDR.

                Section 1052--Quadrennial Defense Review

    This section would amend paragraph (4) of section 118b of 
title 10, United States Code to require that the 
recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) not be 
influenced, constrained or informed by the budget submitted to 
Congress by the President. It would also include a sense of 
Congress that the QDR is a strategic document that should be 
based upon a process unconstrained by budgetary influences.

  Section 1053--Sale of Surplus Military Equipment to State and Local 
          Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agencies

    This section would amend section 2576 of title 10, United 
States Code, by expanding the state and local agencies to which 
the Secretary of Defense may sell surplus military equipment to 
include homeland security and emergency management agencies. 
This section would also expand the types of equipment that may 
be sold to include personal protective equipment and other 
appropriate equipment.

      Section 1054--Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a program for the purpose of accelerating and 
supporting defense technology transition to the warfighter or 
commercial markets and would require the Secretary, within 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, to establish 
guidelines for the operation of the program. Under this 
section, the Secretary would be required, annually, to solicit 
from the military departments, the defense agencies, and the 
Special Operations Command applications for funding, under the 
program, to accelerate certain technology projects from the 
prototype stage to the field or marketplace. The guidance 
issued by the Secretary would include priorities for certain 
types of defense research and criteria for evaluating 
applications. Nothing in this section would require any 
official of the Department of Defense to provide funding under 
this section to any earmark as defined pursuant to House Rule 
XXI, clause 9 or any congressionally directed spending item as 
defined pursuant to Senate Rule XLIV, paragraph 5. Funding 
authorized for the program would be from amounts authorized to 
be appropriated within research, development, test, and 
evaluation defense-wide accounts and would not exceed $500.0 
million for any fiscal year under the program.
    This section would allow the Secretary to transfer funds 
available for the program to the research, development, test 
and evaluation accounts of a military department, defense 
agency, or the unified combatant command for special operations 
forces. The Secretary may delegate the management and operation 
of the program. This section would require the Secretary to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report, not 
later than 60 days after the last day of a fiscal year during 
which the Secretary carries out the program, describing the 
operation of the program during such fiscal year.
    The authority to carry out a program under this section 
would terminate on September 30, 2015.

            Section 1055--Technical and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make a number of technical and clerical 
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.

Section 1056--Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force Structure 
                      Announcement Implementation

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of fiscal year 2011 funds for the purpose of implementing the 
Air Force fiscal year 2011 Force Structure Announcement until 
45 days after the Secretary of the Air Force provides the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services a detailed report on the follow-on missions for 
bases affected by the 2010 Combat Air Forces restructure and 
certifies that the Air Sovereignty Alert mission will be fully 
resourced with required funding, personnel, and aircraft.

   Section 1057--Budgeting for the Sustainment and Modernization of 
                        Nuclear Delivery Systems

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that a separate budget is included with respect to 
programs and platforms regarding the sustainment and 
modernization of nuclear delivery systems of the United States 
in the yearly budget submission, consistent with the plan 
contained in the report submitted to Congress under Section 
1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84).

          Section 1058--Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions

    This section contains various findings concerning 
reductions in the nuclear forces of the United States.
    It also contains a sense of Congress provision stating that 
any reduction in the nuclear forces of the United States should 
be supported by a thorough assessment of the strategic 
environment, threat, and policy, and the technical and 
operational implications of such reductions, and that specific 
criteria are necessary to guide future decisions regarding 
further reductions in such nuclear forces.
    This section would also limit implementation of a reduction 
in United States nuclear forces below the levels contained in 
the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by the United 
States and the Russian Federation on April 8, 2010, until 180 
days after the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator for 
Nuclear Security jointly submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees that includes:
          (1) The justification for such reduction;
          (2) An assessment of the strategic environment, 
        threat, and policy and the technical and operational 
        implications of such reduction;
          (3) A written certification by the Secretary of 
        Defense that: (1) either the strategic environment or 
        the assessment of the threat has changed to allow for 
        such reduction or technical measures to provide a 
        commensurate or better level of safety, security, and 
        reliability as before such reductions are implemented 
        for the remaining nuclear forces; (2) such reduction 
        preserves the nuclear deterrent capabilities of the 
        ``nuclear triad''; (3) such reduction does not require 
        a change in targeting strategy from counterforce 
        targeting to counter-value targeting; (4) the remaining 
        nuclear forces provide a sufficient means of protection 
        against unforeseen technical challenges and 
        geopolitical events; and (5) such reduction is 
        compensated by other measures that provide a 
        commensurate or better deterrence capability and level 
        of credibility; and
          (4) A written certification by the Administrator for 
        Nuclear Security that: (1) technical measures provide a 
        commensurate or better level of safety, security, and 
        reliability as before such reductions are implemented; 
        (2) the remaining nuclear forces provide a sufficient 
        means of protection against unforeseen technical 
        challenges and geopolitical events; (3) measures to 
        modernize the nuclear weapons complex have been 
        implemented to provide a sufficiently responsive 
        infrastructure to support the remaining nuclear forces.
    The nuclear forces covered by this section would include 
both active and inactive nuclear warheads in the nuclear 
weapons stockpile, and deployed and non-deployed delivery 
vehicles.

   Section 1059--Sense of the Congress on the Nuclear Posture Review

    This section would make it the sense of Congress that the 
Nuclear Posture Review, released in April 2010 by the Secretary 
of Defense, weakens the national security of the United States 
by eliminating options to defend against a catastrophic 
nuclear, biological, chemical, or conventional attack against 
the United States.

  Section 1060--Strategic Assessment of Strategic Challenges Posed by 
                         Potential Competitors

    The committee notes that it received testimony from the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Independent Panel that, 
although useful, the QDR needs to be a long-term, twenty year 
study that addresses the issues that are of concern to 
Congress. The committee also received testimony that the 2010 
QDR was a budget constrained exercise, which was fiscally 
responsible but may have limited more ambitious questioning of 
assumptions and creative thinking because basic budget and end-
strength assumptions were not challenged.
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders 
of the regional combatant commands, to submit a strategic 
assessment to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 
2011, on the current and future strategic challenges posed to 
the United States by potential competitors out to 2021.

   Section 1061--Electronic Access to Certain Classified Information

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide to each committee of Congress an electronic 
communications link capable of supporting appropriate 
classified communications between the Department of Defense and 
each committee of Congress. Specifically, the committee expects 
that the Department will arrange for the committee to be 
connected to the SIPRNet through CAPNET.

       Section 1062--Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism

    This section would express the Sense of Congress that the 
claims of American victims of torture and hostage taking by the 
Government of Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein should 
be resolved by a prompt and fair settlement negotiated between 
the Government of Iraq and the Government of the United States.

Section 1063--Policy Regarding Appropriate Use of Department of Defense 
                               Resources

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by 
adding a new section 113b to ensure that all resources of the 
Department of Defense are used only for activities that:
          (1) Fulfill a legitimate government purpose;
          (2) Comply with all applicable laws, regulations and 
        policies of the Department; and
          (3) Contribute to the mission of the Department.
    This section would also separately establish a prohibition 
on the use of any Department of Defense funds for activity that 
does not comply with the policy established in section 113b, as 
added by this section, and would prohibit the payment of salary 
to any employee who engages in an intentional violation of such 
policy.

       Section 1064--Executive Agent for Preventing Counterfeit 
             Microelectronics Into the Defense Supply Chain

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense 
designate a senior official of the Department of Defense to 
serve as an executive agent for preventing the introduction of 
counterfeit microelectronics into the defense supply chain. 
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the congressional defense committees with a description 
of the roles, responsibilities and authorities for the 
executive agent, as well as a strategy and implementation plan 
to identify, mitigate, prevent and eliminate counterfeit 
microelectronics within the defense supply chain.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Civilian Personnel Authorizations

    The committee notes that chapter 129 of title 10, United 
States Code, requires each Department of Defense component to 
manage its civilian workforce based on workload and available 
funding, and not on end strength, full time equivalents, or any 
other numerical limits unless otherwise established by law. 
Each Department of Defense component currently is required to 
provide to the congressional defense committees an annual 
certification in February that its civilian workforce is 
managed in this manner.
    The committee is aware that it is the Department's policy 
to lock the personnel authorization levels until the next 
budget cycle, notwithstanding changes in workload that may 
occur. This has led the Department to meet the workload changes 
either with ``overhires'' or through hiring contractors. 
However, the committee is concerned that this emphasis on 
authorizations is being enforced at the expense of workload-
based analysis and presents challenges for the Department to 
efficiently manage and grow its workforce at a time when it is 
attempting to reduce its reliance on contractors and to right 
size its workforce.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, as 
supported by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to 
re-examine this policy and to submit any recommended statutory 
revisions at the time of the President's budget submission for 
fiscal year 2012.

   Conversion of Department of Defense Civilian Positions to General 
                                Schedule

    Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) repealed the Department of 
Defense (DOD) National Security Personnel System (NSPS). All 
DOD civilian employees covered by NSPS are to be converted back 
to the General Schedule (GS) system by January 1, 2012. The 
committee is aware that the Department has stood up a 
transition office and is aggressively moving forward with the 
conversion. While the committee applauds this action, it is 
concerned that many potential issues arising from a rapid 
conversion may not be addressed, such as personnel being placed 
in a retained pay status. The committee recognizes that this 
may be inevitable. However, the committee expects the 
Department's transition office to move expeditiously in 
reviewing all classifications and adjust the descriptions where 
appropriate to address those circumstances. The committee 
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness to brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the 
House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by November 15, 
2010, on the Department's plans for a nation-wide adjustment to 
be paid out in January 2011, along with any other salary 
increases, including for individuals in a pay retention status.
    The committee further notes that the Department was 
provided with performance management and hiring flexibilities 
which would apply across the DOD civilian workforce within the 
context of the GS system and consistent with collective 
bargaining principles. The committee believes that many of the 
problems encountered under the GS system that were related to 
position classifications, hiring or performance appraisals, and 
rewarding performance are regulatory barriers that have been 
imposed either by the Office of Personnel Management or 
internally by the Department. The committee commends the work 
to date of the transition office in beginning to tackle these 
issues. The committee expects the Department to exercise fully 
the authorities provided under section 1113 of Public Law 111-
84 and to continue to work with its civilian workforce, the 
federal employee labor unions, and Congress to establish a fair 
and transparent personnel system within the GS system. By 
utilizing these authorities, the committee believes that the 
Department's initiatives could serve as a model for personnel 
reform, under GS, for the entire federal workforce.

                           Deployed Civilians

    The committee continues to address issues related to the 
benefits provided to federal civilian employees who are 
assigned, on a voluntary basis, to work in a combat zone. In 
this title, provisions are included to address post-combat care 
coordinators to assist civilians who have been injured while 
serving in a combat zone as well as the extension of premium 
pay. However, the committee had been anticipating that the 
Office of Personnel Management, in coordination with the 
Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of 
Labor, would be proposing a broader package of pay, leave, 
workman's compensation and health benefits and incentives for 
all federal agencies that send personnel to hazardous duty 
areas; this is particularly important for those federal 
agencies that have not have had as much experience, as have the 
Department of Defense or Department of State, in sending their 
personnel into combat zones. The committee is disappointed that 
no such proposal has yet been received, despite the fact that 
federal civilians increasingly are playing a key support role 
in the current operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and will continue to do so in 
future operations.

     Retirement Eligibility for Department of Defense Fire Fighters

    The committee is aware that changes made by the Office of 
Personnel Management to the classification series for federal 
fire fighters potentially has impacted the ability of some 
individuals to retire pursuant to section 8412 of title 5, 
United States Code. The impact has been exacerbated because 
many Department of Defense components updated personnel records 
for these individuals to reflect the changes without taking 
into consideration the special retirement provisions of section 
8412. The committee understands that now each retirement 
package for the affected personnel must be reviewed and 
approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness. This process can cause unnecessary delays in the 
retirement plans for the affected individuals.
    The committee, therefore, directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to review and adjudicate 
these cases in a more expeditious manner that fully takes into 
consideration the desire of the affected individuals to move on 
to the next phase of their lives. The committee further directs 
the Under Secretary to provide written notice of compliance to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on 
Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform by November 1, 2010. The notification of 
compliance also should include the numbers of affected 
personnel, including the status of each individual's re-
adjudicated annuity, and whether any future statutory changes 
are necessary to prevent a recurrence of the problem. If the 
Under Secretary determines a statutory change is required, the 
committee directs the Under Secretary to submit a proposal with 
the notification of compliance letter to the aforementioned 
committees.

   Scholarship Program for Civilians in the Mental Health Profession

    Section 1117 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a report to Congress on the feasibility of 
establishing a scholarship program for civilians in the mental 
health profession. The Department of Defense issued the 
``Report on Civilian Health Professions Scholarship Program for 
Mental Health Providers,'' in June 2009. The report notes that 
the supply of available personnel may not meet the increasing 
demand for civilian mental health care practitioners, and 
recommends that a pilot scholarship program be established to 
determine whether the cost of such an effort is worth the 
number of practitioners it might generate. The committee agrees 
with the report's assessment that with the increasing numbers 
of cases of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress 
disorder, there is a need to recruit and develop individuals 
with the skills to handle such injuries. However, the committee 
is disappointed that the Department has not yet submitted a 
recommendation for a pilot scholarship program for civilians 
interested specifically in the mental health profession. The 
committee believes that such a program may have value and 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider developing a 
mental health scholarship pilot program for civilians.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


  Section 1101--Authority for the Department of Defense To Approve an 
Alternate Method of Processing Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints 
      Within One or More Component Organizations Under Specified 
                             Circumstances

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish, within one or more of the component organizations of 
the Department of Defense, an alternate program for processing 
equal employment opportunity complaints. The alternate program 
would include procedures to reduce processing time and 
eliminate redundancy, reinforce local management and chain-of-
command responsibility, and provide the parties involved with 
early opportunities for resolution of complaints. Participation 
in the program is voluntary on the part of the complainant. The 
Secretary shall consult with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission in developing the alternate program. Such a program 
would expire five years after the date of enactment of this Act 
unless the Secretary submits a request to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services for 
an extension within 180 days of expiration of the program.
    This section is based on section 1111 of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398) which authorized the Department to 
implement three pilot programs to streamline the processing of 
equal employment opportunity complaints. The programs were 
authorized for a three-year period, which expired on October 1, 
2007. The law required the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to study and report to Congress on the results of the 
pilot program during, and at the conclusion of, the program. 
Recommendations made by GAO are incorporated into this section, 
including a requirement for an assessment of the program in 
meeting program objectives. In addition, this section would 
require GAO to provide two reports to Congress on the results 
of the alternate program, beginning two years after date of 
enactment of this Act.

 Section 1102--Clarification of Authorities at Personnel Demonstration 
                              Laboratories

    This section would make technical corrections to section 
1105 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84) related to the Department of Defense 
science and technology reinvention-laboratories to conform with 
the legislative intent to provide direct-hire authority for 
such laboratories. This section also would amend the authority 
provided in section 1108 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to 
hire scientists and engineers, designated as shortage 
categories, by increasing the limitation on positions from 2 
percent to 4 percent of the total number of positions within 
one laboratory. This section also would make technical and 
conforming amendments to section 1108 of Public Law 110-417.

      Section 1103--Special Rule Relating to Certain Overtime Pay

    This section would amend section 5542 of title 5, United 
States Code, to allow certain executive branch employees 
working aboard, or in support of, the forward-deployed carrier 
USS George Washington (CVN 73) to earn overtime at the rate of 
one and one-half times their hourly rate while the carrier is 
forward-deployed in Japan.
    Currently, employees serving in a foreign area, such as 
Japan, are not covered by the mandatory requirement of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 213(f)) to pay not less than 
time-and-a-half for overtime work. The current lower overtime 
rate for work performed overseas has the potential to 
negatively impact work being done on, or in support of, the 
current forward deployment of the USS George Washington to 
Yokosuka, Japan. The committee notes that the USS George 
Washington is the first forward-deployed nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier homeported in a foreign country. These 
employees will play a critical, ongoing role in maintaining the 
readiness and mission capabilities of the nation's forward-
deployed ships.
    This section also would require the Secretary of the Navy 
to provide a report to the Secretary of Defense and the 
Director of the Office of Personnel Management on the use of 
this authority, including any associated costs, within one year 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

     Section 1104--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 U.S. Central 
Command, an overseas location that falls under the 
responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military 
operation, or in 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 1105--Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations

    This section would amend section 9903 of title 5, United 
States Code, which provides for the authority to hire highly 
qualified experts (HQE) and prescribes appropriate pay rates. 
This section would clarify the intent of that statute to allow 
such individuals who are serving in a contingency operation 
area, as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States 
Code, to receive similar benefits and compensation as other 
federal civilian employees serving in those areas currently 
receive. This includes premium pay or danger pay allowances, 
compensatory time off, and other appropriate compensation or 
allowances authorized under chapter 59 of title 5, United 
States Code.
    The committee is aware that highly qualified experts 
currently serving in areas of contingency operations have been 
denied any type of hazardous duty compensation because the 
Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management 
have interpreted such compensation as an incentive, which is 
explicitly prohibited under section 9903 of title 5, United 
States Code. While the committee does not agree with the 
interpretation that such hazardous duty compensation is an 
incentive, this section would remove any possible ambiguity. 
Furthermore, the committee encourages the Department to take 
immediate action to remedy the compensation inequities 
experienced by HQE currently working in the Republic of Iraq 
and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

        Section 1106--Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators

    This section would require that each federal agency that 
sends civilian employees on hazardous duty assignments in 
support of U.S. military operations in a contingency operation 
to assign post-combat case coordinators to employees who 
sustain a traumatic injury, or experience a serious disease or 
illness during performance of their duty in the contingency 
operation. The committee notes that federal civilian employees 
increasingly are providing important support in contingency 
operations and many are experiencing serious medical problems 
upon returning to their regular assignment.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
already assigns caseworkers to its civilian expeditionary 
workforce. The responsibility of these caseworkers is to guide 
and direct all deployed civilians to available resources, 
provide intervention in problem claims, and work with the 
service component's Injury Compensation Program Administrators 
to help injured employees navigate the Office of Worker's 
Compensation Program claims process. However, the committee is 
concerned that no similar support yet exists for civilians 
deployed from other federal agencies who need assistance 
coordinating benefits between the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program and the Federal Employees Compensation Act 
(Public Law 89-554).

    Section 1107--Authority To Waive Maximum Age Limit for Certain 
                              Appointments

    This section would amend section 3307 of title 5, United 
States Code, to allow the Department of Defense to waive the 
hiring and retirement age limits for federal law enforcement 
and fire fighter positions in certain circumstances. While the 
committee supports the Department's plan to scale back 
significantly the use of contractors in support services, it is 
concerned that there may be unintended consequences when 
converting law enforcement and fire fighting functions to 
federal government positions. Even if the contractor employees 
currently performing these functions would like to transition 
into positions with the federal government, many may not be 
able to compete for such positions because of existing age 
limits. This section would help to rectify that situation by 
explicitly allowing the waiver of the hiring age limits for law 
enforcement and fire fighter personnel in these circumstances. 
The committee expects that any Department of Defense 
established physical or medical standards for these positions 
still would apply.

Section 1108--Sense of Congress Regarding Waiver of Recovery of Certain 
 Payments Made Under Civilian Employees Voluntary Separation Incentive 
                                Program

    This section would express the Sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should waive repayment of the voluntary 
separation incentive pay (VSIP) for employees who accepted a 
reassignment with the Department of Defense during the period 
of April 1, 2004 to May 1, 2008 and had received written 
assurance that repayment would not be required or would be 
waived. The committee notes that the individuals who were 
rehired were assured that they would not be required to repay 
their separation pay based on an Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) national emergency guidance issued following September 1, 
2001. However, due to an oversight, the committee understands 
that it was subsequently determined the guidance did not apply 
to employees covered under section 9902, title 5, United States 
Code, which effectively superseded the OPM guidance. The 
committee understands that approximately 40 individuals were 
affected by this determination and that the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service now is seeking VSIP repayment from these 
individuals. While the Department no longer waives VSIP 
repayment for individuals who have been rehired since May 1, 
2008, the committee believes those individuals who returned to 
the Department immediately following the declaration of a 
national emergency, and who received written assurances that 
repayment would not be required, deserve to retain, or be 
repaid, their voluntary separation incentive pay. The committee 
further notes that paragraphs (f)(6)(A) and (f)(6)(B) already 
authorize a waiver of VSIP repayment and urges the Secretary to 
utilize this authority for the individuals covered by this 
section.

  Section 1109--Suspension of DCIPS Pay Authority Extended for a Year

    Section 1114 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) suspended implementation 
of the Defense Civilian Personnel System until December 31, 
2010. This section would extend the suspension for an 
additional year, through December 31, 2011.

             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee focused on three broad areas in this title. 
First, the committee acted to ensure that both the necessary 
resources and the proper degree of oversight were brought to 
bear on the war against al Qa'ida and other militant extremists 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan. Second, the committee continued its oversight of 
the redeployment of United States military forces from, and the 
transition of the U.S. military role in, the Republic of Iraq. 
Third, the committee continued its past pattern of working to 
enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to build the 
capacity of nations that have chosen to partner with the United 
States in combating militant extremism.
    On December 1, 2009, the President announced that he was 
deploying an additional 30,000 United States troops to 
Afghanistan on top of troop increases that were announced in 
March of 2009. When these troops are fully deployed, sometime 
in the fall of 2010, there will be about 98,000 U.S. troops in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, more than a three-fold 
increase in the troop level of two years ago and almost four 
times the level from the end of 2007. The committee applauds 
this renewed focus on Afghanistan and has acted in this title 
and other titles to ensure that those troops have the resources 
they need. The committee has included a provision that would 
authorize funding for the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program (CERP) and additionally has included a provision that 
would authorize a program to fund reintegration efforts for 
low-level Taliban fighters who wish to end their involvement in 
the insurgency. Further, the committee has included a provision 
that would improve reporting on the war in Afghanistan to 
ensure that proper oversight of United States efforts there is 
maintained.
    The committee has also worked hard to ensure that the new 
focus on engagement with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is 
properly supported. Over the past year, the government and 
military of Pakistan have taken aggressive action to combat 
violent extremists in their country and additionally captured 
important leaders in the Afghan Taliban. Such actions are vital 
to the successful completion of the United States mission in 
Afghanistan and the ongoing fight to eliminate al Qa'ida. The 
committee has acted to enhance the cooperative relationship 
with Pakistan and ensure that bureaucratic issues do not 
interfere with the relationship. The committee has included a 
provision that would extend the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund 
by year and a provision that would further extend Coalition 
Support Funds authority to include operations involving al 
Qa'ida, the Taliban, and other military extremists in Pakistan.
    The committee has acted to continue oversight of the 
redeployment of United States troops out of the Republic of 
Iraq and the transition of their mission in that country. The 
United States' long military involvement in that country is 
coming to a close, and the combat mission will be transitioning 
on September 1, 2010, to a mission to provide advice and 
assistance to Iraqi security forces until December 31, 2011, at 
which point all U.S. forces will be removed from Iraq. The 
committee has acted to ensure that the reduced, but still 
significant, number of troops in Iraq have the resources they 
need. The committee has included legislative provisions that 
would provide $100.0 million for CERP for Iraq and $2.0 billion 
for the Iraq Security Forces Fund in title XV. The committee 
has also acted to enhance oversight of the remaining mission in 
Iraq, eliminating unnecessary reports and refocusing the 
requirements of those that remain.
    Finally, the committee has again acted aggressively to 
enhance the capacity of nations that choose to partner with the 
United States to combat al Qa'ida. Such partnership was a key 
tenet of the recently-released Quadrennial Defense Review, and 
the committee believes that building the capacity of partners 
is vital to bring about the eventual end of al Qa'ida and their 
extremist allies. Such programs have already shown some 
promise, particularly in the Republic of Yemen, which has taken 
effective action to attack the extremist group al Qa'ida in the 
Arabian Peninsula. Thus, the committee has included a provision 
in this title that would increase the authorization for the 
1206 program to $500.0 million, an increase of $150.0 million, 
including an authorization of $75.0 million in that program 
specifically for a program to train and equip security forces 
in Yemen. As already noted, the committee has acted to enhance 
the counterterrorism capabilities of Pakistan. And the 
committee has included a provision that would increase the 
authorization for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Special Operations Coordination Center by $20.0 million. The 
committee believes that these actions will further enhance the 
United States' capability to combat al Qa'ida, prosecute the 
war in Afghanistan, bring to a close the war in Iraq, and build 
the capacity of those nations that share the desire to end the 
threat of militant extremism.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


         Air Force Requirements for Light Air Support Aircraft

    The committee fully supports the Air Force's Light Air 
Support (LAS) aircraft concept to equip the Afghan National 
Army Air Corps (ANAAC) and other emerging partners but is 
concerned that the pre-solicitation notice for the LAS aircraft 
includes non-essential technical requirements that increase 
cost, inhibit competition, and impose avoidable long-term 
logistical and maintenance challenges on the recipient air 
corps. As with any procurement, the committee believes that 
requirements should focus on demonstrated survivability and 
mission performance, while reducing cost and follow-on 
maintenance and logistics requirements. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to review the 
requirements for the LAS and ensure that any invitation for 
bids or request for proposals clearly articulate the ANAAC 
capability and performance requirements and not overly 
prescriptive or non-essential requirements. The Secretary shall 
inform the congressional defense committees of the results of 
his review and a justification of requirements for the LAS at 
least 30 days prior to issuance of a final request for 
proposal.

