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


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

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                               ----------                              


                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 3454]

                                   on

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

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     


                                     

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


 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011





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



                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                               __________


                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 3454]

                                   on

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

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     


                                     

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




                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                      (111th Congress, 2d Session)

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

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

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

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


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

                                _______
                                

                  June 4, 2010.--Ordered to be printed

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

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 3454]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2011;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2011;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2011;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2011; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2011.

Committee overview

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

Explanation of funding summary

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

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

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
 OPERATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

             Division B: Military Construction Authorizations

Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI-XXVI)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Division C (Titles XXXI and
 XXXII)

Department of Energy
 Authorization (Title XXXI)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs

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

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs

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

               Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters

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

Contracts for commercial imaging satellite capacities (sec. 142)

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items


                                  Army


AH-64 fuselage manufacturing

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

Guardrail common sensor

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

Air warrior survival vest ensemble reset program

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

Non-line of sight launch system

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

Patriot upgrades

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

Paladin Integrated Management program

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

M2A1 quick change barrel kits

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

120mm mortars, Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative reduction

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

Efficiency and safety modifications to Heavy Expanded Mobility 
        Ammunition Trailer

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

Navstar Global Positioning System

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

Tactical Local Area Network

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

Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar

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

Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensor

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

Forward Entry Devices

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

Line of Communication Bridge

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

Fido explosives detection system

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

Ground soldier system

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

Operator driving simulator

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

Immersive group simulation virtual training system

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

Combat skills marksmanship trainer

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

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle virtual trainers

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

Combined arms collective training facility

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

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund


Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

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

                                  Navy


F-18 multiyear procurement savings

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

F/A-18E/F

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

MH-60R/S mission avionics

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

AN/AAR-47 missile warning system computer processor upgrade

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

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

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

Weapons industrial facilities

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

Gun mount mods

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

Virginia-class tube test equipment

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

Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project

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

Helicopter hangar door upgrades

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

Range support vehicle

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

Man overboard indicators

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

                               Air Force


C-17

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

Airborne signals intelligence payload

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

C-135 modifications

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

E-8 modifications

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

Milsatcom terminals

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

Evolved expendable launch vehicle

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

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

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

Joint threat emitter

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

Eastern processing facility

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

Kodiak Launch Complex

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

                              Defense-wide


Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system

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

Special Operations Force Deployable Nodes

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

Enhanced Combat Optical Sight

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

Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle

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

Ground Mobility Vehicle modification kits

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

Special operations binocular/monocular visual augmentation devices

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

Clip On Thermal Imager

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Assessment of helicopter support

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

Combat search and rescue helicopter fleet

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

Development and fielding of Paladin Integrated Management program

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

F-16 upgrades

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

40mm target practice rounds

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

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle

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

Rapid equipping soldier support equipment

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

Report on expeditionary amphibious warfare ship force structure

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

Surface ship construction and industrial base issues

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

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demonstration and pilot projects on cybersecurity (sec. 215)

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

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters


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

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

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

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

Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 233)

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items


                                  Army


Army basic research

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

Army materials technologies

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

Unmanned aerial systems research and development

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

Advanced concepts and simulation

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

Ground vehicle research

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

Robotic systems

    The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and 
$89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and 
automotive technologies. The committee notes the increasing use 
and value of robotic systems on the battlefield to perform 
counter-improvised explosive device maneuvers; intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance; and other tactical missions. 
The committee also notes that section 220 of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398) established a goal that by 2015, one-third 
of the operational ground combat vehicles acquired through the 
Army's Future Combat Systems program will be unmanned. In 
support of these goals, the committee recommends an increase of 
$12.0 million in PE 62601A for the development of robotics 
systems, vehicle autonomy, and advanced energy and propulsion 
systems for robotic vehicles. The committee also recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million in PE 63005A for the development of 
autonomous and connected vehicle technologies for logistics, 
force protection, and other applications.

