[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