Annual Report on Security Developments Involving the People's Republic 
                                of China

    Section 1246 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) expanded the scope of the 
Annual Department of Defense Report on the Military Power of 
the People's Republic of China to include information on 
developments regarding U.S. engagement and cooperation with 
China on security matters, including through military-to-
military contacts, and the U.S. strategy for such engagement 
and cooperation in the future. The report was due on March 1, 
2010. The committee is disappointed that the report has not 
been delivered, as the information provided by the 
Administration in this report will inform the committee's 
assessments on a range of critical matters involving China. The 
committee requests that the Department of Defense submit the 
report to the committee at the earliest possible date, and in 
the interim, provide the committee with complete and timely 
information on all significant security developments involving 
China.

             Concerns Regarding Iraqi Contractor Employees

    The committee is concerned that as United States forces in 
the Republic of Iraq begin to redeploy out of Iraq, Iraqi 
citizens who were employed by United States contractors in Iraq 
to support U.S. efforts in that country could face potential 
retribution for their service. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to look into the status of these former 
contract employees and provide a briefing to the House 
Committee on Armed Services on his findings.

                  Countering Narcotics in Afghanistan

    Although there has been a slight decrease in opium 
cultivation over the last two years, the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan produces more opium than any other country in the 
world. The committee notes that the preponderance of Afghan 
opium cultivation remains in southern Afghanistan and that 
there is a strong correlation between the insurgency and 
narcotics cultivation and trade.
    The committee is concerned that funding gained from the 
opium trade continues to be a significant source of funding for 
the insurgency as well as a basis of corruption within the 
government of Afghanistan. To build upon and perpetuate 
security gains in Afghanistan and establish conditions for 
stability and economic prosperity, the United States must work 
together with its coalition partners and the Afghan government 
to disrupt the link between narcotics and the insurgency. Such 
efforts should focus on reducing the funding the insurgency 
receives from the narcotics industry and assisting the Afghan 
government's efforts to eliminate the nexus between narcotics 
and corruption.
    The committee commends the efforts of the Afghan Threat 
Finance Cell (ATFC), created in 2008 to disrupt the flow of 
funding from the Afghan opium trade and other illicit sources 
to the Taliban, al-Qa'ida, and other terrorist and insurgent 
groups in Afghanistan. The committee notes that the ATFC and 
related organizations have helped Afghan authorities 
investigate individuals connected to the opium trade, identify 
outside sympathizers who have been supplying funding to those 
individuals, and police a variety of corrupt schemes that have 
filled the coffers of the Taliban-led insurgency and other 
illicit actors.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
continue to support U.S. interagency efforts, such as those of 
the AFTC, to: reduce opium cultivation; interdict narcotics and 
precursor materials; disrupt narcotic networks, traffickers, 
and facilities; and improve Afghan capacity to counter the 
illicit narcotics industry in Afghanistan. The committee also 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue to work with 
his North Atlantic Treaty Organization counterparts to enhance 
their efforts in reducing the narcotics cultivation, 
production, and trafficking in Afghanistan. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue to keep 
the committee apprised of the Department's progress with regard 
to these efforts.

                 Counterinsurgency Efforts in Pakistan

    The committee welcomes recent efforts by the Government of 
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to address terrorist and other 
extremist elements located within Pakistan. The committee also 
recognizes the importance of building the counterinsurgency 
capabilities of Pakistan's security forces, and encourages 
effective management, execution and oversight of United States 
funds for these purposes, including funds transferred to the 
Department of Defense from the Department of State Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF).
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees by April 10, 2011, a 
report on the management, execution and oversight of funds 
transferred to the Department of Defense from the PCCF. The 
report should include a description of the following:
          (1) The spending plan of the United States Central 
        Command for fiscal year 2011 for funds transferred to 
        the Department of Defense from the PCCF.
          (2) Any delays in transfers of PCCF funds to the 
        Office of the Defense Representative for Pakistan 
        (ODRP).
          (3) 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 PCCF 
        funds to the ODRP.
          (4) Any other information relevant to the management, 
        execution, and oversight of funds transferred to the 
        Department of Defense from the PCCF.

                     Cyber Attacks Involving China

    The committee is concerned about recent reports of highly 
sophisticated and targeted cyber attacks originating from the 
People's Republic of China, including the widely publicized 
attacks against Google and other large companies. Such cyber 
attacks undermine the ability to operate with confidence in 
cyberspace, which is critical in a modern society and economy. 
The committee welcomes the Administration's efforts to actively 
address these issues with China and requests that the 
Administration keep the committee fully informed of significant 
developments.
    The committee also notes that the Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities has 
conducted close oversight throughout the last year on a broad 
range of cyber-security issues, including those involving 
China. The committee commends the Administration, and the 
Department of Defense in particular, for actively working to 
address the nation's cyber-security challenges. The committee 
notes that the establishment of a Defense Industrial Base Task 
Force to promote collaboration and information-sharing between 
government and industry, as well as the incorporation of new 
rules within the defense federal acquisition regulations to 
require enhanced incident reporting, are particularly positive 
actions.

             Future Agreements With the Government of Iraq

    The committee notes that the ``Agreement Between the United 
States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of 
United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their 
Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq'' will 
expire on January 1, 2012. The committee further notes that the 
United States and the Republic of Iraq have signed a 
``Strategic Framework Agreement for a Relationship of 
Friendship and Cooperation Between the United States and the 
Republic of Iraq'' that calls for continued cooperation in a 
number of areas between the United States and Iraq. The 
committee believes that such continued cooperation is in the 
interests of both nations and encourages the Administration and 
the new Government of Iraq, when it is seated, to continue to 
look for ways to continue and enhance such cooperation. The 
committee further believes that such cooperation should, with 
the redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end 
of 2011, assume the nature of normal nation-to-nation 
relations. Pursuant to that objective, the committee believes 
that any future agreement with the Government of Iraq that 
permits the stationing of any United States forces in Iraq, for 
any reason including training and advising Iraqi forces or for 
other purposes, assumes the character of typical Status of 
Forces Agreements such as the United States has with many other 
nations, including those physical and legal protections for 
United States forces as are typical and necessary to protect 
United States service members from malicious prosecution and 
physical danger. Furthermore, the committee believes that any 
such agreement, if it were to make any commitments or 
guarantees that either party would take military action to 
defend the interests of the other party, must be either enacted 
by an Act of Congress or ratified as a treaty by the United 
States Senate, consistent with the Constitution and the past 
practice of the United States.

                    Non-Standard Rotary--Wing Study

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
placed on order the full complement of Mi-17s necessary to 
support the current October 2011 Afghan National Army (ANA) 
end-strength target of 171,000. The committee notes that 
additional helicopters may be needed to support the ANA if that 
end-strength target is increased in the future and believes 
that should such additional helicopters be required, a 
helicopter manufactured in the United States should be included 
in the options considered. The committee further notes that the 
Department of Defense is conducting a study concerning ``non 
standard rotary wing'' requirements, which in part consists of 
an examination of the future helicopter requirements for the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including the possibility of 
transitioning the Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) to a 
helicopter manufactured in the United States. The committee 
understands that this part of the study is scheduled to be 
completed around the end of August 2010. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to complete the 
portion of the study regarding helicopters for the ANAAC as 
expeditiously as possible and to inform the House Committee on 
Armed Services of the recommendations and conclusions included 
in the report not later than October 1, 2010.

             Realignment of U.S. Marines From Japan to Guam

    The committee emphasizes the need to continue implementing 
the realignment of United States Marines from Japan to the 
territory of Guam, pursuant to a plan that will ensure a long-
term presence of United States forces in Japan and transform 
Guam into a hub for security activities in the region.
    The committee notes that the U.S.-Japan security 
relationship has been built on common interests and shared 
values and provided a foundation for peace, security, 
stability, and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region 
since the end of World War II. However, the committee 
emphasizes the relationship must continue to evolve to address 
changes in the security environment and other areas. The 
committee believes the Guam realignment will help ensure that 
the U.S.-Japan relationship continues to be an integral part of 
the region's strategic landscape, with benefits for both 
countries and indeed countries throughout the world. Moreover, 
the committee emphasizes that the Guam realignment rightly 
acknowledges the strategic importance of Guam to regional and 
global security interests.
    The committee supports the Administration's efforts with 
respect to the Guam realignment. The committee also notes that 
it includes a number of provisions elsewhere in this Act that 
are intended to facilitate the realignment. The committee 
requests that the Department of Defense keep the committee 
fully informed of significant developments with respect to the 
Guam realignment, including any changes to funding 
requirements.

   Resources for Success in Afghanistan and Policy Against Arbitrary 
                   Limitations on Deployed Personnel

    The committee notes that on December 1, 2009, the President 
announced that the United States would deploy an additional 
30,000 troops to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The 
committee welcomes the long overdue deployment of additional 
forces to meet mission requirements and further notes that 
United States force levels are expected to approach 98,000 by 
August 2010, which is nearly three times the number of troops 
deployed in Afghanistan on January 1, 2009. The committee has 
requested testimony from several senior officials of the 
Department of Defense regarding the flow of United States 
forces authorized to deploy to Afghanistan. The committee has 
worked in this manner to ensure U.S. force levels are not 
limited in an arbitrary manner that would hamper the deployment 
of critical combat enablers, including force protection.
    The committee is disturbed to have received some reports 
contrary to the public testimony of senior Department of 
Defense officials, and continues to hear from personnel 
deployed to Afghanistan and in briefings that there is the 
perception of an arbitrary limit on the number of forces that 
can be deployed to Afghanistan, and that such a limit may have 
hampered the ability of commanders to deploy needed 
capabilities. The committee believes that the United States 
should have a policy to devote all necessary resources for 
success in Afghanistan and a policy against arbitrary 
limitations on deployed personnel. Thus, the committee is 
troubled by the perception that United States force levels are 
limited in an arbitrary manner and the committee is determined 
to ensure that all necessary actions are taken to ensure that 
this perception does not interfere with the success of the 
mission in Afghanistan.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address 
the perception of an arbitrary limit on United States force 
levels in Afghanistan among personnel in Afghanistan and in the 
Department of Defense that has caused delays or complications 
in fielding needed capabilities or additional assets for force 
protection and other important missions. The committee directs 
the Secretary to submit a report to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
September 1, 2010, on the steps taken to ensure that the 
perception of an arbitrary limit on United States force levels 
in Afghanistan does not jeopardize mission success.

                Security Concerns Involving North Korea

    The committee remains concerned by the nuclear and missile 
activities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which 
constitute a threat to international peace and security and are 
in blatant defiance of the United Nations (U.N.) Security 
Council.
    The committee supports U.N. Security Council actions, which 
condemn North Korea's reckless and threatening provocations and 
confirm that they violate international law. 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 continues to carefully monitor 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 significant developments.

   Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for Afghanistan

    The committee remains seriously concerned about instability 
in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 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, Republic of India;
          (6) U.S. strategy and policy involving Pakistan, 
        including measures of progress toward achieving goals 
        and objectives;
          (7) U.S. efforts to increase the counterinsurgency 
        capabilities of Pakistan's security forces, U.S.-
        Pakistan intelligence sharing, and Pakistan's 
        counternarcotics activities;
          (8) U.S. military and other security-related 
        assistance for Pakistan, and possible limits, 
        conditions, and performance requirements relating to 
        such assistance;
          (9) Department of Defense Coalition Support Fund 
        reimbursements to Pakistan and possible alternatives 
        that could achieve the same goals and objectives;
          (10) The effectiveness of the Department of Defense 
        Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF), including the 
        management and execution of funds transferred from the 
        Department of State Pakistan Counterinsurgency 
        Capabilities Fund (PCCF) to the PCF; and
          (11) Information regarding possible U.S. military 
        involvement in Pakistan.
    The committee welcomes the Administration's efforts to 
prioritize issues involving Pakistan, its commitment to 
strengthening the U.S.-Pakistan partnership, and increasing 
U.S.-Pakistan cooperation on shared security goals. 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 will continue to 
conduct vigorous oversight of such Department of Defense 
funding, to ensure that the funding achieves its intended goals 
and objectives and is not without limits.
    The committee requests that the Department of the Defense 
and the inter-agency keep the committee fully informed on all 
significant security developments involving Pakistan.

    Support for United States Special Operations Forces During the 
          Redeployment of United States Armed Forces From Iraq

    The committee is aware that the force disposition and 
operational tempo of United States Special Operations Forces 
(USSOF) in the Republic of Iraq will continue unabated during 
the responsible redeployment of conventional United States 
armed forces from Iraq. The committee is further aware that 
both USSOF and Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) utilize 
many key enabling assets currently being provided by United 
States conventional forces that may be withdrawn as part of the 
redeployment, including engineering, rotary aircraft, 
logisticians, communications, intelligence analysts, forensic 
analysts, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
platforms. The committee is concerned that a loss of many key 
conventional enabling assets could adversely impact USSOF and 
ISOF operations and degrade ISOF capacity development in 
critical special operations mission areas. The committee 
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the 
appropriate officials to provide a briefing to the House 
Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2010, on: the level 
of support currently provided by United States armed forces to 
ISOF; the requirement for ISOF and USSOF support between 
October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011; measures taken to 
ensure that ISOF and USSOF operational and logistical 
requirements and equities are fully considered during 
redeployment of United States armed forces from Iraq; and on 
measures taken to ensure that current and future USSOF 
requirements and equities are incorporated into the political-
military negotiations and frameworks established to support 
U.S.-Iraqi relations post-December 31, 2011.

                           Transition in Iraq

    The committee notes that the mission of the United States 
military and the Department of Defense in the Republic of Iraq 
has entered a period of substantial transition. This transition 
includes the redeployment of over 40,000 U.S. servicemembers 
and their equipment over the next few months, leading to all 
uniformed personnel being redeployed from Iraq by the end of 
2011. Although concerns with this redeployment remain, the 
committee congratulates the Department, the commanders in the 
field, and the uniformed personnel of the armed forces for 
their successful actions to date to make this redeployment run 
smoothly. However, well over 1,000 programs, projects, and 
activities must still be concluded or transferred to other 
agencies of the United States Government, other international 
organizations, or the Government of Iraq. While some of these 
activities are relatively minor, there are a number of 
activities including transferring responsibility for training 
and advising Iraqi police that could have a substantial impact 
on the future development of Iraq and U.S.-Iraqi relations. 
Furthermore, many if not most of these projects, programs, and 
activities will likely need to be transferred over a relatively 
short period of time before too many U.S. forces redeploy, a 
time frame which also includes the ongoing process to seat a 
new government in Iraq and the associated risk of increased 
violence. These concurrent events could substantially 
complicate such transitions and increase overall tension. The 
committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 
2010, outlining those activities, programs, and projects that 
must be transferred or concluded, an estimated timeline for 
such transfers to take place, and a description of problems in 
transferring or concluding program, projects, and activities 
that have been encountered to date and what steps have been 
taken to remedy those issues.

  United States Africa Command Intelligence and Knowledge Development 
                              Directorate

    The committee is aware that United States Africa Command 
(USAFRICOM) has developed an innovative approach for the 
analysis and integration of social science research to 
complement and amplify traditional intelligence products. The 
committee remains supportive of the use of social science 
research to support operational missions within the Department 
of Defense, as well as the development of organic social 
science expertise. The committee is aware that USAFRICOM's 
Intelligence and Knowledge Development (IKD) Directorate not 
only addresses those issues, but does it in a way that sets it 
apart from similar efforts, such as the Army's Human Terrain 
System (HTS). The IKD Directorate addresses certain USAFRICOM 
requirements by shaping the pre-crisis, pre-conflict 
environment in cooperation with joint, interagency, and 
international partners. The committee notes that the structure 
of the IKD Directorate indirectly addresses the perception that 
social scientists are supporting kinetic targeting of people or 
groups by maintaining a clear divide between the traditional 
intelligence function and the social science research function. 
Whereas HTS blends these functions in a tactical environment, 
the social science component of IKD carries out its research at 
a higher echelon and provides its analyses as additional input 
to the traditional intelligence process. The committee 
recognizes that each approach may be appropriate for the 
circumstances for which it was developed, and points to the 
need for flexible and tailorable approaches as the Department 
of Defense gains a better understanding of how social science 
research can support defense missions.

 U.S. Forces Korea Transfer of Wartime Operational Control of Republic 
                            of Korea Forces

    The committee continues to conduct oversight of progress 
under the ``opcon transition roadmap'' by which the Republic of 
Korea (ROK) will take over wartime operational control of ROK 
forces by 2012. The committee welcomes progress to date and 
requests U.S. Forces Korea to keep the committee fully informed 
of developments.
    The committee also welcomes the recent U.S.-ROK ``Joint 
Vision'' statement, which addresses transformation of the 
alliance from one primarily focused on defending against a 
North Korean attack to an alliance in which the United States 
and the ROK cooperate on a broad range of regional and global 
issues.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training


Section 1201--Expansion of Authority for Support of Special Operations 
                          To Combat Terrorism

    This section 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 from $40.0 million to $50.0 million.
    The Secretary of Defense would exercise this authority and 
operations would be funded through the U.S. Special Operations 
Command with operations and maintenance funds in accordance 
with the procedures established by the Secretary of Defense on 
March 29, 2005.

   Section 1202--Addition of Allied Government Agencies to Enhanced 
                  Logistics Interoperability Authority

    This section would amend section 127d of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide 
logistic support, supplies, and services to allied governmental 
logistics, security, or similar agencies, other than military 
forces, if the United States Armed Forces will benefit from 
such provision.

  Section 1203--Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces

    This section would amend section 1206 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), as amended by section 1206 of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) by increasing the amount authorized for ``global train and 
equip'' (also known as ``1206'') programs to $500.0 million. 
This section would also increase the temporary limitation on 
the amount available to build the capacity of foreign military 
forces to participate in or support military and stability 
operations to $100.0 million.
    The committee is concerned about the rise of al Qa'ida in 
the Arabian Peninsula and recognizes that the Republic of Yemen 
is a strategic partner in combating that organization. The 
committee understands that the most capable counter-terrorism 
force in Yemen resides within the Ministry of the Interior 
(MOI) and that ``1206'' programs have been limited to a foreign 
nation's Ministry of Defense (MOD) forces. The committee wants 
to provide the Secretary of Defense authority to train and 
equip the Yemeni MOI counter-terrorism forces, but is also 
aware of the ongoing interagency effort within the United 
States Government to take a holistic look at the security 
assistance and security cooperation authorities that current 
law provides both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State in an effort to determine the proper mix and design of 
these authorities in the future.
    Therefore, this section would require that the Secretary of 
Defense transfer to the Secretary of State $75.0 million for 
the purpose of providing assistance under section 23 of the 
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) to build the capacity 
of the counter-terrorism forces of the Yemeni MOI, provided 
that, not later than July 31, 2011, the Secretary of State 
certifies that the Department of State is able to effectively 
provide that assistance. If the Secretary of State is unable to 
issue such a certification, then the Secretary of Defense may, 
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and subject to 
the standard procedures of section ``1206'' authority, use that 
$75.0 million only for the purposes of training and equipping 
those Yemeni MOI forces. The committee notes that this does not 
preclude the Secretary of Defense from conducting additional 
train and equip programs with Yemeni MOD forces.
    Additionally, the committee is aware of the report by the 
Government Accountability Office entitled ``DOD and State Need 
to Improve Sustainment Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation 
for Section 1206 and 1207 Assistance Programs'' and encourages 
the Department of Defense and the Department of State to 
jointly formulate mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impact 
of 1206-funded assistance to a recipient country, including the 
impact on overall security and stability of the country. 
Lastly, the committee has recently become more concerned about 
the sustainment plans for equipment provided to foreign nations 
through ``1206'' programs once the initial sustainment packages 
provided at the time the equipment is delivered are depleted, 
and the committee will in the future require much greater 
detail on the long-term sustainment plans during the 
Congressional notification process.

Section 1204--Air Force Scholarships for Partnership for Peace Nations 
    To Participate in the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to establish a demonstration scholarship program to allow 
Partnership for Peace countries to participate in pilot and 
other types of training through the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot 
Training Program. It would require a report on the status of 
the program not later than February 1, 2015.

    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 United States military 
installations or bases in the Republic of Iraq or to exercise 
United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.

          Section 1212--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 1212 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), to modify the authorized level of funding for the 
activities of the Commanders' Emergency Response Program. This 
section would authorize $900.0 million for activities in Fiscal 
Year 2011. This section would also require quarterly reports by 
the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense 
committees.

 Section 1213--Modification of Authority for Reimbursement to Certain 
   Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military 
                               Operations

    This section would modify section 1233 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as amended by section 1223 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), by 
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key 
cooperating nation for (a) logistical, military, and other 
support provided by that nation to or in connection with U.S. 
military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
Enduring Freedom; or (b) logistical and military support 
provided by that nation to confront the threat posed by 
al'Qaida, the Taliban, and other militant extremists in the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Coalition Support Fund 
reimbursements). The total amount of reimbursements made under 
this authority during fiscal year 2011 would not exceed $1.6 
billion. The congressional notice and reporting requirements 
under section 1233 of Public Law 110-181, as amended by section 
1223 of Public Law 111-84, would apply to Coalition Support 
Fund reimbursements authorized by this section.

  Section 1214--Modification of Report on Responsible Redeployment of 
                  United States Armed Forces From Iraq

    This section would modify reports concerning United States 
involvement in the Republic of Iraq to better focus reporting 
requirements on the redeployment of United States forces out of 
Iraq, the transition of activities and programs currently 
conducted by the Department of Defense in Iraq to other 
agencies of the United States Government or the Government of 
Iraq, and the development of those military capabilities that 
the Secretary of Defense deems necessary to allow for the 
Government of Iraq to provide for its own defense. This section 
would require that the Secretary of Defense provide an 
opportunity for the Secretary of State to submit with the 
report any additional information that the Secretary of State 
deems important. This section would also repeal the report 
required by section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) as amended, and 
the report required by section 1225 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).

     Section 1215--Modification of Reports Relating to Afghanistan

    This section would modify the report required by section 
1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) by requiring a discussion of those 
conditions and criteria that would need to exist in key 
districts and across the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to 
meet United States and coalition goals in Afghanistan and the 
region, permit the transition of lead security responsibility 
in key districts to the Government of Afghanistan, and permit 
the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from 
Afghanistan. This section would further modify the report by 
requiring that with respect to each performance indicator and 
measure of progress, it should include a description of the 
conditions that would lead the Secretary of Defense to conclude 
that the indicator or measure of progress had been achieved.

        Section 1216--No Permanent Military Bases in Afghanistan

    This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by 
this Act to establish permanent United States military 
installations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

 Section 1217--Authority To Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with 
the authority to use up to $50.0 million to carry out a program 
designed to reintegrate former low-level Taliban fighters into 
Afghan society. Such authority would be subject to a 
certification made by the Secretary of State that such a 
reintegration program is necessary to support the goals of the 
United States in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and that 
the Department of State and the United States Agency for 
International Development are unable to carry out a similar 
program of reintegration because of the security environment in 
certain areas, or for other reasons. This section would also 
require that the Secretary of Defense submit the guidance to be 
used to carry out the program and a quarterly report concerning 
the activities carried out under this section.

  Section 1218--One-Year Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund

    This section would amend section 1224(h) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), by extending the Department of Defense Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) through fiscal year 2011.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
has requested this authority in order to address fiscal and 
legal issues associated with the transfer of responsibilities 
for Pakistan counterinsurgency funds to the Department of State 
for Fiscal Year 2011.
    The committee further understands that such request is not 
intended to alter the agreement between the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of State regarding such transfer of 
responsibilities.
    Moreover, the committee notes that the Department of 
Defense has not requested additional funding for the PCF for 
Fiscal Year 2011, and expects that any additional funding will 
be transferred to the PCF from the Department of State Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund.
    The committee encourages strong coordination between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State on costs 
associated with execution of the PCF; and requests that the 
Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of 
State, keep the relevant committees fully informed of such 
costs and related issues.