Vehicle energy and power programs

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

Reactive armor technologies

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

Advanced detection research

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

Acoustic sensors systems

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

Military engineering technology

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

Medical and warfighter technologies

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

Thermal resistant fiber research

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

Army advanced medical research and technologies

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

Army weapon systems sustainment

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

Force projection technology

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

Training and simulation systems

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

Aircraft survivability systems

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

Missile artillery advanced technology development

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

Military engineering systems

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

Adaptive robotic technology

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

Advanced environmental controls

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

Advanced imaging technologies

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

Alternative power technology

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

Hostile fire detection for helicopters

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

Non-line of sight launch system

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

XM1125 smoke projectile

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

Paladin Integrated Management program

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

Trojan Swarm

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

Army test and evaluation programs

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

Enhanced Army energy testing

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

Unserviceable ammunition demilitarization through chemical dissolution

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

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades

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

                                  Navy


University research initiatives

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

Energetics research

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

Advanced energy research

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

Navy force protection research

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

Warfighter sustainment technologies

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

Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research

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

Mobile intelligence and tracking systems

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

Formable textiles

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

Mobile repair capability

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

Rare earth alternatives

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

Single generator operations

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

High-Integrity Global Positioning System

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

Hybrid heavy lift logistics vehicle

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

Lighter-than-air research platform

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

Advanced actuators for submarines

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

Submarine shock mitigation

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

Submarine payloads

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

Ship hydrodynamic test facilities improvement

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

Common network interface system

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

Decision and energy reduction tool

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

Navy energy research

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

Flame retardant textile fabric

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

Optical interconnect

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

Air and missile defense radar

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

TB-33 thinline towed array

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

Advanced manufacturing for submarine bow domes

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

Common command and control system module

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

Submarine airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
        capability

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

Submarine artificial intelligence-based combat system software module

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

Submarine environment for evaluation and development

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

Submarine weapon acquisition and firing system

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

SSGN weapon launcher technology insertion

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

Automated fiber optic manufacturing capability

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

Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle

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

Next-generation Phalanx

    The budget request included $5.9 million in PE 64756N for 
ship self-defense (engage: hard kill), but included no funding 
for next-generation Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the 
Navy's principal close-in weapon system for ship self-defense, 
and has proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against 
emerging air and surface target sets. The continually evolving 
nature of the threat, unique challenges posed by operations in 
the littorals, increased emphasis on single ship probability of 
raid annihilation, and fact of life technology obsolescence 
require continued development effort to sustain the superior 
performance of this critical ship self-defense system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 64756N 
for the continued development of the next-generation Phalanx.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