 Section 1219--Authority To Use Funds To Provide Support to Coalition 
    Forces Supporting Military and Stability Operations in Iraq and 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
spend up to $400.0 million from funds made available for 
operations and maintenance on lift and sustainment for 
coalition forces supporting operations in the Republic of Iraq 
and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It would also require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to the 
congressional defense committees on the support provided under 
this authority.

    Section 1220--Requirement To Provide United States Brigade and 
Equivalent Units Deployed to Afghanistan with the Commensurate Level of 
                 Unit and Theater-Wide Combat Enablers

    This section would establish a policy and would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide each United States brigade and 
equivalent units deployed to the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan with the commensurate level of unit and theater-
wide combat enablers, including Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance, force protection, including force protection at 
U.S. Forward Operating Bases, and medical evacuation. This 
section would further require a report describing: The requests 
for forces submitted by United States Forces-Afghanistan for 
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010; the current troop-to-task 
analysis; the number of United States brigade and equivalent 
units deployed to Afghanistan; and information regarding the 
number of United States unit and theater-wide combat enablers.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


       Section 1231--NATO Special Operations Coordination Center

    This section would increase the amount of authorized funds 
available to the Secretary of Defense to support the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Coordination 
Center from $30.0 million to $50.0 million.

     Section 1232--National Military Strategic Plan To Counter Iran

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
develop a National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran. 
This section would further require that the Secretary of 
Defense develop a plan to address any gaps in capabilities 
identified as part of the planning and review process. Finally, 
this section would require a report to Congress identifying and 
justifying any resources, capabilities, legislative 
authorities, or changes to current law the Secretary believes 
are necessary to address the gaps in capabilities.

  Section 1233--Report on Department of Defense's Plans To Reform the 
                         Export Control System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report within 60 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed 
Services, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the 
Department of Defense's plans to reform the Department's export 
control system. The report would include a description of plans 
to reform the export control system and an assessment of the 
plans' impact on the Department.

  Section 1234--Report on the United States Efforts To Defend Against 
  Threats Posed by the Advanced Anti-Access Capability of Potentially 
                       Hostile Foreign Countries

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not 
later than April 1, 2011, to submit to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a 
report on the United States' efforts to defend against threats 
posed by the anti-access capabilities of potentially hostile 
foreign countries. The report should include a description of 
any efforts by the Department of Defense to address findings in 
the Department's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review regarding 
advanced anti-access capabilities of foreign countries, 
including any efforts to:
    (1) Develop a joint air-sea battle concept;
    (2) Expand future long-range strike capabilities;
    (3) Exploit advantages in subsurface operations;
    (4) Increase the resiliency of United States forward 
posture and base infrastructure;
    (5) Ensure access to space and the use of space assets;
    (6) Enhance the robustness of key Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and 
Reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities;
    (7) Ensure access within the cyber domain;
    (8) Develop regional missile defense architecture;
    (9) Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems; and
    (10) Enhance the presence and responsiveness of United 
States military forces abroad.
    For the purposes of this section, to the extent possible, 
the committee encourages the Department to utilize information 
provided to Congress in the Annual Report on Military and 
Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China, 
required by section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), as most recently 
amended by section 1246 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84;) and the Annual 
Report on the Military Power of Iran as required by Section 
1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84).

  Section 1235--Report on Force Structure Changes in Composition and 
            Capabilities at Military Installations in Europe

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report, not later than one year after enactment of 
this Act, on evaluating potential changes in the composition 
and capabilities of units of the United States armed forces in 
European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization 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.

Section 1236--Sense of Congress on Missile Defense and New START Treaty 
                        With Russian Federation

    This section would express a sense of the Congress that: 
(1) there would be no limitations on any phase of the phased, 
adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe resulting from 
ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between 
the United States and the Russian Federation, signed on April 
8, 2010; (2) the United States should deploy the phased, 
adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe to protect the 
United States, its deployed forces, and North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) allies, after appropriate testing and 
consistent with NATO policy; and (3) the ground-based midcourse 
defense system in Alaska and California should be maintained, 
evolved, and appropriately tested because it is the only 
missile defense capability as of the date of the enactment of 
this Act that would protect the United States from the growing 
threat of a long-range ballistic missile attack.

                TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for the Department of Defense 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $522.5 
million for fiscal year 2011, representing an increase of $98.4 
million from the amount authorized in fiscal year 2010, 
excluding any supplemental funds. The request contained the 
following decreases: $5.5 million for nuclear weapons storage 
security in the Russian Federation; $1.4 million for nuclear 
weapons transportation security in Russia; $11.1 million for 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation prevention in 
states of the former Soviet Union (FSU); and $17.0 million for 
new CTR initiatives. The request also contained the following 
increases: $0.3 million for strategic offensive arms 
elimination in Russia; $56.9 million for biological threat 
reduction in the FSU; $74.5 million for global nuclear 
lockdown; and $1.6 million for other assessments and 
administrative costs.
    The committee 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 past 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 more than 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), the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), 
and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) 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 and CTR metrics; requiring a report by the 
Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical 
weapons destruction project at Shchuch'ye, Russia; requiring 
increased reporting from the Secretary of Defense on CTR 
defense and military contacts; providing CTR programs with 
authority for urgent threat reduction activities; authorizing 
the CTR Program to accept international contributions; 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), commonly known as 
``the 9/11 bill,'' included a number of provisions and 
authorized funding to accelerate, strengthen, and expand the 
CTR Program.
    The committee welcomes the President's efforts to 
reinvigorate the CTR Program and ensure it is a top priority 
going forward. This includes the President's effort to secure 
all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years to ensure 
that such materials do not fall into the hands of terrorists; 
the Nuclear Security Summit; and other efforts to accelerate, 
strengthen, and expand CTR activities.
    This Act specifically supports the President's goals and 
objectives for the CTR Program, and encourages these programs 
to maintain a particular focus on securing WMD and related 
materials and technologies at the source wherever possible.
    The committee authorizes $522.5 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

                       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 current efforts by the Department of 
Defense to restructure and strengthen BTRP activities, 
including in the area of metrics and interagency engagement and 
coordination to ensure that the Department 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 Defense and Military Contacts Program

    Section 1304 of the National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84) amended the Department of Defense 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) annual report to include 
additional information on the CTR Defense and Military Contacts 
program. It also required the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that the Defense and Military Contacts 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.
    The committee welcomes recent efforts by the Department in 
this regard, and encourages the Department to actively consult 
with the committee and to keep the committee fully informed of 
developments in this area.

          Metrics for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

    The committee continues to emphasize the importance of 
concrete metrics for measuring the impact and effectiveness of 
activities under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to 
address threats arising from the proliferation of chemical, 
nuclear, and biological weapons and weapons-related materials, 
technologies, and expertise. The committee welcomes recent 
efforts by the Department in this regard, and encourages the 
Department of Defense to actively consult with the committee 
and to keep the committee fully informed of developments in 
this area.

      New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181), the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), 
and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) authorized a new funding line for new 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program initiatives in order to 
strengthen and expand the CTR Program. Such funding was 
accompanied by provisions in Public Law 110-181, which 
specified the uses for such funding and required reports from 
the National Academy of Sciences and the Secretary of Defense 
on the development of new CTR initiatives that could enable the 
CTR Program to be 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 welcomes the Administration's efforts to 
undertake new CTR initiatives, and strengthen and expand the 
program in additional ways. Given such efforts, the committee 
no longer finds the new CTR initiatives funding line necessary 
and does not authorize funding under this line for fiscal year 
2011. Rather, the committee authorizes funding for the CTR 
Program, including for the President's plan to secure all loose 
nuclear materials within four years, within the existing 
program lines in the Department of Defense budget request for 
fiscal year 2011.
    The committee encourages the Department to actively consult 
with the committee and to keep the committee fully informed of 
significant developments as the CTR Program accelerates, 
strengthens, and expands its activities.

            Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project

    The committee is pleased that the chemical weapons 
destruction facility in the Russian Federation at Shchuch'ye is 
currently operating at full capacity. This has been a flagship 
project for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, and in past years the committee has 
conducted vigorous oversight of the project. The committee 
welcomes recent efforts by the Department to ensure the 
sustainability of the project, and encourages the Department 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 301 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 $522.5 
million that the committee would authorize for the CTR Program. 
The allocation under this section reflects the amount of the 
budget request for fiscal year 2011. This section would also 
require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary 
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011 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.

                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


          Department of Defense Inspector General Growth Plan

    The budget request contained $283.4 million for the 
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG).
    The committee is aware of the important role of the 
Department of Defense Inspector General. The inspector general 
improves the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DOD 
personnel, programs and operations, and helps to eliminate 
fraud, waste, and abuse. The committee is aware that a plan for 
increasing DOD IG audit and investigative capabilities was 
published March 31, 2008. This plan required increased 
resources for it to be fully implemented, and Congress provided 
these resources in fiscal years 2008-10. The committee is 
concerned that the Department of Defense Inspector General is 
funded below the level required to meet the growth plan in 
fiscal year 2011. The committee believes the Department has had 
sufficient time to assimilate the requirements of the IG growth 
plan and is disappointed that the Department has failed to 
fully resource the IG requirements. The committee expects the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the necessary resources to this 
critical function in future budget requests.
    The committee recommends $283.4 million, the amount of the 
request.

    Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization

    The committee is aware that the Defense Energy Supply 
Center (DESC) faces mounting deficiencies in its aging fuel 
infrastructure. The committee is concerned that high fuel 
prices in recent years may have contributed to deferred 
investment in DESC facilities' upkeep due to resource 
constraints. The committee is aware that recent estimates 
indicate a need for $561.7 million to $774.8 million per year 
for sustainment, restoration and modernization for fuel 
infrastructure from fiscal year 2011-15. This reflects an 
increase of approximately $300 million to $400 million per 
year, based on estimates submitted with the fiscal year 2010 
budget request. The committee is also aware that as 
infrastructure requirements mount, the costs are passed through 
to fuel customers through the operating cost component of the 
standard price of fuel. In fiscal year 2011, this component 
will be $16.73 per barrel, an increase of $6.55 from the amount 
in fiscal year 2010.
    The committee encourages the Defense Energy Supply Center 
and the Defense Logistics Agency to plan and budget for fuel 
infrastructure sustainment requirements, and includes a 
provision elsewhere in this title that would require the 
Director of the Defense Logistics Agency to submit a plan for 
addressing fuel infrastructure sustainment, restoration, and 
modernization requirements.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Military Programs


                  Section 1401--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize $161.0 million for Working 
Capital Funds and $1.3 billion for Defense Working Capital 
Fund, Defense Commissary.

       Section 1402--Study on Working Capital Fund Cash Balances

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
contract with a federally funded research and development 
center, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
to carry out an independent review of each working capital fund 
within the Department of Defense to ascertain the appropriate 
cash corpus required to maintain good financial management of 
the funds.
    The committee notes that current Department of Defense 
fiscal policy for all working capital funds is to maintain a 7-
day minimum and 10-day maximum cash balance. The committee 
believes that this three-day cash corpus is outdated and 
arbitrary and does not take into account increased activity due 
to contingency operations or fluctuations in commodity markets 
outside of the Department's control. The committee is concerned 
that maintaining this narrow cash corpus tolerance may not 
allow for successful long-term financial management of the 
funds in today's dynamic environment.
    The committee is disappointed with the lack of effort the 
Department exhibited in generating the report that was required 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The 
committee's intent was to provide an avenue for the Department 
to review its restrictive financial management policies 
regarding the required cash corpus to allow the Department to 
rectify chronic fiscal issues. Rather than dedicating 
sufficient effort to propose methods to correct this habitual 
error, the Department submitted a three-page report with 
minimal information and recommendations. The committee notes 
that the recommendations included maintaining the status quo 
and a request that Congress provide the Department with 
specific authorities which were previously denied due to 
restrictions mandated by the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344).
    The committee anticipates that the independent reviews 
required by this section would provide recommendations to 
improve management of the Department's working capital funds 
and assist in bringing in best business practices from the 
private sector for the successful management of each fund.

Section 1403--Modification of Certain Working Capital Fund Requirements

    This section would amend section 2208(c)(1) of title 10, 
United States Code, to allow supplies developed through 
continuous technology refreshment (CTR) to be purchased with 
working capital funds and would amend section 2208(k)(2) of 
title 10, United States Code, to increase the expense or 
investment threshold to $250,000.
    The committee notes that Army Regulation 700-127, paragraph 
5-23f, states that CTR will be addressed as part of the post-
production support strategy to provide a means to acquire 
technologically improved replacement parts and to reduce 
ownership costs. The committee views CTR as a necessary and 
vital aspect of weapon system sustainment and a primary means 
for technology insertion in post-production equipment where 
supply is affected by aging technology, obsolescence, poor 
reliability, excessive cost, or unavailability. The committee 
intends that development of the CTR solution will consist of a 
business case analysis, specifications, and engineering 
drawings achieved through either research, development, test 
and evaluation; sustainment systems technical support; or 
industry investment. The established form-fit-function CTR 
replacement solution can then be translated to hardware and 
qualified, and then procured with working capital funds to 
improve reliability and maintainability, extend useful life, 
enhance safety, reduce maintenance costs, and enable weapon 
system performance requirements to be maintained.
    The committee believes that by implementing these 
recommended changes, CTR could enable the military departments 
to make vital progress in resolving critical supply problems 
affecting military readiness.

  Section 1404--Reduction of Unobligated Balances Within the Pentagon 
                 Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund

    This section would require the return of $77.0 million of 
excess unobligated balances within the Pentagon Reservation 
Maintenance Revolving Fund to the Miscellaneous Receipts Fund 
of the United States Treasury.
    The committee notes that unobligated balances within the 
Pentagon Renovation Maintenance Revolving Fund have increased 
threefold since the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Budget 
materials submitted by the Department of Defense indicate that 
Pentagon renovation operations will end in fiscal year 2011, 
yet these unobligated balances increase from year to year. 
Based on fiscal year 2011 budget materials, capital purchases 
for the Pentagon renovation decreased from $257.2 million in 
fiscal year 2009 to $16.3 million in fiscal year 2011. 
Therefore the committee questions the need to maintain $120.0 
million in unobligated balances as of the end of fiscal year 
2011 for this purpose.

              Section 1405--National Defense Sealift Fund

    This section would authorize $934.9 million for the 
National Defense Sealift Fund.

    Section 1406--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

    This section would authorize $1.5 billion for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.

 Section 1407--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
                                  Wide

    This section would authorize $1.1 billion for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide.

                Section 1408--Defense Inspector General

    This section would authorize $283.4 million for the 
Department of Defense Inspector General.

                  Section 1409--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize $31.0 billion for the Defense 
Health Program (DHP) and other programs.

                 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 2011. This section would also permit the use of additional 
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after 
Congress receives notification.

 Section 1412--Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for Previously 
        Authorized Disposals from the National Defense Stockpile

    This section would authorize revisions on limitations in 
asset sales contained in section 3402(b)(5) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) as most recently amended by section 1412(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181; 122 Stat. 418) to increase the Department of Defense's 
stockpile commodity disposal authority from $710.0 million to 
$730.0 million.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


    Section 1421--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces 
                            Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $71.2 million to be 
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home during fiscal year 2011.

    Section 1422--Plan for Funding Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, 
              Restoration, and Modernization Requirements

    This section would require the Director of the Defense 
Logistics Agency to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a plan for addressing fuel infrastructure 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization requirements. The 
report shall be submitted not later than the date on which the 
President submits to Congress the budget for fiscal year 2012, 
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.


   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 recommends authorization of $159.3 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 AUTHORIZATION

    The following table summarizes contained in the bill for 
overseas contingency operations.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                             F-35A Aircraft

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
contained $204.9 million for one F-35A aircraft.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
justified the $204.9 million request for one F-35A aircraft, 
which would be delivered in June 2013, as a replacement for the 
combat loss of one legacy aircraft. However, the committee 
further notes that the Department of the Air Force does not 
plan to declare F-35A initial operational capability until 2016 
and that for fiscal year 2010, the Department plans the early 
retirement of 250 fighter aircraft.
    The committee believes that the Department of the Air Force 
could choose to delay the retirement of one or more of the 250 
fighter aircraft planned for retirement in fiscal year 2010.
    The committee therefore recommends no funds, a decrease of 
$204.9 million, for one F-35A aircraft. In title I of this Act, 
the budget request for $3.7 billion and 22 F-35A aircraft is 
authorized.

 Force Protection Measures on United States Forward Operating Bases in 
                              Afghanistan

    The committee notes that there continues to be a serious 
indirect fire threat to United States and Coalition forces on 
Forward Operation Bases (FOB) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 
and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The committee understands 
that certain force protection systems to protect FOBs are 
currently deployed in OIF, but not in OEF. The committee has 
been briefed that the force protection systems in OIF have 
saved hundreds of lives. The committee understands that United 
States Central Command has a validated Joint Urgent Operational 
Needs Statement (JUONS) for a capability to sense, warn, and 
intercept enemy rocket, artillery, and mortar fires for OEF 
similar to the capability that is already in OIF. The committee 
fully supported a reprogramming in support of this JUONS in 
September 2009, and has provided an additional $200.0 million 
elsewhere in this title to address urgent force protection 
requirements in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than 
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on force 
protection measures implemented by the United States Forces for 
Afghanistan on United States Forward Operating Bases in 
Afghanistan. The report should include the following 
information:
          (1) An assessment of the indirect fire threat to FOBs 
        in OEF. This assessment should include at a minimum, 
        total rocket and mortar attacks for all FOBs, by month, 
        for the last 24 months, and U.S. and Coalition Killed 
        in Action, and U.S. Wounded in Action as a result of 
        such attacks.
          (2) A description of the types and levels of sense, 
        warn, and intercept capabilities located at each FOB to 
        protect against indirect fires in OIF for calendar year 
        2010.
          (3) A description of the types and levels of sense, 
        warn, and intercept capabilities located at each FOB to 
        protect against indirect fires in OEF in calendar year 
        2010, and any pending plans to increase such 
        capabilities.
          (4) A description of manning requirements, to include 
        a breakdown of military personnel and contractors to 
        support OIF sense, warn, and intercept requirements 
        during calendar year 2010.
          (5) A description of current or planned manning 
        requirements, to include a breakdown of military 
        personnel and contractors in OEF during calendar year 
        2010 or beyond to support sense, warn, and intercept 
        capabilities.
          (6) A cost and schedule analysis that compares and 
        contrasts the benefits of how sense, warn, and 
        intercept capabilities were implemented versus the 
        current plan to implement such capabilities in OEF. 
        Such an analysis should include a description of all 
        significant differences in the planned force protection 
        capabilities for OEF and OIF, the impact these 
        differences might have on the level of protection 
        provided to U.S. and coalition forces/equipment, and 
        the reason for the difference in planned force 
        protection implementation between OIF and OEF.

                           H-60 Modifications

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
contained $81.0 million for H-60 modifications to procure 
forward looking infra-red radars (FLIR) for the HH-60G fleet.
    The committee is informed by program officials that, by 
using fiscal year 2010 funds to leverage an existing Navy 
contract, only $20.0 million is required to complete the FLIR 
procurement for the HH-60G fleet, including spares.
    The committee therefore recommends $20.0 million, a 
decrease of $61.0 million, for H-60 modifications. The $20.0 
million authorized is in addition to the $11.6 million 
authorized in title I of this Act.

                       Iraq Security Forces Fund

    The committee recognizes that the Iraq Security Forces Fund 
(ISFF) is an important tool for building a long-term security 
relationship with the Government of the Republic of Iraq. 
However, the committee has a number of concerns about the 
budget request for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. First, the 
request appears to be largely intended to procure systems and 
support contracts that the Government of Iraq apparently does 
not consider as priorities and has not provided for out of its 
own funds. In a time of significant fiscal constraint in the 
United States, requests by the Government of Iraq for funds for 
kitchen equipment, office supplies, basic first-aid kits, and 
other easily obtainable items for Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) 
are less than compelling. Second, the committee is concerned 
that the Government of Iraq may not be fully committed to 
maintaining those capabilities being provided by the United 
States, in particular those associated with logistics and 
sustainment. This concern is heightened when the Government of 
Iraq has not contributed financially to the acquisition of such 
capabilities. Third, the committee agrees with the 
Administration that the United States should help Iraq in 
building a set of ``minimum essential capabilities'' to provide 
for internal defense, and a limited capability for external 
defense, prior to the redeployment of all United States troops. 
However, the committee notes that much of the equipment that 
would be purchased with funds in the budget request would not 
directly contribute to this goal and would likely not be 
delivered prior to the redeployment of U.S. forces.
    The committee agrees that the support capabilities 
described in the budget justification materials for the ISFF 
are necessary to increase the effectiveness of the ISF in the 
long run, but is concerned that building consensus in the 
Government of Iraq that such capabilities are important may 
take more time than is available prior to the redeployment of 
all United States troops by January 1, 2012. Instead, the 
committee believes the Iraq Security Forces Fund should be used 
to purchase significant military equipment, particularly U.S.-
standard equipment, which both governments view as vital, to 
enhance Iraqi capabilities as well as to provide a foundation 
for a close security relationship in the future. This approach 
would allow the Government of Iraq to contribute some of its 
own funding to build the necessary logistics and sustainment 
capabilities that it will need in the future. This approach, in 
turn, would increase the likelihood that the Government of Iraq 
would commit to maintaining and supporting such capabilities.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to closely 
examine the budget request for the ISFF program and determine 
if the current plans are the most appropriate way to build an 
Iraqi capability to provide for its internal and, to a limited 
extent, external defense prior to the withdrawal of U.S. 
forces, and to provide the basis for a long-term U.S.-Iraq 
security relationship.

                       Marine Corps Radio Systems

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
(OCO) contained $155.6 million for Marine Corps radio systems.
    The committee notes that $45.2 million was for Enterprise-
Land Mobile Radio (E-LMR) infrastructure upgrades at training 
facilities in the United States. The committee does not believe 
these funds should be requested in the OCO budget request, and 
urges the Marine Corps to pursue these funds in the fiscal year 
2012 base budget.
    The committee recommends $110.4 million, a decrease of 
$45.2 million, for Marine Corps radio systems. The $110.4 
million authorized is in addition to the $26.5 million for 
Marine Corps radio systems authorized in title II of this Act.

           Special Operations Funding for Overseas Operations

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
contained $3.5 billion for U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM) in support of current and future U.S. Special 
Operations Forces (USSOF) operations in the Republic of Iraq, 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and other locations.
    The committee notes that USSOF operational tempo will 
remain high for the foreseeable future, and strained by ongoing 
requirements and challenges in the Horn of Africa, the Trans-
Saharan region, the Republic of Columbia, and the Republic of 
the Philippines.
    The committee notes that the list of unfunded requirements 
it received for USSOCOM procurement is in excess of $410.0 
million to support USSOF current and future operations 
indicating significant gaps in these critical areas. The 
committee understands that these unfunded requirements would 
provide immediate operational and survivability enhancements 
and improvements, as well as procure additional SOF-peculiar 
items for USSOF engaged in combat operations and indirect 
missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas.
    The committee recommends $3.8 billion, an increase of 
$296.5 million, to support overseas contingency operations for 
USSOCOM and to provide for urgently needed unfunded 
requirements to include additional tactical vehicles, 
communications and electronics equipment, nonstandard aviation 
platforms, intelligence systems, and classified program areas.

                         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 additional 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 $8.9 billion for 
Army procurement.

      Section 1503--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    This section would authorize the President's request of 
$3.5 billion for requirements to defeat improvised explosive 
devices.
    The committee concurs with the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization's decision to increase its support 
to disrupt and discourage human networks that use improvised 
explosive devices to attack United States and coalition 
military forces in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan.

            Section 1504--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $3.8 billion for 
Navy and Marine Corps procurement.

                  Section 1505--Air Force Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $4.5 billion for 
Air Force procurement.

           Section 1506--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $1.4 billion for 
Defense-wide activities procurement.

       Section 1507--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
provide up to $205.0 million from the funds authorized in 
section 1506 of this title for Defense-Wide Activities 
Procurement to the Government of the State of Israel for 
procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-
range rocket threats.

           Section 1508--National Guard and Reserve Equipment

    This section would authorize $700.0 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 1509--Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

    This section would authorize the President's request of 
$3.4 billion for the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) 
vehicle fund. The committee is aware these vehicles are high 
priority assets in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and continue to save lives in combat.
    The committee notes the MRAP family of vehicles consists of 
legacy MRAP vehicles produced in three different variants based 
on weight, size, and personnel capacity; as well as a new, 
lighter MRAP All Terrain variant (MATV) to be used exclusively 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee notes the 
extraordinary effort it took to produce over 26,000 MRAP 
vehicles to include MATVs in just over 3 years and commends the 
Secretary of Defense for acknowledging the importance of this 
program by making it a top priority.
    The committee expects funding for sustainment of these 
vehicles to begin to transition from overseas contingency 
operation requests to the individual military services base 
budget requests as part of future year budget requests.

       Section 1510--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

    This section would authorize an additional $1.1 billion for 
research, development, test, and evaluation.

                Section 1511--Operation and Maintenance

    This section would authorize an additional $113.1 billion 
for operation and maintenance programs.

   Section 1512--Limitations on Availability of Funds in Afghanistan 
                          Security Forces Fund

    This section would subject funds authorized in this title 
for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 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 1513--Limitations on Iraq Security Forces Fund

    This section would subject funds authorized in this title 
for the Iraq Security Forces Fund or otherwise made available 
to the Department of Defense for the Iraq Security Forces Fund 
for fiscal year 2011 to the terms and conditions of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181). The section would further require that the 
Government of the Republic of Iraq support at least 20 percent 
of the cost of any item or service that is procured for the 
Iraqi Security Forces with funds from the Iraq Security Forces 
Fund. The provision would provide an exception to the cost-
sharing requirement for items and services that are either 
significant military equipment as defined by the Arms Export 
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794(9)) or are included on the United 
States Munitions List, as defined in section 38(a)(1) of the 
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (a)(1)).

                    Section 1514--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize an additional $15.3 billion 
for military personnel.

                  Section 1515--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize an additional $485.4 million 
for Defense Working Capital Funds.

                  Section 1516--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize an additional $1.4 billion for 
the Defense Health Program.

 Section 1517--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
                                  Wide

    This section would authorize an additional $457.1 million 
for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide.

                Section 1518--Defense Inspector General

    This section would authorize an additional $10.5 million 
for the Office of the Inspector General.

Section 1519--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 1520--Availability of Funds for Rapid Force Protection in 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
obligate up to $200.0 million in fiscal year 2011 Defense-wide 
Operation and Maintenance funds to address urgent force 
protection requirements facing United States military forces in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The section would clarify 
that in carrying out this section, the Secretary of Defense 
should utilize those rapid acquisition authorities available to 
the Secretary.

          Section 1521--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.

                Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority

    This section would authorize the transfer of up to an 
additional $3.5 billion of war-related funding authorizations 
in this title among the accounts in this title.

TITLE XVI--IMPROVED SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE IN THE ARMED 
                                 FORCES

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues its ongoing efforts to prevent and 
resolve sexual assault offenses by or against military members. 
Congress required the creation of the Defense Task Force on 
Sexual Assault in the Military Services (DTFSAMS) as an 
extension of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and 
Violence at the Military Service Academies in section 576 of 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375). The committee notes that 
DTFSAMS was not constituted by the Department of Defense, and 
therefore did not begin its work, until August 2008.
    The committee notes the depth, breadth, thoughtfulness, and 
quality of the DTFSAMS final report. The final report of the 
task force made 30 recommendations to improve sexual assault 
prevention and response by the Department of Defense in the 
following areas: strategic direction; prevention and training; 
response to victims; and accountability.
    The committee holds sexual assault in the armed forces to 
be an abhorrent violation of the military culture of trust, 
respect, and selfless service. The committee will continue to 
be vigilant in its oversight of the sexual assault prevention 
and response programs of the Department of Defense.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


Improved Coordination Between Military and Civilian Law Enforcement in 
         Response to Sexual Assaults Involving a Service Member

    The committee notes the importance of coordination between 
military and civilian law enforcement in response to sexual 
assaults involving a member of the armed forces. The committee 
encourages the secretaries of the military departments to 
ensure that military law enforcement agencies under their 
jurisdiction enter into written agreements with local law 
enforcement authorities to provide for: the notification of a 
military law enforcement agency when there is a report of a 
sexual assault involving a member of the armed forces, whether 
a member of the armed forces is the victim, alleged assailant, 
or both; and a clear delineation of how each agency will 
respond to reports of such sexual assaults. The committee also 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine the feasibility 
of having a military law enforcement agency prepare a report 
and conduct an investigation concurrently with any local law 
enforcement authority investigating a sexual assault involving 
a service member.

                  Inclusion of Community Organizations

    The committee notes that local communities should play an 
important role in the sexual assault prevention and response 
programs of the Department of Defense. The committee encourages 
commanders of military installations, and Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinators assigned to installations, to collaborate 
with supporting community organizations in the implementation 
of the sexual assault prevention and response programs.

Reduced Delays for Convening Courts-Martial Involving Charges of Sexual 
                                Assault

    The committee encourages the secretaries of the military 
departments and the Judge Advocate Generals to consider 
increasing the use of military judges from a different armed 
service to expedite the disposition of courts-martial cases 
involving offenses under section 920 of title 10, United States 
Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 1601--Definition of Department of Defense Sexual Assault 
         Prevention and Response Program and Other Definitions

    This section would define the term ``sexual assault 
prevention and response program'' as referring to Department of 
Defense policies and programs, including policies and programs 
of a specific military department or armed force, that are 
intended to effectively prevent and respond to sexual assaults 
involving members of the armed forces, whether members of the 
armed forces are the victim, alleged assailant, or both.

 Subtitle A--Immediate Actions To Improve Department of Defense Sexual 
                Assault Prevention and Response Program


   Section 1611--Specific Budgeting for Department of Defense Sexual 
                Assault Prevention and Response Program

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
allocate a separate line of funding to the Department of 
Defense sexual assault prevention and response program, 
effective with the Program Objective Memorandum to be issued 
for fiscal year 2012.

   Section 1612--Consistency in Terminology, Position Descriptions, 
            Program Standards, and Organizational Structures

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to use 
consistent terminology, position descriptions, minimum program 
standards, and organizational structures throughout the armed 
forces in implementing the Department of Defense sexual assault 
prevention and response program. This section would also 
require the Secretary to take into account operational 
differences between the military departments when fulfilling 
the requirements of this section.

                 Section 1613--Guidance for Commanders

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to issue guidance, within one year of the date of 
enactment of this Act, to all military unit commanders that 
implementation of the Department of Defense sexual assault 
prevention and response program requires their leadership and 
is their responsibility.

  Section 1614--Commander Consultation With Victims of Sexual Assault

    This section would require the commanding officer of a 
victim to offer to meet with the victim of the offense to 
determine the opinion of the victim regarding case disposition 
and provide that information to the convening authority before 
making a decision regarding how to proceed under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice in the case of an alleged sexual 
assault or other offense covered by section 920 of title 10, 
United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice).

                 Section 1615--Oversight and Evaluation

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to issue 
standards to be used to assess and evaluate the effectiveness 
of the sexual assault prevention and response program of each 
military department in preventing and responding to sexual 
assaults involving members of the armed forces, and to develop 
measures to ensure that the armed forces comply with those 
standards.

             Section 1616--Sexual Assault Reporting Hotline

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a 
universal hotline to facilitate the reporting of a sexual 
assault by a member of the armed forces, whether serving in the 
United States or overseas, who is a victim of a sexual assault. 
This hotline would also be available for use by any other 
person who is a victim of a sexual assault involving a member 
of the armed forces. This section would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that a Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator serving in the locality of the victim promptly 
responds to the reporting of a sexual assault using the 
hotline.

 Section 1617--Review of Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and 
                 Response Program to Reserve Components

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on the application of 
the sexual assault prevention and response program for the 
reserve components.

   Section 1618--Review of Effectiveness of Revised Uniform Code of 
  Military Justice Offenses Regarding Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other 
                           Sexual Misconduct

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a review of the effectiveness of section 920 of title 
10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice), as amended by section 552 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163). This section would also require the Secretary to use a 
panel of military justice experts to conduct the review.

   Section 1619--Training and Education Programs for Sexual Assault 
                    Prevention and Response Program

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments, within one year of the date of enactment of this 
Act, to develop curricula to provide sexual assault prevention 
and response training and education for members of the armed 
forces under the jurisdiction of the secretary and civilian 
employees of the military department to strengthen individual 
knowledge, skills, and capacity to prevent and respond to 
sexual assault. The scope of the training would encompass 
initial entry and accession programs, annual refresher 
training, professional military education, peer education, and 
specialized leadership training, and would be tailored for 
specific leadership levels and local area requirements. This 
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that sexual assault prevention and response training provided 
to members of the armed forces and Department of Defense 
civilian employees is consistent throughout the military 
departments, and be included in professional military education 
and first responder training.

     Section 1620--Use of Sexual Assault Forensic Medical Examiners

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
two years of the date of enactment of this Act, to provide for 
the use of forensic medical examiners within the Department of 
Defense who are specially trained regarding the collection and 
preservation of evidence in cases involving sexual assault.

              Section 1621--Sexual Assault Advisory Board

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a 
Sexual Assault Advisory Board, to be modeled after other 
Department of Defense advisory boards, such as the Defense 
Business Board, the Defense Policy Board, or the Defense 
Science Board.

  Section 1622--Department of Defense Sexual Assault Advisory Council

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to reorganize 
the Sexual Assault Advisory Council and limit membership on the 
Sexual Assault Advisory Council to Department of Defense 
personnel.

        Section 1623--Service-Level Sexual Assault Review Boards

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments, within one year of the date of enactment of this 
Act, to establish for each military installation or operational 
command under the jurisdiction of the secretary, a multi-
disciplinary group to serve as a sexual assault review board. A 
sexual assault review board would be, at minimum, responsible 
for addressing safety issues, developing prevention strategies, 
analyzing response processes, community impact and overall 
trends, and identifying training issues. These functions would 
be flexible to accommodate the resources available at different 
installations and operational commands.

Section 1624--Renewed Emphasis on Acquisition of Centralized Department 
                   of Defense Sexual Assault Database

    This section would set a new deadline of September 30, 
2011, for the Secretary of Defense to complete the 
implementation of the centralized sexual assault database 
required by section 563 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).

  Subtitle B--Sexual Assault Prevention Strategy and Annual Reporting 
                              Requirement


   Section 1631--Comprehensive Department of Defense Sexual Assault 
                          Prevention Strategy

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a comprehensive strategy to 
effectively prevent sexual assaults involving members of the 
armed forces, whether they are the victim, alleged assailant, 
or both. In developing the comprehensive strategy, the 
Secretary of Defense would incorporate and build upon the new 
requirements of this subtitle. This section would also require 
the Secretary, within six months of the submission of the 
comprehensive strategy, to complete its implementation 
throughout the Department of Defense. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement an 
evaluation plan for assessing the effectiveness of the 
comprehensive strategy and its intended outcomes at the 
Department of Defense and individual armed force levels.

Section 1632--Annual Report on Sexual Assaults Involving Members of the 
    Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments by January 15, of each year, to submit to the 
Secretary of Defense a report on the sexual assaults involving 
members of the armed forces under the jurisdiction of that 
secretary during the preceding year. The Office of the Judge 
Advocate General of an armed force, or in the case of the 
Marine Corps the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, would verify the accuracy of 
the information, including courts-martial data. This section 
would also require the Secretary of Defense, within one year of 
the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a consistent 
definition of ``founded'' for purposes of the report and 
require that military criminal investigative organizations only 
provide synopses for those cases for the preparation of reports 
under this section.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services a report on sexual assaults 
involving members of the armed forces and the sexual assault 
prevention and response program prepared by the military 
departments, together with the comments of the Secretary of 
Defense on the report.

                   Subtitle C--Amendments to Title 10


      Section 1641--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

    This section would require that the director of the Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office be a general or flag 
officer or an employee of the Department of Defense in a 
comparable Senior Executive Service position. This section 
would also specify that the director of the Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Office would serve as the single point 
of authority, accountability, and oversight for the Department 
of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program and 
provide oversight to ensure that the military departments 
comply with the program.

 Section 1642--Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault 
                            Victim Advocates

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
secretaries of the military departments to standardize the 
allocation, staffing, training, and certification of Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim 
Advocates. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a professional and uniform training and 
certification program for Sexual Assault Response Coordinators 
and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. This section would require 
the program to be structured and administered in a manner 
similar to the professional training available for Equal 
Opportunity Advisors through the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute. This section would also require that the 
secretaries of the military departments ensure that a Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinator, including a deployable Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinator, has direct access to senior 
commanders and any other commander within the unit or 
geographical area of responsibility of the Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator. This section would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a protocol for 
the establishment and use of sexual assault response teams 
throughout the Department of Defense. Further, this section 
would prohibit personnel of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense, the Inspector General of the Army, the 
Naval Inspector General, and the Inspector General of the Air 
Force from performing Sexual Assault Response Coordinator 
duties.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to work 
with the Office for Crime Victims of the Department of Justice 
when developing the training and certification of the program 
for Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault 
Victim Advocates. The committee also encourages the military 
departments to work towards certifying individuals as Sexual 
Assault Victim Advocates before they assume duties as a Sexual 
Assault Victim Advocate, and to keep Congress informed on 
progress made towards this goal.

Section 1643--Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel and Victim 
                           Advocate Services

    This section would entitle a member of the armed forces who 
is the victim of a sexual assault to legal assistance provided 
by a military legal assistance counsel certified as competent 
to provide such duties and assistance provided by a qualified 
Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. This section would also entitle 
a dependent of a member of the armed forces who is the victim 
of a sexual assault and resides on or in the vicinity of a 
military installation, to the extent practicable, legal 
assistance provided by a military legal assistance counsel 
certified as competent to provide such duties and assistance 
provided by a qualified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. This 
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
implement a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator-led process by 
which a member or dependent who is the victim of a sexual 
assault may decline to participate in the investigation of the 
sexual assault.

   Section 1644--Notification of Command of Outcome of Court-Martial 
                  Involving Charges of Sexual Assault

    This section would require the trial counsel, in the case 
of an alleged sexual assault or other offense covered by 
section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice), to notify the servicing 
staff judge advocate at the military installation, who shall 
notify the convening authority and commanders, as appropriate. 
This section would also require the commanding officer, in 
consultation with the servicing staff judge advocate, to notify 
members of the command of the outcome of the case.

   Section 1645--Copy of Record of Court-Martial to Victim of Sexual 
             Assault Involving a Member of the Armed Forces

    This section would require that in the case of a general or 
special court-martial involving a sexual assault or other 
offense covered by section 920 of title 10, United States Code 
(article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), a copy 
of the prepared record of the proceedings of the court-martial 
be given to the victim of the offence if the victim testified 
during the proceedings. This section would also require that 
the record of the proceedings be provided without charge and as 
soon as the record is authenticated, and that the victim be 
notified of the opportunity to receive the record of the 
proceedings.

        Section 1646--Medical Care for Victims of Sexual Assault

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish protocols for providing medical care to a member of 
the armed forces who is a victim of a sexual assault, including 
protocols with respect to the appropriate screening, 
prevention, and mitigation of diseases, taking into account the 
gender of the victim. This section would also require the 
Secretary to ensure that an accurate and complete medical 
record is made for each member of the armed forces who is a 
victim of a sexual assault with respect to the physical and 
mental condition of the member resulting from the assault, and 
that such record complies with the requirement for 
confidentiality in making a restricted report under section 
1044e(b) of title 10, United States Code.

 Section 1647--Privilege Against Disclosure of Certain Communications 
                  With Sexual Assault Victim Advocates

    This section would establish that a confidential 
communication between a victim of a sexual assault and a 
qualified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate be treated in the same 
manner as a confidential communication between a patient and a 
psychiatrist for proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


            Section 1661--Recruiter Selection and Oversight

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to ensure effective recruiter selection and 
oversight with regard to sexual assault prevention and 
response. This section would also require commanders of 
recruiting organizations and Military Entrance Processing 
Stations to ensure that sexual assault prevention and response 
awareness campaign materials are available and posted in 
locations visible to potential and actual recruits for the 
armed forces.

Section 1662--Availability of Services Under Sexual Assault Prevention 
  and Response Program for Dependents of Members, Military Retirees, 
   Department of Defense Civilian Employees, and Defense Contractor 
                               Employees

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, to revise 
materials made available under the sexual assault prevention 
and response program to include information on the extent to 
which dependents of members of the armed forces, retired 
members, Department of Defense civilian employees, and 
employees of defense contractors are eligible for sexual 
assault prevention and response services under the sexual 
assault prevention and response program. This section would 
also require the Secretary of Defense, within one year of the 
date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report on the feasibility of extending all 
sexual assault prevention and response services available for a 
member of the armed forces who is the victim of a sexual 
assault to dependents of members of the armed forces, retired 
members, Department of Defense civilian employees, and 
employees of defense contractors who are the victim of a sexual 
assault.

  Section 1663--Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
                    Program in Training Environments

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to ensure that a member of the armed forces who is 
a victim of a sexual assault in a training environment is 
provided, to the maximum extent possible, with confidential 
access to victim support services and afforded time for 
recovery. The member should not be required to repeat training 
unless the time needed for support services and recovery 
significantly interferes with the progress of the member's 
training.

  Section 1664--Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
       Program in Remote Environments and Joint Basing Situations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
combatant commanders to ensure that the sexual assault 
prevention and response program continues to operate even in 
remote environments in which members of the armed forces are 
deployed, including coalition operations. This section would 
also require the Secretary of Defense to monitor the 
implementation of the sexual assault prevention and response 
program and military justice and jurisdiction issues at joint 
basing locations. Elements of the armed forces sharing a joint 
base location would be required to closely collaborate on 
sexual assault prevention and response issues to ensure 
consistency in approach and messages at the joint base 
location.

            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 2011. As recommended by the committee, 
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$20,002,370,000 for construction in support of the active 
forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for 
fiscal year 2011.

           MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense requested $14,209,418,000 for 
military construction, $2,714,759,000 for Base Closure and 
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,823,191,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends 
authorization of $14,648,514,000 for military construction, 
$2,714,759,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,823,191,000 for 
family housing in fiscal year 2011.


                       Section 2001--Short Title

    This section would cite Division B of this Act as the 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011.''

 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, 2013, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever 
is later.

                      Section 2003--Effective Date

    This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII and XXIX of this Act take effect on 
October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of this Act, 
whichever is later.

            Section 2004--General Reduction Across Division

    This section would reduce the overall authorization of 
appropriations in this Division. This section would further 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act describing how the Secretary determines to implement 
the reduction.

                 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $4,078,798,000 for Army 
military construction and $610,469,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 
$4,198,174,000 for military construction and $610,469,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


               Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, Land Disposal

    The committee is aware of an unresolved land disposal issue 
at the former Defense Depot Ogden (DDOU), Utah, which was 
closed in the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. 
Under the original disposal agreement, the Army assigned 
administrative jurisdiction of a small parcel of the DDOU to 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order for 
HHS to convey the property through a Public Benefit Conveyance 
(PBC) to a private transportation company to assist disabled 
citizens in the community. The company has since disbanded, and 
the property has been abandoned for more than two years. The 
City of Ogden, the recognized Local Reuse Authority, has 
requested that the title of the abandoned property be 
transferred to the City for further economic and reutilization 
activities since the original plan can no longer be executed. 
However, neither the Army nor HHS believes it has the authority 
to transfer the land, with each claiming the other agency must 
take the first action. The committee believes that the Army and 
HHS have requisite authority under BRAC law to resolve the 
issue and return the property to the beneficial use of the 
Ogden community. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to review this matter, in coordination with the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, and brief the House Committee on 
Armed Services not later than December 31, 2010, concerning the 
resolution of the issue and any legislative assistance the 
Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of HHS believe may be 
required.

        Fort Bragg Parking Concerns Due to BRAC Force Structure

    Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is the recipient of several 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 activities including 
the movement of Army's Forces Command headquarters (FORSCOM) 
and the Army's Reserve Command headquarters (USARC) by 
September 2011. This realignment is expected to increase base 
loading by more than 16,000 personnel, straining the existing 
transportation grid. The committee is concerned that the 
installation does not have adequate transportation and parking 
to fully support the realignment. The increase in personnel 
will cause a parking burden on facilities such as the FORSCOM/
USARC headquarters, Fort Bragg's Soldier Support Center, and 
Womack Army Medical Center.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to report to the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 
2011, on an assessment of the parking requirements that are 
required to support the personnel increase caused by the BRAC 
realignments. At a minimum, this report will include:
          (1) The projected number of military and civilian 
        personnel that require parking to support the 
        realigning BRAC activities;
          (2) The current parking available;
          (3) The parking plan to accommodate the increased 
        number of personnel caused by the BRAC realignment; and
          (4) Options to address the parking deficiencies that 
        could include parking garages or other public 
        transportation mitigation measures.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to 
consider including the most practical solution into the Future 
Years Defense Program.

               Quarters #1, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois

    The committee is aware of the Department of the Army's 
initiative to enter into a lease, pursuant to section 2667 of 
title 10, United States Code, that would reuse this historic 
structure. The committee believes that this 1871 historic 
structure is integral to the integrity of the local community 
and a key element in the history of Rock Island Arsenal. The 
committee encourages the Department of the Army to take all 
prudent steps to ensure Quarters #1, Rock Island Arsenal, 
Illinois, is restored and renovated to a state that will retain 
its proud and historic character.

                   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 Aviation Task Force Complex 
        Phase 1, Increment 2, at Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
    The budget request included $30,000,000 for this project 
and would provide a second increment of phase one to construct 
a standard design Aviation Task Force complex.
    The committee notes that the Department recently reported 
that favorable local bidding in Alaska resulted in the complete 
award of Increment 1 and 2 within the authorization of 
appropriations provided in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), rendering this 
project moot.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of 
$30,000,000, to support this project.
          (2) $45,000,000 for the Sensitive Compartmented 
        Information Facility at Wiesbaden, Germany.
    The budget request included $91,000,000 to construct a 
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility for consolidated 
tactical, theater, and national intelligence functions.
    The committee supports the full authorization of this 
project. However, the committee supports the authorization of 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute the project 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 2011.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $46,000,000, a 
reduction of $45,000,000, to support this project.
          (3) $12,000,000 for the Operations Support Facility, 
        Increment 4, at Vicenza, Italy.
    The budget request included $25,000,000 to construct the 
fourth increment of an operational support facility required to 
support a brigade complex
    The committee supports the full authorization of this 
project. However, the committee supports the authorization of 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute the project 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 2011.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $13,000,000, a 
reduction of $12,000,000, to support this project.
          (4) $12,000,000 for Barracks and Community Support, 
        Increment 4, at Vicenza, Italy.
    The budget request included $26,000,000 to construct the 
fourth increment of an operational support facility required to 
support a brigade complex
    The committee supports the full authorization of this 
project. However, the committee supports the authorization of 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute the project 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 2011.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $13,000,000, a 
reduction of $13,000,000, to support this project.

                       Planning and Design, Army

    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) $347,000--Easton Readiness Center Addition/
        Alteration, BG Louis G. Smith Readiness Center, 
        Maryland;
          (2) $3,060,000--Growth Support Infrastructure, Fort 
        Belvoir, Virginia;
          (3) $2,070,000--Rail Yard Improvements, Fort Bliss, 
        Texas; and
          (4) $1,166,000--Alternative Energy Projects, Fort 
        Bliss, Texas.

                  Unspecified Minor Construction, Army

    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) $1,700,000--Emergency Medical Services Facility, 
        Fort Rucker, Alabama; and
          (2) $1,750,000--Mapes Road and Cooper Avenue 
        Improvements, Fort Meade, Maryland.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Army construction projects 
authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. 
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 
Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of 
appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Army may obligate on military construction 
projects.

                      Section 2102--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
2011. This section would further provide the authorization of 
appropriations to support Army family housing.

 Section 2103--Use of Unobligated Army Military Construction Funds in 
  Conjunction With Funds Provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia To 
               Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Project

    This section would provide the Secretary of the Army 
authority to use unobligated funds, in conjunction with funds 
provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, to construct a two-
company fire station at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

  Section 2104--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2009 Project

    This section would change the location of a construction 
project for an Aircraft/Vehicle Maintenance Shop from 
Katterbach, Federal Republic of Germany, to Grafenwoehr, 
Germany.

  Section 2105--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2010 Project

    This section would expand the scope of a construction 
project for a Brigade Complex at Fort Riley, Kansas.

 Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2012, whichever is later.

                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $3,879,104,000 for Navy 
military construction and $552,790,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 
$3,941,639,000 for military construction and $552,790,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Defense Access Road Assessment To Support Naval Support Activity, 
                       Northwest Annex, Virginia

    The committee is concerned that the main access road to 
Naval Support Activity Northwest Annex, Chesapeake, Virginia, 
is insufficient to support the current mission requirements of 
the installation. Even though the installation has sufficient 
space to support future additional command tenants, the 
inadequate load and volume capacity of the main access road may 
preclude the Naval Support Activity Northwest Annex, Virginia, 
from supporting future missions. The committee urges the 
Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the Military Surface 
Deployment and Distribution Command, to consider actions 
necessary to designate Ballahack Road from United States Route 
17 to Route 168 as a Defense Access Road in the most condensed 
timeframe possible.