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

Composite tissue transplantation for combat wound repair

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

Navy information technology programs

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

Navy manufacturing technology

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

Strike study

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

Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform

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

Tomahawk cost reduction initiatives

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

Aircraft metal alloys

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

Aircraft windscreen laminates

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

Tracking helicopter structural life

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

System for triaging key evidence

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

Marine Corps personnel carrier data management system

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

Unique identification web-based tracking and accountability software

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

                               Air Force


Cyber research and training

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

Air Force materials research

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

Aerospace vehicle technologies

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

Reconfigurable electronics and software

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

Seismic research program

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

Space plasma research

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

Directed energy research

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

Air Force advanced materials research

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

Advanced fuels and propulsion

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

Air Force advanced propulsion systems

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

Carbon nanotubes

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

Collaboration gateway

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

Global Positioning System operating control segment

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

Space situational awareness

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

Space protection program

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

Next-generation military satellite communications

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

Operationally Responsive Space

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

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite

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

Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking Initiative

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

Space-based space surveillance system

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

Space-based Infrared System

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

Third generation infrared surveillance

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

Air Force test and evaluation

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

Space test program

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

B-2

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

Cyber operations security institute

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

Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence

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

Malware research technology demonstration and validation

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

Milsatcom terminals

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

Environmental awareness for unmanned systems

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

Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance Program of Record

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

Global Positioning System augmentation

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

Global Positioning System operating control segment

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

Joint Space Operation Center System

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

Nuclear detonation detection system

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

                              Defense-wide


Cognitive computing

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

Advanced chem-bio protective materials

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

Chemical and biological infrared detector

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

Department of Defense Research & Engineering Cyber security activities

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

Weapons of mass destruction analysis reachback tool

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

Non-lethal weapons technology

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

Combating terrorism technologies

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

Foreign language correlation and translation

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

Reconnaissance and data exploitation system

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

Plant-based vaccine development

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

Defense Logistics Agency energy research

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

Printed circuit board industrial assessment

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

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

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

Corrosion control research

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

Chem-bio defense system development and demonstration

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

Defense Technical Information Center unjustified growth

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

Center for Intelligence and Security Studies

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

Technology development for tactical unmanned aerial systems

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

Wide-area aerial tactical situation awareness

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

Center of excellence for geospatial science

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

Industrial Base Innovation Fund and supply chain

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

Lithium ion battery safety research

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

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution issues

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

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

Ballistic missile defense overview

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

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

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

Defense Science Board study on cyber research and development

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

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation personnel issues

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

High speed encryption

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

Integrated Sensor is Structure

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

Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft prognostics

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

Multiple User Objective System

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

Report on implementation of industry standardized hardware and software 
        interfaces

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

Test Resources Management Center

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

Explanation of tables

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

                  Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions

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

                 Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues

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

                      Subtitle D--Energy Security

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

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

    The committee concludes that DOD needs effective statutory 
authority to address the improper disposal of DOD property and 
ensure the recovery of such property regardless of to whom it 
was furnished and who was responsible for its improper 
disposal.
Commercial sale of small arms ammunition in excess of military 
        requirements (sec. 345)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
available the commercial sale of small arms ammunition and 
ammunition components in excess of military requirements, 
including fired cartridge cases, which are not otherwise 
prohibited from commercial sale or certified by the Secretary 
of Defense as unserviceable or unsafe.
    The provision also specifies that no small arms ammunition 
and ammunition components in excess of military requirements 
may be made available for commercial sale under this provision 
before such ammunition and ammunition components are offered 
for transfer or purchase, as authorized by law, to another 
Federal department or agency, or for sale to state and local 
law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, and emergency 
management agencies pursuant to section 2576 of title 10, 
United States Code.
Modification of authorities relating to prioritization of funds for 
        equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 346)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 323 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to address 
concerns about the adequacy of the information that the Army 
provides to Congress on the costs of equipping and manning the 
modular force.
    Specifically, the recommended amendment would streamline 
the statutory language to clarify the Army's reporting 
requirements and remove a reporting element concerning the 
Army's definition of costs of modularity versus costs of 
modernization and reset.
    The recommended amendment would also add several new 
reporting elements, including sections that would address 
equipment items and personnel specialties identified as ``key 
enablers'' that make the modular force as or more capable than 
non-modular units it replaced. In particular, the Army would be 
required to report on its key enabler requirements, on hand 
items, planned purchases, authorized and actual personnel 
levels, and shortfalls projected throughout the period covered 
by the future-years defense program. This additional 
information would better assist Congress in understanding the 
true costs of equipping and manning the Army's modular force.
    Additionally, the recommended amendment would update the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) reporting requirement 
and link it to the Army's annual report. This approach would 
allow the GAO to provide Congress with more complete, useful, 
and up to date information than as currently provided by 
section 323. The amendment would require GAO to provide an 
assessment of the Army's report, but would also give GAO the 
discretion to provide additional information as appropriate.
    Finally, the recommended amendment would extend the 
reporting requirements to 2017 to encompass the likely period 
following the drawdown of overseas contingency operations for 
which significant resources may be required to continue Army 
equipment and personnel reset.
Repeal of requirement for reports on withdrawal or diversion of 
        equipment from Reserve units for support of Reserve units being 
        mobilized and other units (sec. 347)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement for a quarterly report from the Secretary of 
Defense covering withdrawals or diversions of equipment from 
reserve components as provided for in section 349 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 109-346). The intent of section 349 at the time of 
its enactment was to provide oversight of equipment transfers 
out of the reserve components in support of the growing 
requirement of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. 
Since that time, operational equipment demands have largely 
stabilized and plans for U.S. forces drawdown from Iraq render 
this quarterly report less relevant. Additionally, information 
provided to Congress by the Department in the annual National 
Guard and Reserves Equipment Report and in Quarterly Readiness 
Reports to Congress allow sufficient insight for oversight of 
reserve component equipment issues.
Revision to authorities relating to transportation of civilian 
        passengers and commercial cargoes by Department of Defense when 
        space unavailable on commercial lines (sec. 348)
    The committee recommends a provision that amend section 
2649 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) expand the means 
by which transportation may be provided to civilian passengers 
and commercial cargo to include vehicles and aircraft operated 
by the Department of Defense (DOD); and (2) when such 
transportation is provided in response to an emergency, 
disaster response, or humanitarian request, allow DOD to credit 
any amounts received in reimbursement to the appropriation, 
fund, or account incurring the expense of providing the 
transportation.
    Section 2649 of title 10, United States Code, currently 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transport civilian 
passengers and commercial cargoes on vessels operated by DOD, 
when such transportation is not commercially available. Under 
the current language, reimbursement must be made at rates not 
less than those charged by commercial companies for the same 
services, and amounts received are deposited in the Treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts.
    The committee expects that the use of any expanded 
authority granted under the revision to section 2649 will 
continue to be limited to emergency, humanitarian, and similar 
exceptional circumstances.