                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 active-duty military personnel and 
their families for more than 50 years and strengthening the 
bond between the residents of the community and the United 
States Marine Corps. The committee understands that the 
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/SI) conducted 
to assess possible lead contamination beyond the range 
boundaries is now complete and recommends a Remedial 
Investigation (RI) be conducted to better evaluate the full 
range of possible contamination. While the committee expects 
the Secretary of the Navy to plan and budget for necessary 
mitigation and environment cleanup measures as required by law, 
the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to seek 
creative solutions to continue even limited range operations 
during the conduct of the RI and any further required 
activities and directs the Secretary to brief the results of 
the review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2010. 
Further, the committee urges the Secretary to explore fiscally 
prudent measures by which the SDSSA and the Marine Corps may 
partner in an effective range management plan that prevents any 
future off-range contamination and permits full operations in 
the future.

                       Planning and Design, Navy

    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) $550,000--Submarine Group Two Headquarters, Navy 
        Submarine Base New London, Connecticut; and
          (2) $760,000--Platform Protection Engineering 
        Complex, Navy Surface Warfare Center Crane, Indiana.

               Silver Strand Training Complex, California

    The committee is aware of the Navy's proposal for increased 
training activities within the Navy's Silver Strand Training 
Complex (SSTC) and southern areas of the Naval Air Station 
North Island. While the committee understands the importance of 
SSTC to west coast naval amphibious, special warfare, and mine 
countermeasure activities, the committee is concerned about the 
impact additional training will have on the quality of life for 
residents of the City of Imperial Beach and the City of 
Coronado. The committee strongly urges the Navy to actively 
work with the City of Imperial Beach and the City of Coronado 
to mitigate increases in noise, including helicopter noise at 
Naval Outlying Field Imperial Beach, and environmental 
disturbances resulting from the proposed increase in training. 
The committee also urges the Navy to communicate in advance 
whenever practicable the potential impact of these activities 
to nearby communities.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Navy construction projects 
authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. 
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 
Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of 
appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Navy may obligate on military construction 
projects. Finally, this section would restrict the expenditures 
of planning and design appropriations to support the 
establishment of a homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft 
carrier at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.

                      Section 2202--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
2011. This section would further provide the authorization of 
appropriations to support Navy family housing.

  Section 2203--Technical Amendment To Reflect Multi-Increment Fiscal 
                           Year 2010 Project

    This section would add an explicit authorization for the 
incremented construction project listed.

 Section 2204--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2012, whichever is later.

              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,311,385,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $591,817,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,315,773,000 for military construction and $591,817,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.

                       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) $79,000,000 for the Air Force Technical 
        Applications Center at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
    The budget request included $158,009,000 to construct a 
multiple story facility for unique equipment needed to support 
critical missions.
    The committee supports the full authorization of this 
project. However, the committee supports the authorization of 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute the project 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 2011.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $79,009,000, a 
reduction of $79,000,000, to support this project.

                           F-22 Raptor Basing

    The committee understands that the Secretary of the Air 
Force is contemplating basing options to support the F-22 
Raptor mission. Since the Air Force is procuring fewer aircraft 
than initially programmed, the committee supports the basing 
consolidation under way and encourages the Secretary to 
promptly replace aviation assets that have already been reduced 
at affected installations with aviation assets of a similar 
mission. In the determination of consolidation options, the 
Secretary should consider completing a cost benefit analysis 
that appropriately maximizes full use of available capacity at 
existing F-22 installations. The Secretary is urged to complete 
this assessment expeditiously and brief the assessment to the 
congressional defense committees.

         Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah

    The committee understands that the Secretary of the Air 
Force initially decided to separate the Single Program Manager 
and the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Prime Integration 
Function and locate a significant effort associated with these 
entities in leased space in the local community. This schism in 
operations has endured for over ten years and is the cause for 
heightened costs, lost productivity, and an increase 
vulnerability associated with the leasing location. The 
committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Air Force has 
not performed a sufficient review of the life cycle costs 
associated with this enduring, critical effort. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate 
the life cycle costs with the current effort and program 
sufficient funds to implement the least cost solution that 
could include traditional military construction or an Enhanced 
Use Lease option.

                     Planning and Design, Air Force

    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) $378,000--AEDC Power Distribution Modernization, 
        Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee;
          (2) $495,000--Central Deployment Center, Grand Forks 
        Air Force Base, North Dakota;
          (3) $900,000--Consolidated Security Forces Operations 
        Center, Phase 1, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
          (4) $249,000--Infrastructure Improvements, MacDill 
        Air Force Base, Florida;
          (5) $396,000--New Fitness Facility, Phase 1, Scott 
        Air Force Base, Illinois;
          (6) $387,000--BCE Maintenance Shops and Supply 
        Warehouse, Travis Air Force Base, California; and
          (7) $810,000--Air Traffic Control Tower, Maxwell Air 
        Force Base, Alabama.

               Unspecified Minor Construction, Air Force

    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 project:
          (1) $3,000,000--Land Acquisition Clear Zone, Langley 
        Air Force Base, Virginia.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Air Force construction projects 
authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. 
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 
Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of 
appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Air Force may obligate on military construction 
projects.

                      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 2011. This section would further provide the authorization 
of appropriations to support Air Force family housing.

 Section 2303--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2007 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2012, whichever is later.

           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $3,118,062,000 for defense 
agency military construction and $68,075,000 for family housing 
for fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 
$2,999,580,000 for military construction and $68,075,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
    The budget request also contained $124,971,000 for chemical 
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends 
authorization of $124,971,000 for chemical demilitarization 
construction for fiscal year 2011.

                       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) $150,000,000 for a general reduction in the 
        Defense-Wide military construction account to correctly 
        increment construction projects.
    The committee supports the full authorizations of these 
projects. However, the committee supports the authorization of 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
defense agencies to execute the projects in the year of the 
authorization for appropriations. For these projects, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded 
its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2011.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of 
$150,000,000, across the defense-wide military construction 
account, to increment projects properly.

                   Planning and Design, Defense-Wide

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of Defense 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
project:
          (1) $1,036,000--Fuel Storage Complex, Tulsa 
        International Airport, Oklahoma.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations


    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the defense agencies construction 
projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-
project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to 
be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the defense agencies may obligate 
on military construction projects.

                      Section 2402--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction, planning and 
design, and credits to the Department of Defense Family Housing 
Improvement Fund for defense agencies family housing for fiscal 
year 2011. This section would further provide the authorization 
of appropriations to support defense agencies family housing.

               Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects and require that the 
Secretary of Defense reserve a portion of the amount for energy 
conservation projects for reserve components.

          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 
2011 for chemical demilitarization construction. This section 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount the chemical 
demilitarization office may spend on military construction 
projects.

  Section 2412--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2000 Project

    This section would expand the scope of the authorization 
listed to continue chemical demilitarization construction at 
Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky.

   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $258,884,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) 
for fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 
$258,884,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2011.

                         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 $258,884,000 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 $1,438,214,000 for military 
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for 
fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization for 
fiscal year 2011 of $1,809,493,000 to be distributed as 
follows:

Army National Guard.....................................  $1,019,902,000
Air National Guard......................................     292,371,000
Army Reserve............................................     358,331,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      91,557,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      47,332,000

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station

    The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 decisions 
directed 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 air reserve station. However, the air 
reserve station needs to expand existing C-130 capabilities to 
support this integration. Therefore, the committee encourages 
the Air Force Reserve to include the second phase of the C-130 
flightline operations facility in the next Future Years Defense 
Plan.

                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 
projects:
          (1) $675,000--Multipurpose ANG Training Facility, 
        Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania;
          (2) $3,600,000--Aircraft Maintenance Shops, Joe Foss 
        Field, South Dakota;
          (3) $2,000,000--ASA Replace Alert Complex, Naval Air 
        Station JRB New Orleans, Louisiana; and
          (4) $534,000--Contingency Response Group Facility, 
        Standiford Field, Kentucky.

                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) $223,000--Fire Fighting Team Support Facility, 
        Murphy, North Carolina;
          (2) $281,000--Joint Forces Headquarters, Phase 1, 
        Boone, Kentucky;
          (3) $446,000--Troops Service Support Center, Fort 
        Custer, Michigan;
          (4) $671,000--Readiness Center, Hermitage, 
        Pennsylvania;
          (5) $778,000--Readiness Center, Barrigada, Guam;
          (6) $800,000--Regional Training Institute Phase 1, 
        Camp Dodge, Iowa;
          (7) $947,000--Field Maintenance Shop, Mankato, 
        Minnesota;
          (8) $1,243,000--Armed Forces Reserve Center Addition/
        Alteration, Salem, Oregon;
          (9) $1,484,000--Barracks (AT) Phase 1, Camp Butner, 
        North Carolina;
          (10) $1,508,000--Field Maintenance Shop, 
        Williamsport, Pennsylvania;
          (11) $1,513,000--Armed Forces Reserve Center, 
        Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania;
          (12) $2,000,000--FWAATS Expansion, Bridgeport, West 
        Virginia;
          (13) $2,334,000--Regional Training Institute Phase 2, 
        Camp Robinson, Arkansas;
          (14) $3,729,000--Readiness Center, Quonset Point, 
        Rhode Island;
          (15) $5,000,000--Operational Reserve Headquarters, 
        McLennan County, Texas; and
          (16) $5,000,000--Cantonment and Support 
        Infrastructure, South Texas Training Center, Texas.

                    Stratton Air National Guard Base

    The 109th Airlift Wing, located at the Stratton Air 
National Guard Base, New York, provides direct support to the 
Air Expeditionary Forces and provides aviation support to the 
National Science Foundation to execute a Presidential Directive 
mandating a U.S. National Polar mission presence. New York 
State's Civil Support Team is also located at the Stratton Air 
National Guard Base.
    Given the unique missions of these units, the construction 
of a new Joint Warehousing facility at Stratton is essential to 
future operations at the base to ensure these units can store 
and catalogue their unique mission equipment. The committee 
encourages the Air Force Reserve to include the Stratton Air 
National Guard Base Warehouse and Logistics Center in the next 
Future Years Defense Program.

           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 project:
          (1) $2,000,000--Relocate Main Gate, Moffett Field, 
        California.

          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) $891,000--Paving, Sacramento Depot, California;
          (2) $1,466,000--Renewable Photovoltaic Solar Power, 
        Ventura, California;
          (3) $1,500,000--Emergency Power Generator, Glen Jean, 
        West Virginia;
          (4) $1,999,000--Simulation Center, Iowa City Melrose, 
        Iowa;
          (5) $2,000,000--FWAATS Apron Expansion, Bridgeport, 
        Connecticut; and
          (6) $2,000,000--Unit Training Equipment Site 
        Addition/Alteration, Ravenna TS, Ohio.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


  Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Army National Guard construction 
projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-
project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to 
be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the Army National Guard may 
obligate on military construction projects.

Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Army Reserve construction projects 
authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. 
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 
Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of 
appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Army Reserve may obligate on military 
construction projects.

    Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
    Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of 
                             Appropriations

    This section lists the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
Reserve construction projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 
on a project-by-project basis. The list contained in this 
report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 
would provide the authorization of appropriations for each 
project and provide an overall limit on the amount the Navy 
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve may obligate on military 
construction projects.

   Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Air National Guard construction 
projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-
project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to 
be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the Air National Guard may obligate 
on military construction projects.

   Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section lists the Air Force Reserve construction 
projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-
project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to 
be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the Air Force Reserve may obligate 
on military construction projects.

 Section 2606--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2012, whichever is later.

          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $360,474,000 for activities 
related to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities 
and $2,354,285,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The 
committee recommends authorization of $360,474,000 for prior 
BRAC round activities and $2,354,285,000 for BRAC 2005 
activities.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                    Defense Access Roads Assessment

    The committee remains concerned that the Defense Access 
Roads (DAR) Program criteria place a disproportionate burden on 
local communities to manage the impact of military 
installation-generated traffic volume. While this problem has 
been exacerbated in a number of locations as a result of the 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 activities, BRAC is by 
no means the only defense-related cause of rising traffic 
congestion around military installations.
    Even so, the committee remains particularly concerned that 
the Secretary of Defense has aggravated traffic congestions at 
multiple transportation nodes as a result of implementing the 
BRAC requirements. The traffic criteria promulgated by the DAR 
program do not appear to appropriately address pre-existing 
urban traffic congestion. To address these concerns, the 
committee is pleased to note that the Secretary of Defense has 
commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to review 
``Federal Funding of Transportation Improvements in BRAC 
Cases.''
    While the committee applauds this effort, it also believes 
that current DAR program criteria often fail to consider 
existing and escalating traffic congestion at installations 
unaffected by BRAC. The committee believes that the impact of 
Department of Defense activities on local traffic 
infrastructure is too often ignored, causing unnecessary 
friction with cash-strapped state and local governments. In 
addition, unmitigated traffic congestion degrades the mission 
capability of an installation if the workforce cannot readily 
access the base.
    To better assess this program, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide copies of the National Academy 
of Sciences assessment of this program to the congressional 
defense committees within 15 days of its final publication by 
the National Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees on the Department's assessment 
of the National Academy of Sciences report within 45 days of 
final publication that identifies corrective actions to 
implement the proposed changes for BRAC-impacted installations 
and other enduring locations.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Subtitle A--Authorizations


Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and 
 Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure 
                              Account 1990

    This section would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2011 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the 
decision of prior Base Realignment and Closure activities.

Section 2702--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded 
        Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

    This section would authorize military construction projects 
for fiscal year 2011 for ongoing activities that are required 
to implement the decisions to support Base Realignment and 
Closure (BRAC) 2005 activities.

Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and 
 Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure 
                              Account 2005

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction projects for fiscal year 2011 that are required to 
implement the decisions of the Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC) 2005 activities. This provision would also provide an 
overall limit of the amount authorized for BRAC military 
construction projects.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters


   Section 2711--Transportation Plan for BRAC 133 Project Under Fort 
                   Belvoir, Virginia, BRAC Initiative

    This section would limit the acceptance of not more than 
1,000 parking spaces at a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
Project at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, also known as the ``Mark 
Center,'' until the Secretary of the Army submits to the 
congressional defense committees a viable transportation 
management plan and certifies that construction has been 
completed to provide adequate ingress and egress from the 
business park at which the BRAC project is located. This 
section would also require the Department of Defense Inspector 
General to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees, by September 30, 2011, assessing the sufficiency of 
the Secretary of the Army's transportation management plan.

         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


 Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques To Achieve Life-
                    Cycle Cost Effective Facilities

    The committee remains concerned that the varying 
construction methods, authorized by the Department of Defense, 
may not obtain the most life cycle cost effective facilities as 
defined by section 2801 of title 10, United States Code. This 
issue was highlighted by a recent Government Accountability 
Office study entitled ``DoD Needs to Determine and Use the Most 
Economical Building Materials and Methods When Acquiring New 
Permanent Facilities'' dated April 2010. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Defense Science Board to conduct an 
independent assessment of construction techniques that provide 
life cycle cost effective facilities used by the Department of 
Defense to include the following:
          (1) An evaluation of the current construction 
        techniques used by the Department of Defense to achieve 
        life cycle cost effective facilities;
          (2) A comparison of Department of Defense and 
        industry construction methods;
          (3) An assessment of the effectiveness of contract 
        provisions to obtain life cycle cost effective 
        facilities;
          (4) An assessment of the effectiveness of the 
        Department of Defense to obtain the life cycle cost 
        effective assessment established pursuant to section 
        2801 of title 10, United States Code;
          (5) A recommendation of the most effective life cycle 
        period, by facility type, that the Department of 
        Defense should use to obtain the most cost effective 
        facilities; and
          (6) Such other related matters as the Secretary 
        considers appropriate.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 2011, a 
report on the results of the assessment, including such 
comments and recommendations as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.

                   Carbon Fiber Grid Precast Concrete

    The committee supports, where practical, the use of 
innovative building systems to accomplish the Department of 
Defense's construction objectives. The committee, for example, 
is aware of the widespread commercial use of carbon fiber grid 
reinforced precast concrete, a relatively recent but proven 
innovation in concrete. This technology uses steel for primary 
reinforcing and a carbon fiber grid for secondary reinforcing 
and shear transfer, thereby resulting in thinner, lighter, more 
durable, thermally efficient, and cost effective concrete. The 
committee notes that this building application has been 
inserted in several military construction projects and has 
yielded positive results. The committee also notes that the Tri 
Service Engineering Executive Board is considering a change to 
the concrete guide specification to incorporate this 
innovation.
    If the Secretary of Defense determines that this 
construction methodology is in the best interest of national 
defense, the committee encourages the rapid promulgation of 
this technology into future construction contract 
solicitations.

       Collaborative Efforts To Address Installation Encroachment

    The committee remains concerned about the negative impacts 
on military training and operations resulting from encroachment 
around the nation's military installations. The 2009 National 
Academy of Public Administration report, ``Strengthening 
National Defense: Countering Encroachment through Military-
Community Collaboration'' noted that ``. . . despite efforts by 
the DOD, the challenges to military readiness created by nearby 
civilian communities are significant and growing. Among [the 
panel's recommendations] is the recommendation for increased 
collaboration among key stakeholders--local and state 
governments, non-profit organizations, the Military Services 
and installations, and other federal agencies, in order to 
creatively and effectively address these complex and critical 
issues.''
    The committee supports this recommendation, and notes that 
such a collaborative effort continues to address encroachment 
around Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia, a base that 
was once considered the ``poster child'' for military base 
encroachment. In recognition of the dangers to military 
readiness posed by encroachment, the cities of Virginia Beach 
and Chesapeake, Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia have 
taken a number of steps to reduce encroachment around NAS 
Oceana. For example, the communities have implemented 
modifications to land zoning ordinances to comply with 
compatible use guidelines, including rezoning approximately 
one-third of City of Virginia Beach property, purchased parcels 
of property to prevent future incompatible development, and the 
Commonwealth of Virginia and communities continue to annually 
commit $15.0 million for land acquisitions to reduce 
encroachment.
    In a collaborative effort, the Department of the Navy has 
partnered with these communities by utilizing Readiness and 
Environmental Protection Initiative funds to purchase 
conservation easements on properties acquired by the 
communities, allowing for additional community efforts to 
reduce encroachment or prevent encroachment in areas of concern 
to NAS Oceana. The committee applauds such collaborative 
efforts, and encourages the secretaries of the military 
departments to explore similar partnering initiatives at 
installations around the nation.

 Department of Defense Policy Regarding Installation Energy Management

    The committee is concerned that a Department of Defense 
instruction regarding installation energy management, issued 
December 11, 2009, suggests that it is departmental policy to 
satisfy some, but not all, goals established by law. 
Specifically, pursuant to this instruction, it is departmental 
policy to comply with the Energy Independence and Security Act 
of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(Public Law 109-58) but not the goal set forth by section 2852 
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The committee expects 
the Secretary of Defense to issue implementing guidance and 
ensure that departmental policy is consistent with this law. 
The committee includes a provision elsewhere in this title that 
would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan and 
implementation guidelines for achieving this goal.

           Disposal Plans for Excess and Obsolete Facilities

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense's goal 
is to maintain only those facilities that are essential to its 
needs and to eliminate unneeded facility inventories in order 
to minimize sustainment, restoration, modernization, and 
operating costs. To help achieve this goal, the committee also 
notes that the Department conducted a survey in 2004 to 
identify unneeded facilities and developed plans to dispose of 
these facilities by fiscal year 2013.
    The committee recognizes that eliminating excess and 
obsolete facility inventories can reduce costs. The committee 
also recognizes, however, that funding and implementing 
facility disposal plans can be a challenge, in view of 
competing facility funding needs. Nonetheless, the committee 
encourages the Department to continue to identify and dispose 
of excess and obsolete facilities. The committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees, by March 30, 2011, that 
reviews the Department's plans for eliminating excess and 
obsolete facilities. At a minimum, the review should assess the 
following: what amount of excess and obsolete facility 
inventory currently exists and what is the related impact on 
annual operation and maintenance and other costs; what is the 
status of the Department's plans for disposing of excess and 
obsolete facilities, including the amounts of past and planned 
disposal funding; what impediments exist, if any, to fully 
implement the Department's plans; and any other issues the 
Comptroller General finds relevant to this review.

                  East Coast Homeport Cost Assessment

    The committee is concerned that the full costs associated 
with the planned second East coast homeport for a nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier has been underestimated, introducing a 
measure of budgetary risk and potential shortfalls in future 
year's defense budget submissions. The committee directs that, 
not later than February 15, 2011, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report containing an independent estimate of the total direct 
and indirect costs to be incurred by the Federal Government in 
homeporting a nuclear carrier at Mayport, Florida.

                          Enhanced Use Leases

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
begun to address challenges associated with a large inventory 
of deteriorating facilities and excess and underutilized 
property by pursuing a multi-part strategy that includes Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC), housing privatization, and 
demolition of facilities that are no longer needed. The 
committee is also aware that the Department has used authority 
provided under section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to 
pursue a program of leasing real property not currently needed 
for mission requirements to gain additional resources for the 
maintenance and repair of existing facilities or the 
construction of new facilities.
    The committee believes that leasing of underutilized real 
property, particularly the use of longer-term leases that are 
referred to as ``enhanced use leases,'' offers opportunities to 
reduce infrastructure and base operating costs. However, the 
committee has concerns about the program, including potential 
impediments that exist which could adversely affect the 
Department's implementation of enhanced use leases, such as the 
complexities of some lease transactions. The committee is also 
concerned about whether the Department has received fair market 
value in its enhanced use leases and how potential future BRAC 
rounds might affect lease agreements and potential liability 
due to lease termination prior to lease expiration.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees, by March 30, 2011, to review the Department 
of Defense's implementation of enhanced use leases, as provided 
for under the authority of section 2667 of title 10, United 
States Code. At a minimum, the review should assess the 
following:
          (1) To what extent the Department has used the 
        authorities in section 2667 of title 10, United States 
        Code, to implement enhanced use leases;
          (2) How the Department has dealt with the impediments 
        to the use of enhanced use leases, including potential 
        liability due to lease termination prior to lease 
        expiration;
          (3) How the Department determines the fair market 
        value of the enhanced use lease interest;
          (4) To what extent the Department has realized the 
        expected benefits from implemented leases;
          (5) The Department's determination to enter into a 
        lease rather than making a surplus determination; and
          (6) The Department's determination that the proposed 
        leases are compatible with the mission of the 
        installations.

 Ensuring Realistic Air-to-Air Training for Fifth-Generation Aircraft 
                                 Units

    The committee is aware that fifth-generation fighter 
aircraft squadrons face unique challenges in developing, 
scheduling, and engaging in realistic air-to-air combat 
training activities. Such challenges are particularly acute 
when low-observable aircraft with exceptional avionics systems 
are only able to conduct air-to-air training with identical 
aircraft. In order to conduct realistic training in such cases, 
some of the aircraft must artificially limit their capabilities 
in order to simulate third- or fourth-generation aircraft, 
employ inter-flight data link systems to simulate use of 
aircraft sensors, or leave pilots in unrealistic ``stealth-on-
stealth'' engagements. This results in inefficient training for 
fifth-generation aircraft pilots, erosion of skills in 
effective operational use of aircraft sensors, radars, and 
other equipment, and unnecessary ``wear and tear'' on the 
nation's premier fighter aircraft fleet in training scenarios 
in which older aircraft would perform more effectively. 
Although these issues are primarily experienced today by F-22 
Raptor units, the committee expects units equipped with the F-
35 Lightning II aircraft in the future to face similar 
challenges. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Air Force to review air-to-air training practices of existing 
fifth-generation aircraft units and to provide a report to the 
House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2011, on 
options for basing aggressor aircraft at fifth-generation 
aircraft bases.

Future Unmanned Aerial Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability

    The Department of Defense continues to rapidly increase its 
investment in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to meet 
battlefield commanders' demand for the capabilities provided by 
UAS. For example, the Department's recent budget requests have 
sought funds to continue to increase the Air Force Predator and 
Reaper UAS programs to 50 combat air patrols by fiscal year 
2011, an increase of nearly 300 percent from fiscal year 2007. 
Moreover, the Department's February 2010 Quadrennial Defense 
Review report states that the Air Force will continue to 
increase the number of combat air patrols to 65 by fiscal year 
2015.
    The rapid growth of UAS inventories to meet operational 
demands raises a number of questions concerning the military 
services' ability to support these inventories in the near- and 
long-term. In particular, to support their UAS inventories, the 
military services must train sufficient numbers of personnel to 
operate and maintain the aircraft, provide adequate facilities 
and other infrastructure to sustain them, and provide 
sufficient access to airspace and training ranges to train 
military personnel within the United States and at military 
bases overseas.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees with its fiscal 
year 2012 budget request that describes the military services' 
plans to support their current and planned UAS inventories. The 
report should, at a minimum, discuss:
          (1) Current UAS inventory levels and planned UAS 
        inventory levels for each fiscal year through 2017;
          (2) Plans to supply the number of personnel needed to 
        operate the aircraft and sensor payloads and to perform 
        UAS maintenance;
          (3) Current and planned UAS basing and other 
        operating locations;
          (4) Progress made in providing the number of 
        facilities needed for UAS inventories to support 
        operations and training and the funding required for 
        any additional facilities; and
          (5) The availability of airspace, ranges, and other 
        infrastructure at each planned UAS location, and a 
        description of the steps that the services plan to take 
        to overcome any limitations that adversely impact UAS 
        training.

   Guam Civilian Infrastructure Requirements To Support and Sustain 
 Realignment of Military Installations and the Relocation of Military 
                           Personnel on Guam

    The committee notes the lack of a comprehensive report on 
the local civilian infrastructure funding needs from Guam. The 
committee, further notes that in a Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report on civilian infrastructure needs on Guam, 
GAO-09-653, they highlighted the following, ``Although DOD has 
taken a number of actions to identify its requirements and 
potential solutions for meeting this significant demand, it has 
not begun development of a comprehensive utilities plan to use 
as an important planning tool in managing and informing 
stakeholders, including Congress, on the several challenges 
that pose considerable risk to the success of building up the 
infrastructure to meet the demand and ensure utilities are 
available when needed. Without sufficient utility services, 
major construction projects, movement of Marines and other 
forces, and other buildup activities may fall behind schedule 
and increase implementation costs due to further compression of 
the timeline near the end of the implementation period.'' In 
particular, the call for a comprehensive plan and report from 
the Department of Defense has not been completed.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) in their formal comments and submission 
on the draft environmental impact statement gave the Department 
of Defense the lowest scoring possible for an environmental 
impact statement. In part, the lowest score from the EPA was a 
result of the lack of comprehensive planning by the Department 
of Defense on how it would fix critical infrastructure gaps on 
Guam. The committee remains concerned that without a 
comprehensive civilian infrastructure plan that the military 
build-up on Guam will be greatly inhibited and cause 
significant cost overruns. As such, the committee encourages 
the Department of Defense to work with the U.S. Department of 
Interior's Office of Insular Affairs and with the Government of 
Guam on the preparation of a comprehensive effort to coordinate 
local civilian infrastructure requirements associated with the 
military expansion on Guam.

       Naval Air Station North Island Transportation Improvements

    The committee is aware of the Secretary of the Navy's 
efforts to collaborate with the City of Coronado, California, 
and other state and regional partners including the California 
Department of Transportation on addressing congestion in the 
city related to Naval Air Station North Island, California. The 
committee strongly encourages the Navy to continue working with 
the city and regional partners to expeditiously find and 
implement short-and long-term solutions to the current traffic 
problem, as well as likely increased congestion with the 
loading of an additional aircraft carrier.

        Naval Station Mayport, Florida, Homeporting Alternatives

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report 
to the congressional defense committees, not later than 
December 15, 2010, on the implementation and recurring costs of 
homeporting alternatives including the following homeporting 
options at Naval Station Mayport:
          (1) Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier;
          (2) Littoral Combat Ships;
          (3) Non-nuclear options considered in the 
        ``Environmental Impact Statement for Homeporting of 
        Additional Surface Ships at Naval Station Mayport'' 
        signed January 14, 2009; and
          (4) Other options that the Secretary considers 
        appropriate.
    Such a review shall include an assessment of one-time and 
recurring operation and maintenance requirements and military 
construction requirements associated with the various 
alternatives. This report shall review the benefits to the 
northeast Florida ship maintenance industrial base that could 
result from the homeporting of non-nuclear vessels at the 
installation.
    The committee notes that the estimates for the costs of 
homeporting a nuclear aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport 
continue to rise, and may cost as much as $1 billion in 
military construction and recurring operation and maintenance 
costs.
    The committee believes that a better assessment of these 
cost estimates of the various alternatives is warranted. The 
committee also believes that a complement of non-nuclear-
powered surface combatants could be more compatible with the 
existing support structure at Naval Station Mayport and less 
expensive than duplicating a nuclear maintenance capability 
that already exists on the East Coast. The committee also notes 
that the northeast Florida ship maintenance industrial base 
could be enhanced if the Department of the Navy were to base 
non-nuclear-powered ships at Naval Station Mayport. Naval 
Station Mayport already has the pier infrastructure necessary 
to homeport non-nuclear-powered surface combatant ships, and 
the maintenance requirements of these alternative homeporting 
solutions appear to be more closely matched to the expertise of 
the existing local ship repair industrial base.
    Finally, the committee understands that a nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier homeported at Naval Station Mayport could 
undergo at the installation only two of the four types of 
scheduled carrier maintenance availabilities: the Carrier 
Incremental Availability and the Planned Incremental 
Availability. These activities would likely provide the local 
private shipyards with combined yearly revenues of only 
approximately $20 million. Furthermore, the Navy has indicated 
that the remaining two types of scheduled nuclear maintenance 
availabilities can be conducted only in the Norfolk area, 
requiring a temporary shift in homeport to Norfolk to complete 
these availabilities. The committee believes that such a 
temporary shift in homeport could present an additional 
requirement on carrier crews and their families that could be 
avoided if Naval Station Mayport were resourced with non-
nuclear-powered ships.

 Report on Workforce Housing and Medical Needs of Guest Workers on Guam

    The committee remains concerned about the lack of a 
detailed plan by the Department of Defense regarding the 
requirements and planning for the housing of a transient and 
guest worker labor force on the Territory of Guam during the 
planned military build-up. Naval Facilities Engineering Command 
(NAVFAC) has determined that the primary acquisition strategy 
for major construction will be done via Multiple Award 
Construction Contracts (MACC). To date, NAVFAC has requested 
that potential construction contract bidders provide a strategy 
for the housing of a transient and guest worker population, as 
well as for how the contractor would provide medical care to 
this population. The committee is concerned that this approach 
could lead to poor workforce housing conditions and sub-
optimized medical care. The committee believes that a more 
comprehensive strategy from the Department of Defense is 
necessary to direct contractors as to appropriate workforce 
housing and medical care on Guam during the major construction 
phases.
    The committee notes the development of workforce housing 
options for the transient and guest workforce but encourages 
the Department to meet certain benchmarks and requirements, 
such as reducing the impact on the surrounding community, as 
well as reducing potential traffic congestion by locating 
worker housing near major construction sites. The committee 
would also note that preferences should be given to firms that 
meet these requirements.
    Additionally, the committee notes that individual 
construction firms are required to provide details on how they 
will provide medical care and insurance to the transient and 
guest worker population on Guam during the major construction 
phases. Further, the Joint Guam Program Office has indicated 
that most medical care would have to be provided by the 
individual contractor, but severe injuries would be handled at 
the Guam Naval Hospital and the Department of Defense would 
encourage contractors to purchase health insurance from local 
firms on Guam. The committee recognizes that the purchase of 
healthcare insurance relies on the available healthcare 
infrastructure. Unfortunately, the health infrastructure on 
Guam is deficient. The committee believes the Navy plan has 
serious flaws and could potentially overburden the local 
medical system and reduce access to care at the Guam Naval 
Hospital for veterans and military retirees.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to report to the congressional defense committees by December 
31, 2010, on methods the Secretary will use to ensure common 
standards for workforce housing and medical care. The report, 
at a minimum, must:
          (1) Outline the standards and requirements that the 
        Secretary will require all providers of workforce 
        housing to meet;
          (2) Outline selection criteria being used that will 
        ensure contractors locate workforce housing in areas 
        near major construction sites and that are consistent 
        with the Guam 2030 Transportation Plan;
          (3) Discuss how the Secretary will incorporate the 
        minimum requirements for workforce housing into the 
        MACC for construction firms;
          (4) Detail the strategy and responsible parties for 
        ensuring compliance with workforce housing standards;
          (5) Detail the requirements for medical care and 
        insurance for the transient and guest worker population 
        on Guam;
          (6) Outline the organic, attached healthcare assets 
        and capabilities the Secretary requires industry to 
        provide;
          (7) Detail how industry will coordinate those assets 
        with resident Guam healthcare to minimize the impact on 
        Guam's citizens and business environment;
          (8) Detail how the Secretary will incorporate the 
        minimum requirements for medical care of the transient 
        and guest worker population into the MACC for 
        construction firms; and
          (9) Detail the strategy and responsible parties for 
        ensuring compliance with medical care and insurance 
        standards.

  Sensors Center of Excellence--Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

    The committee supports the Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC) 2005 decision that established a Sensors Center of 
Excellence at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through the 
consolidation of various radars and sensor development. The 
committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
reviewing the development and detection of unmanned aircraft 
systems and integration of these systems into the national 
airspace system. In order to advance the functionality of 
unmanned aircraft systems, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees, 
within 180 days of enactment of this Act, on efforts to examine 
opportunities to utilize the Sensors Center of Excellence at 
Wright-Patterson AFB, particularly in regard to supporting the 
development of detect, sense and avoid capability for unmanned 
aircraft systems. In conducting the study, the Secretary is 
encouraged to consult with other federal entities that may also 
be able to benefit from enhancing the capabilities and 
resources at the Sensors Center of Excellence.

        Technologies To Achieve Progressive Collapse Resistance

    The committee is concerned about a total building failure 
that originates when a local failure of a primary structural 
component(s) leads to the collapse of adjoining members, which 
in turn leads to additional collapse. Hence, the extent of 
total building damage is disproportionate to the original 
source. In order to address this type of building failure, the 
committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense established 
anti-terrorism standards regarding progressive collapse 
resistance, Unified Facilities Criteria 4-023-03, to better 
control this action. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the anti-terrorism criteria, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2011, that includes the 
following information:
          (1) An assessment of technologies available to meet 
        requirements for construction compliant with 
        progressive collapse resistance requirements;
          (2) An assessment of the cost to incorporate such 
        requirements in new construction; and
          (3) A discussion of incorporation of affordable 
        progressive collapse protection into planning for new 
        construction.

  Vulnerability of Defense Critical Infrastructure to Electromagnetic 
                              Pulse Attack

    The committee is concerned about the vulnerability of 
Department of Defense critical infrastructure to 
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and cyber attack. The committee is 
aware that the Department is undertaking energy-generation 
projects on some military installations, and is concerned that 
some of these initiatives may not include requirements related 
to energy security such as EMP and cyber attack hardening. The 
committee directs the Comptroller General to review assessments 
of the threat of EMP and cyber attack on DOD infrastructure, 
identify DOD programs or activities to mitigate the threat, and 
assess the extent to which the Defense Critical Infrastructure 
Program has incorporated this threat into its risk assessment 
methodology. The review shall consider the progress, findings, 
and recommendations of the Commission to Assess the Threat to 
the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. Initial 
findings shall be submitted no later than June 1, 2011.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


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


  Section 2801--Availability of Military Construction Information on 
                                Internet

    This section would amend section 2851 of title 10, United 
States Code, and provide unrestricted access to military 
construction data to the general public.

  Section 2802--Authority To Transfer Proceeds From Sale of Military 
Family Housing to Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
transfer proceeds of the handling and the disposal of family 
housing, received pursuant to section 2831 of title 10, United 
States Code, to the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund 
established under section 2883(c) of title 10, United States 
Code.

Section 2803--Enhanced Authority for Provision of Excess Contributions 
                  for NATO Security Investment Program

    This section would amend section 2806 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to initiate 
construction services and certain construction projects, not 
otherwise authorized by law, as an element of excess North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment program 
contribution.

    Section 2804--Duration of Authority To Use Pentagon Reservation 
  Maintenance Revolving Fund for Construction and Repairs at Pentagon 
                              Reservation

    This section would rescind the authority of the Sectary of 
Defense to use the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving 
Fund for construction and repairs on September 30, 2012. The 
Secretary of Defense has reported that the overall Pentagon 
renovation is scheduled to be complete in fiscal year 2011.

  Section 2805--Authority To Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for 
Construction Projects Inside the United States Central Command Area of 
                             Responsibility

    This section would extend the Contingency Construction 
Authority first enacted by section 2808 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 
108-136) until September 30, 2011. This section would also 
provide the Secretary of Defense the ability to waive the pre-
notification requirements associated with section 2805 of title 
10, United States Code, with regard to a construction project 
carried out under the authority of this section. Finally, the 
authority of this section would be limited to $200,000,000. The 
Secretary of Defense would be authorized to increase this 
authority by $100,000,000, to a total of $300,000,000, for 
projects within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Section 2806--Veterans to Work Pilot Program for Military Construction 
                                Projects

    This section would establish a Veterans to Work Pilot 
program that requires veterans apprenticeship programs on 20 
military construction projects annually through fiscal year 
2015. This section would require that not later than 150 days 
after the end of each fiscal year during which the pilot 
program is active, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report as to the implementation of the pilot 
program; by March 1, 2016, the Secretary of Defense should 
submit to Congress a report assessing the pilot program, 
including whether the program should be continued, modified, or 
expanded.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


Section 2811--Notice-and-Wait Requirements Applicable to Real Property 
                              Transactions

    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 2812--Treatment of Proceeds Generated From Leases of Non-Excess 
                  Property Involving Military Museums

    This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United 
States Code, and authorize the secretary concerned to retain 
all the proceeds derived at a museum as a result of lease of 
non-excess property for the exclusive use by the museum 
developing such proceeds.

  Section 2813--Repeal of Expired Authority To Lease Land for Special 
                         Operations Activities

    This section would repeal section 2680 of title 10, United 
States Code, whose authority expired on September 30, 2005.

  Section 2814--Former Naval Bombardment Area, Culebra Island, Puerto 
                                  Rico

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
remediate a portion of the bombardment area referred to as 
Flamenco Beach on the Island of Culebra, Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico to permit the land to be used for public park or public 
recreational purposes. This section would also require the 
Secretary to assess the extent of military munitions safety 
hazards and environmental contamination existing on the balance 
of the bombardment area.

           Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment


   Section 2821--Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of Providing 
         Community Adjustment Assistance to Government of Guam

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
United States is required to construct major, new installations 
despite the adverse impact to the local communities. However, 
this section would also express the sense of Congress that it 
is incumbent on the federal government to offset the impact of 
these significant construction efforts.

     Section 2822--Department of Defense Assistance for Community 
   Adjustments Related to Realignment of Military Installations and 
                Relocation of Military Personnel on Guam

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense 
temporary authority to assist the Government of Guam in 
mitigating the costs associated with the realignment of 
military forces to Guam, if the Secretary determines an unfair 
and excessive financial burden would be incurred by the 
Government of Guam, and the services and facilities would 
directly support the Guam realignment. This authority would be 
provided through existing federal programs. Finally, the 
transfer authority would be limited to $500,000,000 and, 
pending the receipt of semiannual reports on the execution of 
this authority, would expire on September 30, 2017.

   Section 2823--Extension of Term of Deputy Secretary of Defense's 
                  Leadership of Guam Oversight Council

    This section would extend the Deputy Secretary of Defense's 
leadership of the Guam Oversight Council until September 30, 
2020.

   Section 2824--Utility Conveyances to Support Integrated Water and 
                  Wastewater Treatment System on Guam

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to convey water and wastewater treatment utility 
systems to the Guam Waterworks Authority. As consideration for 
conveying these utilities, the Guam Waterworks Authority shall 
pay the fair market value of the conveyed infrastructure. If 
the Secretary of Defense and the Guam Waterworks Authority 
decide to convey these utilities, the Secretary of Defense 
shall be apportioned a 33 percent voting representation on the 
Guam Consolidated Commission on Utilities. If the Secretary 
conveys the water and wastewater treatment utility systems to 
the Guam Waterworks Authority, this section would require new 
water and wastewater systems to also be managed and operated by 
the Guam Waterworks Authority. Furthermore, in the 
determination of fair market value, the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
consider the value of in kind services provided by the 
Government of Guam pursuant to the Compact of Free Association 
between the Government of the United States and the Government 
of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Government of the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Government of the 
Republic of Palau. Finally, this section would authorize the 
Secretary of Interior to provide technical assistance to the 
Secretary of Defense to support the integrated water and 
wastewater treatment utility systems on Guam.

 Section 2825--Report on Types of Facilities Required To Support Guam 
                              Realignment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, 
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on the 
structural requirements of facilities necessary to support the 
realigned forces on Guam.

     Section 2826--Report on Civilian Infrastructure Needs for Guam

    This section would require the Secretary of Interior, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Government of 
the Territory of Guam, and the Interagency Group on Insular 
Affairs, to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, within 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary 
of Interior would be required to include in the report an 
assessment of the civilian infrastructure improvements needed 
on Guam to support the military relocation on Guam and identify 
potential funding sources to support the implementation of this 
effort.

 Section 2827--Comptroller General Report on Planned Replacement Naval 
                            Hospital on Guam

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, on the size and scope of a naval hospital necessary to 
support the current and future military mission requirements 
and Department of Defense beneficiary population on the 
territory of Guam.

                      Subtitle D--Energy Security


Section 2831--Consideration of Environmentally Sustainable Practices in 
                   Department Energy Performance Plan

    This section would amend section 2911(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, by modifying the required elements of the 
Department of Defense energy performance plan to include 
consideration of hybrid-electric drive and high efficiency 
vehicles and opportunities for high-performance construction, 
lease, maintenance, and operation of buildings.

    Section 2832--Plan and Implementation Guidelines for Achieving 
 Department of Defense Goal regarding Use of Renewable Energy To Meet 
                         Facility Energy Needs

    This section would amend section 2911(e) of title 10, 
United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the secretaries of the military departments, 
to develop a plan and implementation guidelines for achieving 
the goal to produce or procure renewable energy equivalent to 
25 percent of facility electrical use during fiscal year 2025 
and each fiscal year thereafter.

  Section 2833--Insulation Retrofitting Assessment for Department of 
                           Defense Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services an assessment of Department of 
Defense facilities that, if retrofitted with improved 
insulation, would result in cost and energy savings.

                      Subtitle E--Land Conveyances


   Section 2841--Conveyance of Personal Property Related to Waste-to-
       Energy Power Plant Serving Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey personal property for use in a waste-to-energy power 
plant in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. As 
consideration, the Borough would offset the waste disposal fees 
by the fair market value of the conveyed property.

 Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Whittier Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant 
                      Tank Farm, Whittier, Alaska

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, to the City of Whittier, Alaska, 
a parcel of land for the purposes of local public activities.

           Section 2843--Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, approximately 194 acres at Fort 
Knox, Kentucky, to the Department of Veterans Affairs of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky for the purpose of establishing and 
operating a state veterans home and future expansion of the 
adjacent veterans cemetery.

Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Naval Support Activity (West Bank), New 
                           Orleans, Louisiana

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey real property interests at the former Naval Support 
Activity (West Bank), New Orleans, Louisiana to the Algiers 
Development District.

  Section 2845--Land Conveyance, Former Navy Extremely Low Frequency 
            Communications Project Site, Republic, Michigan

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey, without consideration, approximately seven acres 
comprising the former Navy Extremely Low Frequency 
communications project site to Humboldt Township in Marquette 
County, Michigan, for the purpose of assisting the local public 
activities.

     Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Marine Forces Reserve Center, 
                       Wilmington, North Carolina

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey, without consideration, the Marine Forces Reserve Center 
in Wilmington, North Carolina, to the North Carolina State Port 
Authority for development of a port facility and for other 
public purposes.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


 Section 2851--Requirements Related to Providing World Class Military 
                           Medical Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a unified construction and repair standard for 
military medical facilities. The section would further require 
that the Secretary establish an advisory committee to assess 
the proposed design and organizational structure for military 
medical facilities in the national capital region to achieve a 
world-class medical facility.

   Section 2852--Naming of Armed Forces Reserve Center, Middletown, 
                              Connecticut

    This section would name the newly constructed Armed Forces 
Reserve Center in Middletown, Connecticut, as the ``Major 
General Maurice Rose Armed Forces Reserve Center.''

   TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,257,002,000 for Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO) military construction. The 
committee recommends authorization of $1,257,002,000 for OCO 
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:

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                 Subtitle A--Fiscal Year 2010 Projects


    Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize overseas contingency 
operations military construction projects for the Army. The 
authorized amounts are listed on a project-by-project basis. 
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 
Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of 
appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Army may obligate on military construction 
projects.

 Section 2902--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize overseas contingency 
operations military construction projects for the Air Force. 
The authorized amounts are listed on a project-by-project 
basis. The list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the Air Force may obligate on 
military construction projects.

                 Subtitle B--Fiscal Year 2011 Projects


    Section 2911--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize overseas contingency 
operations military construction projects for the Army. The 
authorized amounts are listed on a project-by-project basis. 
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 
Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of 
appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Army may obligate on military construction 
projects.

 Section 2912--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize overseas contingency 
operations military construction projects for the Air Force. 
The authorized amounts are listed on a project-by-project 
basis. The list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the Air Force may obligate on 
military construction projects.

Section 2913--Authorized Defense-Wide Construction and Land Acquisition 
              Projects and Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize overseas contingency 
operations military construction project for the defense 
agencies. The authorized amount is listed on a project-by-
project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to 
be the binding list of the specific project authorized at each 
location. Furthermore, this section would provide the 
authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an 
overall limit on the amount the defense agencies may obligate 
on the military construction project.

 Section 2914--Construction Authorization for National Security Agency 
                    Facilities in a Foreign Country

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
construct a facility in a foreign country for the National 
Security Agency.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Section 2921--Notification of Obligation of Funds and Quarterly Reports

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees, within 
the notification period prescribed, as to the necessity and 
cost estimate of the proposed projects required under this 
title. This section would further require the Secretary to 
submit quarterly reports as to the obligations and expenditures 
of proposed projects.

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $17.8 billion for atomic 
energy defense activities, an increase of 7.4 percent from the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, $11.3 
billion is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) and $6.5 billion is for environmental and 
other defense activities.
    Last year, the committee expressed concern that the request 
for NNSA did not adequately address the recognized need for 
increased investment in the Stockpile Stewardship Program and 
in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. The committee 
also noted that the fiscal year 2010 budget request reflected 
more risk within the NNSA programs than it did within Defense 
Environmental Cleanup activities.
    This year, the budget request for the programs of the NNSA 
contained an increase of $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 
2010 appropriated level. Of that amount, the budget request for 
the Weapons Activities account that supports the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program increased by $624.4 million and the Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation account increased by $550.5 million. 
The budget request for Defense Environmental Cleanup contained 
an increase of $30.7 million above the fiscal year 2010 
appropriated level.
    The committee supports these requests for increased funding 
and believes that the budget request for Department of Energy 
National Security Programs for fiscal year 2011 reflects a more 
balanced approach to meeting the diverse missions encompassed 
within the atomic energy defense activities account.
    The committee recommends $17.8 billion, the amount of the 
budget request.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $11.3 billion for the programs 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 
2011. The committee recommends $11.3 billion, the amount of the 
budget request.

                           Weapons Activities

    The budget request contained $7.0 billion for the Weapons 
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) for fiscal year 2011.
    Over the past few years, increasing concern has been voiced 
regarding the NNSA's ability to maintain the safety, security, 
and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile into the 
indefinite future. For example, in testimony before the 
Subcommittee on Strategic forces during a July 17, 2008 hearing 
on the modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, each of 
the nation's three nuclear weapons laboratory directors 
expressed concerns about the reductions in highly skilled 
scientists and engineers at the labs required to make room for 
consolidation and improvements in the complex's infrastructure.
    In May 2009, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic 
Posture of the United States reported that the ``Stockpile 
Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program (LEP) have 
been remarkably successful in refurbishing and modernizing the 
stockpile.'' But at the same time, the commission concluded 
that these strategies ``cannot be counted on for the indefinite 
future.'' The commission noted that the NNSA's ``physical 
infrastructure is in serious need of transformation'' and that 
the ``intellectual infrastructure is also in trouble.''
    The JASON scientific advisory panel report from September 
2009 on the Life Extension Program noted: ``All options for 
extending the life of the nuclear weapons stockpile rely on the 
continuing maintenance and renewal of expertise and 
capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and 
production unique to the nuclear weapons program.'' The JASON 
panel concluded that ``this expertise is threatened by lack of 
program stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and 
degradation of the work environment.''
    The committee therefore welcomes the increased funds in the 
budget request for Weapons Activities, which should begin the 
process of resolving the physical and intellectual 
infrastructure challenges facing the NNSA. However, the 
committee notes that these challenges can only be overcome 
through long-term program and budget stability.
    The committee recommends $7.0 billion for Weapons 
Activities, the amount of the budget request.