                              Budget Items

                                  Navy

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

                               Air Force

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

                              Defense-wide


Defense Security Cooperation Agency

    The budget request included $683.9 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Of this amount, $500.0 million was 
requested for the Global Train and Equip program to build the 
capacity of foreign military forces to meet emerging security 
threats. The amount requested for the Global Train and Equip 
program exceeds the program's current authorized level for 
fiscal year 2011 of $350.0 million under section 1206 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163), as amended by section 1206 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) and section 1206 of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
    The administration is in the process of conducting a 
comprehensive interagency review of the security assistance 
authorities of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
State, including the DOD Global Train and Equip program. The 
committee understands that this review should be completed 
prior to the completion of the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 
The committee welcomes this review and looks forward to any 
proposals for enhancing U.S. security assistance that result 
from this process.
    The committee also notes that the request for the DSCA 
includes $5.0 million for the Stability Operations Fellowship 
program (SOFP). The committee has previously recommended the 
elimination of funding for the SOFP on the grounds that no 
authority exists for the Department of Defense to conduct this 
fellowship program. The committee believes that the SOFP goal 
of educating foreign military personnel in stability operations 
can be achieved through other security assistance programs, 
including the International Military Education and Training 
program, and again recommends the elimination of funding for 
SOFP.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $155.0 
million to OMDW for DSCA, consisting of a decrease of $150.0 
million for the Global Train and Equip program and a decrease 
of $5.0 million for the SOFP.

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

    The budget request included $39.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and 
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). The committee 
believes the military departments should continue to pursue the 
voluntary agreements with other public and private entities as 
authorized under section 2684a of title 10, United States Code, 
to prevent the development or use of property that would be 
incompatible with the mission of an installation, and preserve 
habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements that 
might otherwise result in current or anticipated environmental 
restrictions on military bases. More can and should be done to 
protect important military test and training assets and to 
preserve the land around these installations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in 
OMDW for REPI and directs that the military departments give 
priority to projects that benefit critical mission training 
sites that have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce 
encroachment through the creation of a compatible use buffer 
zone.