Stockpile Stewardship

    The committee views execution of the science-based 
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) as the core national 
security mission of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA). 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, security, and reliability of our weapons 
without nuclear tests.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the 
committee expressed concern about the ability of NNSA to 
exercise the new experimental capabilities that have been 
developed, and to ensure that the scientists, engineers, and 
technicians employed in the nuclear security enterprise are 
actively engaged in challenging, meaningful work. Such activity 
is critical to the long-term management of the stockpile 
because specific areas of remaining uncertainty about the 
performance of our nuclear weapons can only be illuminated 
through scientific experiments using these capabilities.
    In contrast to last year, the committee believes that the 
budget request should be sufficient to properly exercise those 
experimental capabilities and to continue improving the 
nation's ability to certify the nuclear weapons stockpile 
without additional nuclear weapons testing.

Stockpile Management

    Section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of 
Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to 
provide for the effective management of the weapons in the 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The provision created objectives 
for, and limitations on, the management of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile.
    The budget request included the following specific 
objectives as part of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's (NNSA) proposed stockpile management program:
          (1) Produce sufficient quantities of W76-1 warheads 
        to meet Navy requirements;
          (2) Complete a life extension of the B61 that meets 
        all safety, security, use control, and reliability 
        objectives;
          (3) Initiate a life extension study to explore the 
        path forward for the W78, consistent with the 
        principles of the stockpile management program;
          (4) Modernize plutonium capabilities including the 
        design and construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy 
        Research Facility Replacement-Nuclear Facility;
          (5) Modernize uranium capabilities with emphasis on 
        the Uranium Processing Facility; and
          (6) Sustain and strengthen the science, technology 
        and engineering, and surveillance base essential to 
        supporting the stockpile.
    The committee supports these proposed objectives and is 
pleased that the Administration has adopted the framework of 
the stockpile management program as a significant element of 
the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review.
    However, the committee is concerned that artificial 
limitations might be applied to the options for managing the 
stockpile and observes that nothing within the statute would 
limit management of the nuclear weapons stockpile using the 
spectrum of options identified by the Congressional Commission 
on the Strategic Posture of the United States in May 2009. The 
committee agrees with the JASON panel that: ``Assessment and 
certification challenges depend on design details and 
associated margins and uncertainties, not simply on whether the 
LEP is primarily based on refurbishment, reuse, or 
replacement.''
    The committee believes that the NNSA should task its design 
and production agencies to thoroughly evaluate the spectrum of 
options for managing any particular stockpile system before 
deciding on a case-by-case basis on the specific mix of actions 
required to ensure that a given stockpile system can continue 
to achieve its current military capabilities in a safe, secure, 
and reliable manner.

Directed Stockpile Work

    The budget request contained $1.9 billion for Directed 
Stockpile Work (DSW), an increase of $392.5 million above the 
fiscal year 2010 appropriated level.
    DSW includes activities to ensure the present and future 
operational readiness of nuclear weapons. While the committee 
welcomes the requested increase in DSW funding, it is concerned 
that the budget request does not contain sufficient resources 
to support production and dismantlement activities at the 
Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas.
    The committee recommends $1.9 billion for Directed 
Stockpile Work, including an increase of $11.0 million for DSW 
at Pantex to ensure that the W76-1 and B-61 life extension 
programs, stockpile surveillance and critical weapons 
dismantlement programs remain on schedule.

Stockpile Surveillance

    Surveillance of stockpile weapons is essential to stockpile 
stewardship. Inadequate surveillance would place the stockpile 
at risk. In September 2009, the JASON scientific advisory panel 
found: ``The surveillance program is becoming inadequate. 
Continued success of stockpile stewardship requires 
implementation of a revised surveillance program.'' The 
committee directs the National Nuclear Security Administration 
Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees on its plans for implementing 
a revised surveillance plan by October 1, 2010.

B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Life Extension Study

    The budget request contained $251.6 million for Directed 
Stockpile Work for the B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Life Extension Study.
    The request would fund a study of the nuclear and non-
nuclear components scope of the B61 life extension, including 
implementation of enhanced surety, extended service life, and 
modification consolidation. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) expects to complete the study by the end 
of fiscal year 2011 and is planning to deliver the first 
production unit (FPU) in 2017.
    The committee understands the importance of meeting a 2017 
delivery date and supports the full scope B-61 life extension 
study. However, the committee is concerned that the schedule 
for completion of the Life Extension Study has been delayed by 
a year, and is therefore concerned that the schedule for 
delivering the FPU by 2017 is at risk. While the committee 
recognizes that a thorough project baseline cannot be delivered 
until the Life Extension Study is complete, it expects the NNSA 
Administrator for Nuclear Security to keep the committee fully 
informed of the progress toward establishing that baseline and 
of any significant changes to the schedule during the course of 
the year.

Science Campaign

    The budget request contained $365.2 million for the Science 
Campaign for fiscal year 2011.
    The request included $85.7 million for Primary Assessment 
Technologies, which is the program responsible for development 
and implementation of the Quantification of Margins and 
Uncertainty methodology used to certify weapons without 
testing. The request also included $77.0 million for Advanced 
Certification, a substantial increase above the $19.4 million 
provided in fiscal year 2010, to support the development of 
advanced certification capabilities.
    The committee recommends $365.2 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign

    The budget request contained $481.5 million for the 
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, 
an increase of $23.6 million from the fiscal year 2010 
appropriated level.
    This campaign, often referred to as the National Ignition 
Campaign, includes funding for performing experiments at the 
National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory. The increase supports fabrication and installation 
of diagnostics necessary to utilize NIF for experiments under 
ignition conditions, a major requirement for applying NIF to 
weapons problems.
    The committee recommends $481.5 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

    The budget request contained $615.7 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. Therefore, the 
committee supports the $48.1 million increase in the ASC 
request from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level.
    The committee recommends $615.7 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Readiness Campaign

    The budget request contained $112.1 million for the 
Readiness Campaign, an increase of $12.1 million above the 
fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. Of that total, $50.2 
million was requested for Tritium Readiness to operate the 
tritium production capability required to sustain the nuclear 
weapons stockpile.
    The committee is aware that uncosted balances have 
accumulated in this account as a result of delays in tritium 
production and extraction due to significant technical issues 
related to the irradiation of tritium producing burnable 
absorber rods.
    The committee understands that the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) is currently able to meet its 
stockpile requirements despite the lower than planned 
production rate by supplementing tritium production with 
recycled tritium from dismantled warheads. However, the 
committee is concerned that NNSA has identified neither 
effective technical solutions for increased tritium production 
nor viable alternative supplies. The committee does not support 
the additional funds in the budget request for Tritium 
Readiness and directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to 
submit to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2011, a plan for ensuring a sufficient supply of tritium into 
the future.
    The committee recommends $61.9 million, a decrease of $50.2 
million for the Readiness Campaign.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

    The budget request contained $1.8 billion for Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF).
    RTBF supports the physical infrastructure and operational 
readiness of the nuclear security laboratories and plants. RTBF 
funds are divided between Operations and Maintenance, and 
Construction sub-programs.
    The committee is concerned that the request for Operations 
of Facilities, within the Operations and Maintenance account, 
is insufficient to support the facilities at the Pantex Plant 
in Amarillo, Texas, and the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
The committee recommends an additional $70.0 million to support 
the critical weapons program activities at these facilities. 
For the Y-12 facility, the committee recommends an additional 
$15.0 million for Material Recycle and Recovery activities 
within the Operations and Maintenance account to sustain 
enriched uranium recycle and recovery operations.
    The budget request also included funds for two of the most 
significant National Nuclear Security Administration 
infrastructure projects: $225.0 million for final design and 
initial construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory 
in New Mexico, and $115.0 million in Project Engineering and 
Design work for the proposed Uranium Processing Facility at the 
Y-12 Plant. The committee supports both of these infrastructure 
modernization projects.
    The committee recommends $1.9 billion, an increase of $85.0 
million, for RTBF.

Use of prior year balances

    The committee is aware of significant prior year balances 
within the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 
accounts which are beyond recommended levels, and directs the 
NNSA Administrator for Nuclear Security to use these funds to 
finance fiscal year 2011 budget requirements and offset the 
recommended funding increases for Directed Stockpile Work and 
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities mentioned above.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    The budget request contained $2.7 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 past 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 more than 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), the Duncan Hunter National Defense Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), and the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) 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. Public Law 110-181, Public Law 110-417 
and Public Law 111-84 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 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; provided NNSA 
nonproliferation programs with authority for urgent 
nonproliferation activities; 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.
    The committee welcomes the President's accomplishments with 
respect to nonproliferation programs, as well as the 
President's ongoing efforts to accelerate, strengthen, and 
expand such programs and ensure that they are a top priority 
going forward. This includes the President's effort to secure 
vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four 
years, in order to ensure that such materials do not fall into 
the hands of terrorists. It also includes the successor 
agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) 
between the United States and the Russian Federation, and the 
Nuclear Security Summit. 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 NNSA to continue its efforts to eliminate 
any remaining impediments to timely obligation and execution of 
funds for NNSA nonproliferation programs.
    The committee authorizes $2.7 billion, the amount of the 
budget request.

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development

    The budget request contained $351.6 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 $351.6 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 $155.9 million for 
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS). The 
committee fully supports the goals of the NIS program, and 
emphasizes the importance of developing innovative policy 
approaches to nonproliferation challenges and undertaking 
activities to increase nonproliferation cooperation with 
international partners and organizations.
    The committee also emphasizes the importance of 
strengthening export control and security systems and 
undertaking other safeguards activities relating to civil 
nuclear energy cooperation between the United States and other 
countries, including the Republic of India, in order to prevent 
theft or other illicit transfer of nuclear materials and 
technologies. The committee requests the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to keep the committee fully informed of 
significant developments in this area.
    The committee recommends $155.9 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, and in response to additional 
committee requests. 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 
cost-sharing goal for GIPP projects in the FSU.
    The committee recognizes that the GIPP program 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 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 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 
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budget requests did not 
include any funding for GNEP from within any National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
program line, and welcomes this positive development.
    The committee encourages NNSA to ensure that any activities 
relating to the promotion of civil nuclear energy do not create 
unintended proliferation risks. The committee also encourages 
NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs to increase 
their focus on developing alternatives to nuclear energy.

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation

    The budget request contained $590.1 million for 
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 
(MPC&A). The committee fully supports the goals of the MPC&A 
program, and emphasizes the importance of securing vulnerable 
nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material located outside the 
United States; and utilizing 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.''
    The committee recommends $590.1 million, the amount of the 
budget request.
            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 $917.7 million for United 
States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.
    The committee supports the goals of the United States 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program. The committee 
also welcomes 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 $917.7 million, the amount of the 
budget request.
            Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
    The budget request contained $113.0 million for Russian 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.
    The committee 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 Russia to United States 
nonproliferation objectives and national security goals, and 
supports the President's efforts to strengthen and expand such 
cooperation.
    The committee also welcomes efforts by the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) to resolve 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. This includes the signing of a Protocol by the 
United States and Russia to amend the 2000 Plutonium Management 
and Disposition Agreement. At the same time, the committee 
continues to emphasize its concern with the use of fast 
reactors under the program for disposition of Russia's surplus 
weapons-grade plutonium, and expects NNSA to ensure 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.
    The committee recommends $113.0 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Global Threat Reduction Initiative

    The budget request contained $558.8 million for the Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee fully 
supports the goals of the GTRI program, and emphasizes the 
importance of the President's four-year plan to secure and 
remove all known, vulnerable, weapons-usable nuclear material 
around the world by 2012. The committee also emphasizes the 
importance of converting domestic and international research 
reactors from the use of weapons-usable highly-enriched uranium 
to low-enriched uranium; removing vulnerable high-priority 
radiological sources located outside the United States; 
removing excess and unwanted radiological sources within U.S. 
borders; securing sites with vulnerable high-priority nuclear 
and radiological sources located outside the United States; and 
securing U.S. research and test reactors and sites with high-
priority radiological sources.
    The committee recommends $558.8 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Report on Securing Vulnerable Nuclear Materials

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Energy to submit to the congressional defense 
committees, by April 1, 2011, a joint report on the 
contributions of the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat 
Reduction (CTR) Program and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's (NNSA) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
programs to the international effort to secure vulnerable 
nuclear materials around the world within four years. The 
report should update the committees on any changes to the 
existing interagency strategy and work plans of the CTR Program 
and NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs for the 
four-year effort. This includes any updates to metrics for 
measuring progress, funds required to carry out activities, and 
contributions from partner nations. The committee also 
encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy 
to keep the committee fully informed of significant 
developments relating to the four-year effort.

                             Naval Reactors

    The budget request contained $1.1 billion for Naval 
Reactors, an increase of $125.4 million above the fiscal year 
2010 appropriated level.
    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion, from technology development 
through reactor operation, to reactor retirement. The Navy 
currently operates 104 reactor plants in nuclear-powered 
submarines and aircraft carriers, which make up 40 percent of 
the Navy's total combatants. Naval Reactors is developing a new 
reactor for the CVN 21 class aircraft carrier, and a life-of-
the-ship core for the Virginia-class attack submarine. The 
requested increases would support three key deliverables: the 
design of the Ohio-class submarine replacement reactor plant, 
the refueling of the land-based prototype located in New York 
State, and the recapitalization of the Expended Core Facility 
at the Naval Reactors Facility located on the Idaho National 
Laboratory.
    The committee recommends $1.1 billion, the amount of the 
budget request.

                      Office of the Administrator

    The budget request contained $448.3 million for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of the 
Administrator. In recent years, the committee has encouraged 
the Office of the Administrator to address any issues of 
limited staff capacity, capabilities, and resources related to 
implementation of critical NNSA nonproliferation programs. The 
committee welcomes NNSA's recent efforts to address such 
issues.
    The committee recommends $448.3 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6.5 billion for environmental 
and other defense activities. The committee recommends $6.5 
billion, the amount of the budget request.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup


Execution of Funding Provided for Defense Environmental Cleanup by the 
        American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

    The committee notes 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, of which approximately 99 percent was allocated to 
sites, 95 percent was obligated and 25 percent executed within 
the first year of execution.
    The committee is supportive of the progress made by the 
Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management to 
achieve the aggressive cleanup goals set for its Public Law 
111-5 efforts. These goals include: a reduction of the active 
cleanup footprint by 40 percent by September 2011, acceleration 
by seven years of the disposition of legacy transuranic waste 
inventories at 11 sites, removal of 2 million tons of mill 
tailings at the Moab site, the acceleration of legacy cleanup, 
and the creation or retention of thousands of jobs at cleanup 
sites nationwide. The committee is pleased that approximately 
10,000 jobs, including prime contractor and subcontractor 
positions, have been created or retained in the states of 
Idaho, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, and Washington as a result of Public Law 111-5 
funding.
    The committee commends the Assistant Secretary of 
Environmental Management for making significant progress 
executing the funding and increased near-term work load 
provided for and required by Public Law 111-5. The committee 
encourages the Assistant Secretary to continue increased 
oversight over Public Law 111-5 projects, ensure that earned 
value management systems provide timely and reliable cost and 
schedule performance data, and consider workforce management 
and transition options beyond Public Law 111-5.

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

    The budget request contained $740.2 million for the Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford site.
    The committee is encouraged that the Office of 
Environmental Management (EM) and the contractor team kept WTP 
cost and schedule performance on track in 2009 and reached a 
milestone by completing 50 percent of the project construction 
in October 2009.
    While the committee recognizes this progress, the committee 
is aware that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
continues to work with the Office of Environmental Management 
to resolve certain technical and safety issues associated with 
the design of the WTP. The committee is concerned that a 
technical issue identified in 2006, relating to the adequacy of 
pulse jet mixing in process vessels, remains unresolved and 
that new technical and safety issues have since emerged.
    The committee is aware that the budget request reflects an 
increase of $50.2 million over the amount authorized and 
appropriated for fiscal year 2010. According to the budget 
request, this increase will accelerate completion of design, 
engineering, and procurements to reduce risk and improve 
project confidence. The committee understands that this 
increase does not reflect an increase in total project cost but 
a realignment of funding consistent with the heightened level 
of activity and investment required in the middle stages of 
construction projects.
    The committee is concerned that the Office of Environmental 
Management may be proceeding with procurement and installation 
of equipment for which specifications may change pending the 
resolution of the technical and safety issues described above. 
The committee expects the Office of Environmental Management to 
consider the potential impact of outstanding technical issues 
when making decisions related to procurement and installation 
of equipment and to carefully manage project risk.
    The committee authorizes $740.2 million for the WTP at the 
Hanford site, the amount of the budget request.

                        Other Defense Activities

    The budget request contained $878.2 million for Other 
Defense Activities, including: $464.2 million for Health, 
Safety, and Security; $188.6 million for the Office of Legacy 
Management; and $88.2 million for Nuclear Energy.
    The committee recommends $878.2 million for Other Defense 
Activities, the amount of the request.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    The committee is aware that the Secretary of Energy 
recently announced the formation of the Blue Ribbon Commission 
on America's Nuclear Future to provide recommendations for 
developing a safe, long-term solution to managing used nuclear 
fuel and nuclear waste. The commission will consider 
alternatives to the Yucca Mountain site, which remains 
designated as the sole repository site by law as set forth in 
section 10134 of title 42, United States Code. The committee is 
concerned that defense waste, which accounts for approximately 
10 percent of the total material previously destined for 
disposition at the Yucca Mountain site, might be overlooked 
considering the breadth of civilian nuclear fuel cycle issues 
the panel will address. The committee expects the Secretary's 
panel to focus on challenges and solutions that may be unique 
to defense waste.

Report on Defense Repository at Yucca Mountain

    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit to 
the congressional defense committees, within 120 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the steps and 
actions required to preserve and restart the nuclear waste 
repository located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as an option for 
disposing of defense nuclear waste, as well as a plan to 
complete a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, that 
is able to accommodate the disposal of defense nuclear waste.

Closing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Energy to jointly submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services within 180 days of enactment of this Act that provides 
a detailed analysis of how closing the Yucca Mountain waste 
repository will impact the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Energy, and national defense activities. This 
report shall include a description of the following:
          (1) An analysis of how the Department of Defense and 
        Department of Energy can handle, transport, and store 
        indefinitely its entire stockpile of high-level 
        radioactive defense waste without a national 
        repository.
          (2) The impact on the operations of the National 
        Nuclear Security Administration to transform itself and 
        the entire nuclear weapons complex to be smaller, 
        safer, more secure, and more efficient.
          (3) The security risks associated with nuclear waste 
        materials stored throughout the country in multiple 
        locations.
          (4) A full assessment of the compliance of the 
        Department of Defense and the Department of Energy with 
        any agreements with States for the disposal of highly 
        enriched defense nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes at 
        Yucca Mountain.

                         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 2011, 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 2011.

                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize funds for other defense 
activities for fiscal year 2011, including funds for Health, 
Safety, and Security, the Office of Legacy Management, and 
Nuclear Energy.

              Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance

    This section would authorize funds for energy security and 
assurance programs for fiscal year 2011.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


  Section 3111--Extension of Authority Relating to the International 
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program of the Department 
                               of Energy

    This section would extend the date from January 1, 2013 to 
January 1, 2018, for the International Nuclear Materials 
Protection, Control and Accounting program (currently known as 
the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 
program) to develop a sustainable nuclear materials protection, 
control, and accounting system for the Russian Federation's 
nuclear materials that is supported solely by Russia.

                 Section 3112--Energy Parks Initiative

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
facilitate the development of one or more energy parks on 
defense nuclear facility reuse property through the use of 
collaborative partnerships with state and local governments, 
the private sector, and community reuse organizations approved 
by the Secretary.

       Section 3113--Establishment of Technology Transfer Centers

    This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security to establish a technology transfer center at each 
national security laboratory, subject to the availability of 
appropriations provided for this purpose. The purpose of the 
centers would be to foster collaborative scientific research, 
technology development, and the appropriate transfer of 
research and technology to users in addition to the national 
security laboratories.

                   Section 3114--Aircraft Procurement

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
procure not more than two aircraft with funds available from 
the weapons activities account in fiscal year 2011. The 
National Nuclear Security Administration intends to procure two 
B-737-like aircraft to replace forty-year-old aircraft for use 
by the Secure Transportation Asset organization for 
transporting agents, limited life weapons components, and 
emergency response teams.

                          Subtitle C--Reports


   Section 3121--Comptroller General Report on NNSA Biennial Complex 
                         Modernization Strategy

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
review the adequacy of funding contained in the budget request 
to achieve the goals contained in each Biennial Plan and Budget 
Assessment on the Modernization and Refurbishment of the 
Nuclear Security Complex required by Section 3116 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84). The Comptroller would be required to submit a 
review to Congress 90 days after the submission of the budget 
request to Congress during even-numbered years, consistent with 
the timing of the submission of the Biennial Plan and Budget 
Assessment.

       Section 3122--Report on Graded Security Protection Policy

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
submit to a report to the congressional defense committees on 
the implementation of the graded security protection policy of 
the Department of Energy no later than February 1, 2011.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $28.6 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2011. The 
committee recommends $28.6 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 2011.

                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize $23.6 million for fiscal year 
2011 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and 
Oil Reserves.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


  Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security 
          Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2011

    This section would authorize a total of $359.0 million for 
the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation 
for fiscal year 2011. Of the funds authorized, $100.0 million 
would be available for expenses necessary for operations of the 
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; of which $30.9 million are 
authorized for capital improvements of the Academy, $15.0 
million would be available for support of the various state 
maritime academies, $10.0 million for the program to dispose of 
obsolete vessels of the National Defense Reserve Fleet, $174.0 
million for the Maritime Security Program, 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 Program.

       Section 3502--Extension of Maritime Security Fleet Program

    This section would extend the authorization of the Maritime 
Security Fleet through fiscal year 2025.

  Section 3503--United States Merchant Marine Academy Nominations of 
               Residents of the Northern Mariana Islands

    This section would amend section 51302(b) of title 46, 
United States Code, to change the nominating authority for 
appointment to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy from the 
Governor to the Delegate of the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands. This change standardizes appointment authority 
of the Northern Mariana Islands to conform to all other 
territories and possessions of the United States.

  Section 3504--Administrative Expenses for Port of Guam Improvement 
                           Enterprise Program

    This section would modify section 3512(c)(4) of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(48 U.S.C. 1421r(c)(4)) to clarify that the Maritime 
Administration of the Department of Transportation has the 
authority to use up to three percent of any funding made 
available to the Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program 
for administration of the program.

 Section 3505--Vessel Loan Guarantees: Procedures for Traditional and 
                      Nontraditional Applications

    This section would amend section 53701 of title 46, United 
States Code, by defining a traditional application for a 
guaranteed loan under the section as an application which has a 
market, technology, or financial structure of a type that has 
proven successful in previous applications and does not present 
an unreasonable risk to the United States. A nontraditional 
application is an application which does not meet the 
requirements of a traditional application. The section would 
further amend section 53703 of title 46, United States Code, to 
modify the length of time in which the Secretary of 
Transportation or the Maritime Administrator has to either 
approve or reject applications for loan guarantees.

                           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, March 8, 2010.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2011.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose 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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                                     Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                     Washington, DC, March 8, 2010.
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 2011.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose 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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 16, 2010.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 16, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 23, 2010.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the 
accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    Included in this transmittal is a proposal to expand 
eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retirement pay 
and veterans' disability compensation to medically retired 
service members, which has estimated mandatory costs as 
outlined in the table below. The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
2010 requires that the cumulative effects of revenue and direct 
spending legislation meet a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement. 
In total, such legislation should not increase the on-budget 
deficit; if it does, it would produce a sequestration if it is 
not fully offset by the end of the Congressional session. This 
proposal would increase direct spending; therefore, it is 
subject to the PAYGO requirement. Offsets are included in the 
President's FY 2011 Budget.


                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020   2010-2015  2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD/VA Concurrent Receipts Proposal:
Cost:
    Effects on Veterans disability               0      47      49      51      53      54      54      54      53      53      52       254        520
     programs.............................
    Effect on military retirement.........       0     217     346     435     511     531     541     550     560     570     581     2,040      4,842
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total cost..........................       0     264     395     486     564     585     595     604     613     623     633     2,294      5,362
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                          Robert S. Taylor,
                                  Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 23, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the 
accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    Included in this transmittal is a proposal to expand 
eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retirement pay 
and veterans' disability compensation to medically retired 
service members, which has estimated mandatory costs as 
outlined in the table below. The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
2010 requires that the cumulative effects of revenue and direct 
spending legislation meet a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement. 
In total, such legislation should not increase the on-budget 
deficit; if it does, it would produce a sequestration if it is 
not fully offset by the end of the Congressional session. This 
proposal would increase direct spending; therefore, it is 
subject to the PAYGO requirement. Offsets are included in the 
President's FY 2011 Budget.


                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020   2010-2015  2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD/VA Concurrent Receipts Proposal:
Cost:
    Effects on Veterans disability               0      47      49      51      53      54      54      54      53      53      52       254        520
     programs.............................
    Effect on military retirement.........       0     217     346     435     511     531     541     550     560     570     581     2,040      4,842
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total cost..........................       0     264     395     486     564     585     595     604     613     623     633     2,294      5,362
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                          Robert S. Taylor,
                                  Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                      Washington, DC, May 13, 2010.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the 
accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                      Washington, DC, May 13, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the 
accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                      Washington, DC, May 18, 2010.
Hon. Joseph Biden,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the 
accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                      Washington, DC, May 18, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session 
of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as 
a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the 
accompanying section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional 
legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress.
    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 Congress, and that 
their enactment would be in accord with the program of the 
President.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jeh Charles Johnson,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                              ----------                              


                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 19, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 5136, as amended, by a vote of 59-
0.

                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                          House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Science and Technology,
                                      Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.
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. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011.
    Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do 
not intend 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 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, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 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 Science and 
Technology.
    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, May 20, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you regarding H.R. 5136, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,'' 
introduced on April 26, 2010.
    H.R. 5136 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 the appointment of 
Homeland Security conferees during any House-Senate conference 
convened on this or similar legislation. I also ask that a copy 
of this letter and your response be placed in the Committee 
Report accompanying the legislation and the Congressional 
Record during floor consideration of this bill.
    I look forward to working with you on this legislation and 
other matters of great importance to this nation.
            Sincerely,
                                        Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 
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 Homeland Security.
    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 Ways and Means,
                                      Washington, DC, May 20, 2010.
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 Ways and Means in 
matters being considered in H.R. 5136, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have valid claims to jurisdiction over the bill, I do 
not intend 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 Ways and Means, and that a copy of this letter and 
your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be 
included in the Committee Report and as part of the 
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the 
House.
    I also wish to commend you for including in H.R. 5136, a 
requirement that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the U.S. Trade Representative, consider the effect that other 
countries' trade policies have on the ability of the United 
States to obtain rare earth minerals. Not only are those 
minerals critically important for many defense applications, 
they are also critical for many other high-tech applications 
such as wind turbine and hybrid gasoline-electric automobiles--
and, as a result, to U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                           Sander M. Levin,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Sander M. Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means 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 Ways and 
Means 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 Ways and Means.
    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, May 20, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 5136, 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. 
5136 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, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 
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 Veterans' Affairs.
    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 Natural Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, May 20, 2010.
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. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011, 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, as well as a report on civilian infrastructure 
needs for Guam in light of the upcoming military realignment in 
the Pacific.
    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. 5136 
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. 
5136 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, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 
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 Natural Resources.
    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, May 21, 2010.
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. 5136, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. While this legislation 
as reported contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of 
Committee on Financial Services, the committee waives 
consideration of the bill in order to expedite floor 
consideration of this important legislation.
    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. 
5136 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these 
matters.
                                              Barney Frank,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 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 Financial 
Services.
    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, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you regarding H.R. 5136, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011''.
    H.R. 5136 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. 5136.
    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. 5136 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. 5136 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, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure.
    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, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing about H.R. 5136, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. I 
appreciate your efforts to consult with the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of 
H.R. 5136 that fall within the Oversight Committee's 
jurisdiction. These provisions involve the federal civil 
service and federal acquisition policies, among other things.
    In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 5136, 
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. 5136 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. 5136 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 H.R. 5136 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, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 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 
Oversight and Government Reform.
    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, May 21, 2010.
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. 5136, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 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. 5136 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 my request to include conferees on the 
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any 
conference between the House and the Senate.
    I thank you for your continued leadership.
            Sincerely,
                                           Silvestre Reyes,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. Should this bill 
or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate 
conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    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, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011.
    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 any House-Senate 
conference convened on this legislation.
    Please include a copy of this letter and your response in 
the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on 
the House floor.
            Sincerely,
                                          Howard L. Berman,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Howard L. Berman,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 
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 Foreign Affairs.
    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, May 21, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 5136, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. As you 
know, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdictional 
interest in a number of 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. 5136. I do this, however, only with the understanding 
that forgoing consideration of H.R. 5136 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, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 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 Energy and 
Commerce.
    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, May 21, 2010.
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 Education and Labor 
in matters being considered in H.R. 5136, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
    Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do 
not intend 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 Education and Labor, and that a copy of this 
letter and your response acknowledging our 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 Committee on Education and Labor 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,
                                             George Miller,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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 the Judiciary,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
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 H.R. 5136, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 
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 our mutual 
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5136 at 
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter 
contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
bill or similar legislation moves forward, so that we may 
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee 
also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate 
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 
this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any 
such request.
    I would appreciate your including this letter in the 
Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request, and 
for the cooperative relationship between our two committees.
            Sincerely,
                                         John Conyers, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
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. 
5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011. 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. 
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 the Judiciary.
    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 2011 
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 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

                                                      May 21, 2010.
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 and 
revenue effects of H.R. 5136, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, as ordered reported by 
the House Committee on Armed Services on May 19, 2010. CBO's 
complete cost estimate for H.R. 5136, including discretionary 
costs, will be provided shortly.
    Based on legislative language for H.R. 5136 that was 
provided to CBO on May 18 and May 19, CBO estimates that on 
net, enacting this bill would increase direct spending by about 
$4 billion in 2011, and decrease such spending by $15 million 
over the 2011-2015 period and by $2 million over the 2011-2020 
period. The largest budgetary effects over that 10-year period 
would result from changes in retirement programs and the 
requirement that certain funds in a Department of Defense 
revolving fund be transferred to the Treasury and deposited in 
a miscellaneous receipts account, where they could not be spent 
without an appropriation.
    In addition, a shift in the payment dates for military 
annuitants would increase direct spending in fiscal years 2011 
and 2016 by about $4 billion each year and would decrease 
direct spending in subsequent years by identical amounts. (As a 
result, those changes would have no net impact over both the 
2011-2015 period and the 2011-2020 period.)
    Enacting the bill would decrease revenues by $2 million 
over the 2011-2020 period by allowing certain military retirees 
to receive a portion of their retirement pay tax-free. In 
total, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5136 would have no net 
effect on the deficit over the 2011-2020 period. For the 
purposes of this estimate, we assume that H.R. 5136 will be 
enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2011.
    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.
    cc: Honorable Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Member.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget 
Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the 
requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the 
committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.

                     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, the general goal and objective of 
H.R. 5136 is to strengthen our national security through a 
sound and balanced strategy to provide the resources we need to 
sustain two wars today and to be prepared for the threats of 
tomorrow, whatever and wherever they may be. The bill achieves 
this goal through the following four objectives: strengthening 
our counterterrorism efforts; strengthening our missile 
defense; strengthening our nonproliferation efforts; and 
strengthening support for our service members and their 
families.
    To strengthen our counterterrorism efforts, the bill fully 
supports the President's new counterinsurgency strategy in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, authorizing $159.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2011 overseas contingency operations to provide 
military commanders with the resources they need. It supports 
the President's strategy on both sides of the border, helping 
to strengthen our relationship with the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan by expanding Coalition Support Funds, and it supports 
the President's efforts to strengthen strategic partnerships 
with other key nations, such as the Republic of Yemen. The bill 
also takes important steps to create a more comprehensive 
approach to counterterrorism, placing a greater emphasis on 
understanding the recruitment methods used by violent 
extremists and taking the necessary action to help prevent 
them. Additionally, the bill takes steps to improve force 
protection both domestically and abroad.
    The bill takes unprecedented steps to strengthen missile 
defense, better aligning our missile defense policy to meet the 
threats of the 21st century. The bill provides support to the 
Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense. It authorizes 
$10.3 billion for ballistic missile defense, including $190.8 
million for modifications to the PAC-3 Patriot missile program 
and $7.0 billion for the NNSA Weapons Activities account to 
support stockpile stewardship and management.
    The bill strengthens our nonproliferation policy, fully 
supporting the President's efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear 
material around the world in four years. It authorizes $2.7 
billion for the Department of Energy's nonproliferation 
programs, including $558.8 million for the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative and $590.1 million for International 
Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation.
    To strengthen our military families, the bill provides an 
array of measures to provide better care and benefits to 
service members and their families. It includes a 1.9 percent 
pay raise to the troops, increases family separation allowance 
for service members who are deployed away from their families, 
increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay, and expands 
college loan repayment benefits. It also allows military 
families to extend TRICARE coverage to their dependent adult 
children until age twenty-six. It includes the most 
comprehensive legislative package, twenty eight provisions, to 
implement into law many of the recommendations of the Defense 
Task Force on Sexual Assault. It establishes two new pilot 
programs, one to offer an alternative career path to military 
officers, and the other to help military spouses identify and 
obtain desirable and portable careers.

                   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 REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344):
          (1) This legislation does not provide budget 
        authority subject to an allocation made pursuant to 
        section 302(b) of Public Law 93-344;
          (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate 
        included in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of 
        rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
        contains CBO's projection of how this legislation will 
        affect the levels of budget authority, budget outlays, 
        revenues, and tax expenditures for fiscal year 2011 and 
        for the ensuring four fiscal years; and
          (3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget 
        authority for assistance to state and local governments 
        by this measure at the time that this report was filed.

                     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.

                  FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    The committee finds that this legislation establishes the 
National Defense Panel in section 1051 of this Act, and the 
Sexual Assault Advisory Board in section 1621 of this Act, 
which may qualify as advisory committees within the definition 
of 5 U.S.C. App., section 5(b).

                APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The committee finds that this legislation does not relate 
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                              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. 5136. The 
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
    The committee ordered H.R. 5136 to be reported to the House 
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 59-0, 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 OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM MARSHALL

    On February 24, 2010, Members of the Readiness Subcommittee 
received testimony on energy management and initiatives on 
military installations. As the Department continues to embark 
on independent energy initiatives, I remain concerned that it 
is not adequately taking into account the possibility of 
installing small nuclear reactors on military installations 
that are hardened against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and cyber 
attacks.
    In the FY10 NDAA, I inserted Directive Report Language 
(Sec. 2845 in the Conference Report) requiring the Secretary of 
Defense to study the development of nuclear power plants on 
military installations. That report is still pending.
    I believe the DOD should slow down its non-nuclear 
independent energy initiatives, which remain vulnerable to EMP 
and cyber attack, while giving closer look to developing small, 
hardened nuclear power plants on military installations so that 
we have completely self-sufficient energy in the event of a 
catastrophic disruption to our power supply. Should such an 
event occur, the DOD must, beyond continuing to carry out its 
mission, be ready to provide power, not just services, to 
affected communities. At this point, wind turbines, solar, et 
cetera, cannot be hardened against EMP, and it's frankly the 
EMP attack that we're most vulnerable to here in the United 
States, the results of which would be disastrous should we not 
be prepared.
    Therefore, I included language in the FY11 NDAA requiring 
the Comptroller General to review assessments of the threat of 
EMP and cyber attack on DOD infrastructure, identify DOD 
programs or activities to mitigate the threat, and assess the 
extent to which the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program has 
incorporated this threat into its risk assessment methodology. 
The review shall consider the progress, findings, and 
recommendations of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the 
United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, including the 
degree to which the commission is evaluating the utility of 
hardened small nuclear reactors. The review shall also consider 
the degree to which DOD's decision making process for energy 
generation projects considers energy security requirements.
    Additionally, I remain concerned about the DOD's plan for 
the defense of our homeland against ballistic missile threats, 
including EMP attacks, particularly from missiles launched by 
rogue, non-state actors. These rogue actors will likely not 
launch from land, which would be easily traceable and result in 
our rapid, devastating response against its host country. 
Instead, it's more likely that terrorists would launch a 
ballistic missile from the sea. The missile and launch platform 
need not be particularly sophisticated for an EMP attack. And 
if the launch platform is a ship, it could be immediately 
scuttled, making it difficult or impossible to determine the 
origin of the weapon and greatly limiting the effectiveness of 
retaliatory deterrence. This concern prompted my bill language 
requiring an independent assessment of the plan to defend the 
homeland against the mobile and fixed threats of ballistic 
missiles from rogue, non-state actors and accidental or 
unauthorized launches.
                                                      Jim Marshall.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We support H.R. 5136 and believe that it reflects our 
committee's strong and continued support for the brave men and 
women of the United States armed services. In many ways, this 
bill is a good bill that does an admirable job dealing with 
some of our greatest national security challenges.
    H.R. 5136 authorizes the President's request for $567 
billion for the Fiscal Year 2011 base budget of the Department 
of Defense and national security programs of the Department of 
Energy. Additionally, it includes $159 billion to fund Fiscal 
Year 2011 war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $34 billion 
for Fiscal Year 2010 emergency supplemental funding to cover 
additional costs related to the increased effort in Afghanistan 
and the DOD response to the earthquake in Haiti.
    While there are many excellent initiatives in this bill, 
this remains imperfect legislation.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen
    With respect to Afghanistan, this bill updates reporting 
requirements, including asking for the conditions and criteria 
that will be used to measure progress, instead of allowing the 
ticking Washington political clock to determine our end state. 
We are very pleased that the Chairman and our colleagues on the 
committee joined us in ensuring that life-saving combat 
enablers--such as force protection, Medical Evacuation, and 
Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities--
are deployed in time to fully support the 30,000 additional 
troops scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by this summer.
    This provision, along with a reporting requirement on how 
the Department of Defense is addressing the indirect fire 
threat on U.S. Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in Afghanistan, 
are only first steps to supporting General McChrystal and our 
deployed troops. But they are important first steps in getting 
the resources to theater so our troops can accomplish their 
mission with the least possible risk.
    With respect to Pakistan, the bill includes and we support 
the Administration's request to extend the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) for another year. We continue to 
question the rationale behind moving the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) to the State 
Department, especially when DOD has proven its ability to 
execute similar programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are happy 
to see that this committee will continue to monitor the 
management of PCCF so we can ensure the Commander of the United 
States Central Command (CENTCOM) has the flexibility and speed 
he needs to train and equip Pakistani security forces.
    As in previous bills, the committee continues to address 
the Department's global train and equip authorities. We have 
worked together to ensure these authorities allow the 
Department to get ahead of our most important national security 
challenges. We commend the Chairman for working to ensure that 
1206 funds will be used to assist the Yemen counter-terrorism 
unit fight al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula. This reinforces 
our view that building partnership capacity programs is an 
essential tool for Combatant Commanders.
Detainees and the Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
    With respect to detainee policy, this legislation could 
have taken a stronger stand on preventing the transfer of 
terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay into the United States--
either for confinement or trial. Too many former Guantanamo 
detainees have returned to the battlefield and are actively 
trying to harm Americans. We need to keep terrorists off of our 
soil, not fight to get them here. We are disappointed the 
committee did not support our amendment that would have 
prevented the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay detainee to U.S. 
soil.
    We were pleased that the committee adopted a modified 
version of our amendment that would require the DOD Inspector 
General to investigate possible misconduct of detainee 
attorneys, but are disappointed that the Attorney General would 
retain veto authority over the commencement of such 
investigations. In our view, these investigations need to 
commence immediately.
Nuclear Posture
    Similarly, this bill could have taken prudent steps to 
ensure we defend America from a position of strength, rather 
than a position of weakness. With respect to Iran, we continue 
to see Tehran flout its international obligation not to pursue 
nuclear weapons, while the Administration continues to rely on 
possible U.N. sanctions and an engagement strategy that has not 
yielded results. Requiring the Department of Defense to engage 
in robust strategic planning will only serve to strengthen our 
Iran policy.
    In the nuclear policy arena, we need to adopt policies that 
strengthen our security, not disarm it. Time and time again our 
nuclear forces have protected our shores by acting as a clear 
deterrent to our adversaries. The administration's recent 
Nuclear Posture Review changes our nation's long-standing 
policy of calculated ambiguity to a policy that takes options 
off the table in protecting the United States and our allies 
from potential aggressors.
    In that regard, we are gratified that the committee adopted 
our amendment that our national policy should be to keep all 
our strategic response options open, and not foreclose use of 
our nuclear deterrent without regard to the potential actions 
of our foes. Similarly, we are pleased that the committee 
adopted language restricting future reductions in our nuclear 
forces until certain reviews and certifications are made. The 
committee is sending a strong message to the administration 
that we have grave concerns about the changes it is making to 
America's nuclear policies. We hope nuclear weapons are never 
employed again; nonetheless, we firmly believe a credible and 
reliable nuclear deterrent, combined with our past 
determination to keep all options open, has provided the 
citizens of the United States protection for decades and will 
continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Missile Defense
    Likewise, our missile defense policies must support the 
design and deployment of a comprehensive missile defense system 
capable of protecting the U.S. homeland, our deployed military 
forces, and our allies. We are pleased the committee supported 
a $361.6 million increase to missile defense. We argued that 
such a topline increase was necessary to implement the 
administration's myriad missile defense commitments which 
include: sustainment of our homeland defense capabilities, 
implementation of the new phased adaptive approach for missile 
defense in Europe, expanded missile defense inventories, 
increasing testing, strengthening international efforts, and 
continuing promising research and development such as directed 
energy technology.
    The committee endorsed our effort to clarify that the 
Congress expects there to be no limitations on missile defense 
in Europe resulting from ratification of the new Strategic Arms 
Reduction Treaty, despite Russian statements to the contrary.
    We are prepared to support the administration's new phased 
adaptive approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe. However, 
we must have confidence that the plans are credible. We remain 
concerned about the lack of information and analysis on the 
PAA, and were pleased the committee supported our demand for a 
detailed report on the PAA. Furthermore, we remain concerned 
that the Administration's hedging strategy may not go far 
enough to provide protection of the U.S. homeland. The PAA is 
not planned to cover the United States until 2020, yet the ICBM 
threat from Iran could materialize as early as 2015 according 
to the latest intelligence assessments. We need to ensure 
continued investments in and enhancements to our homeland 
defense capabilities, and were therefore disappointed that the 
committee rejected our amendment to maintain and refurbish a 
ground-based missile defense field in Alaska to increase near-
term protection of the United States.
Quadrennial Defense Review
    While the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has taken many 
forms over the years, it has become the most important periodic 
national security community review of our defense strategy. We 
all agree that our defense strategy should be driven by our 
defense needs--not solely by the budget. Yet, the 
Administration sent to Congress a QDR that provided the force 
structure of 2009 instead of a projected force structure to 
defeat the threats of 2029, as required by the statute. We need 
to take additional steps to reshape the Department of Defense's 
Quadrennial Defense Review, which was designed to forecast 
future threats and shape the Pentagon's investment decisions to 
meet those challenges.
    We are pleased the committee adopted several amendments 
that address our concerns with the most recent QDR. These 
include amendments that would require the Department of Defense 
to: provide a comprehensive review of national defense 
requirements without regard to budget considerations in future 
QDRs; provide a strategic assessment on the current and future 
strategic challenges posed to the United States by potential 
competitors out to 2021; as well as deliver a report on the 
military's capability to defend against advanced anti access 
capabilities of potential hostile countries.
Major Weapons Programs
    We are troubled that the legislation largely supports the 
administration's continued limited approach to procurement of 
proven major weapons systems such as the F-22 and the C-17. 
Even so, we are pleased that the committee adopted our 
amendment for the procurement of eight additional F-18 Super 
Hornets for the Navy to help close the long acknowledged strike 
fighter shortfall.
    We are very pleased that the bill includes a provision that 
holds the Department of Defense accountable for performance of 
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program as they implement plans 
to restructure the program and increase production rates. We 
also strongly support the inclusion of funding to complete 
development of the F136 alternative engine for the Joint Strike 
Fighter. We are concerned that the Department of Defense would 
elect to procure several thousand F-35 engines over the next 25 
years at a life cycle cost of well over $100 billion through a 
sole source contract. This bill continues to support long-
standing Congressional belief that a competitive engine 
development program would better ensure an affordable, reliable 
engine, and protect against the operational risk of having 95 
percent of the entire U.S. fighter fleet dependent on one 
engine.
    Other commendable initiatives in this bill include 
provisions that make significant contributions to the National 
Guard and Reserve Equipment account and takes steps to address 
many of the unfunded requests of the Services Chiefs.
Military Personnel
    Finally, we need to take additional steps to ensure our 
military personnel and their families receive the support they 
have earned. Foremost, the bill addresses many of this 
committee's priorities in supporting the men and women of the 
Armed Forces, their spouses and families. Among the important 
measures contained in that report are a 1.9% basic pay raise. 
We are pleased that the chairman and the committee supported 
making it clear that the Secretary of Defense has sole 
authority over military health care and the TRICARE program. A 
major disappointment is that once again the committee and House 
leadership were unable to find the mandatory spending offsets 
needed to eliminate the Widow's Tax--a tax that occurs because 
survivors must forfeit most or all of their Survivor Benefit 
Plan Annuity to receive Dependency Indemnity Compensation. Nor 
were we able to provide for concurrent receipt of military 
disability retired pay and VA disability pay, as proposed by 
the President.
    We know that the chairman has attempted to find the 
offsets, but so far, despite the House approval of trillions in 
spending that is not offset, this body has been unable or 
unwilling to find the means to support widows and disabled 
veterans.
Fort Hood
    We are pleased the committee adopted our amendment that 
would provide combat zone benefits to the military and DOD 
civilian employee victims of the Fort Hood shootings. In the 
event of the unfortunate real possibility of future heinous 
attacks occurring outside designated combat zones, the 
amendment also provides the Secretary of Defense authority to 
make similar payments without need of future legislation. We 
are, however, deeply disappointed that the committee refused to 
require the public release of the restricted annex to the 
review of the Fort Hood shootings. American citizens need to 
know why a U.S. Army officer chose to murder and wound 
defenseless soldiers and civilians. So far, despite widespread 
reporting of the incident, this committee unfortunately has 
chosen to side with the Administration to keep the full facts 
from the American public.
    While this bill does much to fulfill our Constitutional 
duty to provide for the common defense, particularly with 
respect to providing for the current needs of our deserving men 
and women in uniform, we have some ways to go in preparing for 
dire threats maturing in the very near future. We have 
accomplished much, and have much left to do. We join all 
members of this proud committee to continue to work for the 
betterment of our Armed Forces to secure America's future.
    Those who serve--and will serve in years to come--deserve 
our commitment to keep America strong and preserve America's 
preeminent leadership role in the world.

                                   Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon.
                                   Bill Shuster.
                                   Mike Rogers.
                                   Doug Lamborn.
                                   Michael R. Turner.
                                   Mike Coffman.
                                   Mary Fallin.
                                   Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
                                   John Fleming.
                                   Roscoe Bartlett.
                                   Frank LoBiondo.
                                   J. Randy Forbes.
                                   W. Todd Akin.
                                   Rob Bishop.
                                   Joe Wilson.
                                   K. Michael Conaway.
                                   Thomas Rooney.
                                   Duncan D. Hunter.
                                   Robert J. Wittman.
                                   John Kline.
                                   Todd R. Platts.
                                   Mac Thornberry.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Jeff Miller.

          ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL R. TURNER

    Thank you Chairman Skelton and Chairman Ortiz for including 
my directive report language within the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
    The language directs the Secretary of Defense to report on 
how to best leverage the Sensors Center of Excellence (CoE) at 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base established by the 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure. The Center, its associated radars, and 
the Air Force Research Laboratory's ongoing research in detect, 
sense and avoid technologies creates a unique capability and 
opportunity for the Air Force and our Nation. The Center, as 
initially discussed with the Air Force, could be utilized to 
leverage untapped assets in Southwest Ohio, such as the 
Wilmington Air Park, and the Brush Creek and Buckeye Military 
Operating Areas.
    Furthermore, its proximity to the National Air and Space 
Intelligence Center uniquely qualifies the Sensors Center of 
Excellence to make a significant contribution in development of 
capabilities essential for our Nation. The U.S. military 
already relies on these capabilities in conflicts we are 
addressing today and the civilian world could use them in the 
near future to facilitate their tasks, including law 
enforcement or border patrol. Therefore, I believe that the 
Pentagon as well as other entities will greatly benefit from 
the study my language mandates.
    Once again, I'd like to thank the Chairman and the 
committee for including this provision in the report language.

                                                 Michael R. Turner.