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

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

Department of Defense Education Activity Operation and Maintenance 
        funding

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

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

                          Unobligated Balances


Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Acoustic intelligence archive programs

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

Air Force food transformation initiative

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

Kirtland Air Force Base jet fuel spill

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

Littoral combat ship report

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

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

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

Requirements for standard ground combat camouflage uniforms

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

Reserve component pre-deployment equipment fielding and training

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

Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting

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

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown below:

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

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

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2010                              2011
                                                                authorization     2011 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States.................          358,200          358,200          358,200
The Army Reserve.............................................          205,000          205,000          205,000
The Navy Reserve.............................................           65,500           65,500           65,500
The Marine Corps Reserve.....................................           39,600           39,600           39,600
The Air National Guard of the United States..................          106,700          106,700          106,700
The Air Force Reserve........................................           69,500           71,200           71,200
The Coast Guard Reserve......................................           10,000           10,000           10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves 
        (sec. 412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown 
below:

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

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
end strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal 
year 2011, as shown below:

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

Fiscal year 2011 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2011, 
as shown below:

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

    The committee recommends maintaining Army National Guard 
non-dual status end strength at 1,600, consistent with prior 
years, 920 less than the administration's request. The 
committee notes that under a Presidential waiver of end 
strength limitations, the Army National Guard currently employs 
over 3,000 non-dual status technicians, many of whom serve at 
State headquarters. The committee is concerned that the 
requested strength may be too high once the wars end, 
particularly considering that non-dual status technicians are 
federal employees and cannot be easily separated. The committee 
considers the end strength limitations of this section 
appropriate to meet permanent peacetime requirements. 
Additionally, the temporary hiring authority for non-dual 
status technicians found elsewhere in this Act should alleviate 
the pressures created by the operations tempo of the dual 
status technician population. Finally, the committee is still 
waiting for two reports from the Department of Defense on the 
full-time support requirements of the reserve components 
generally, and the specific requirements for non-dual status 
technicians.
Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for 
        operational support (sec. 415)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on 
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2011, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2010                              2011
                                                                authorization     2011 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States.................           17,000           17,000           17,000
The Army Reserve.............................................           13,000           13,000           13,000
The Navy Reserve.............................................            6,200            6,200            6,200
The Marine Corps Reserve.....................................            3,000            3,000            3,000
The Air National Guard of the United States..................           16,000           16,000           16,000
The Air Force Reserve........................................           14,000           14,000           14,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funds to be appropriated for military personnel accounts of the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011.

                Subtitle D--Armed Forces Retirement Home

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

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   Subtitle C--Education and Training


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code, 
to authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences and students participating in 
the armed forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial 
Assistance Programs who have prior commissioned service to 
serve, while on active duty, in pay grade O-1, or in pay grade 
O-2 if they meet specified promotion criteria prescribed by the 
service secretary. The provision would also amend section 2004a 
of title 10, United States Code, to provide that an officer 
detailed as a student at a medical school would serve on active 
duty in the same grade with the same entitlement to pay as 
specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United States Code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modification of education loan repayment programs (sec. 538)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 
(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense 
assistance program to local educational agencies that are 
impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military 
members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
    The committee also recommends authorization of $5.0 million 
in OMDW for assistance to local educational agencies with 
significant changes in enrollment of military and civilian 
school-aged dependent children due to base closures, force 
structure changes, or force relocations.

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 552)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under 
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in 
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), 
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local 
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with 
severe disabilities.

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

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

                 Subtitle E--Leave and Related Matters


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

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

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

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

                  Subtitle F--Military Justice Matters


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

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

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

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

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

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

                   Subtitle G--Awards and Decorations


Cold War Service Medal (sec. 566)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Subtitle H--Wounded Warrior Matters


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

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

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

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

             Subtitle I--Military Family Readiness Matters


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle J--Other Matters


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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest


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

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

Access to the operational reserve

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

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

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

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

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

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

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

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

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

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        Reserve forces (sec. 611)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus; the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; 
the special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high 
priority units; the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 
without prior service; the Ready Reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; the Selected 
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 
prior service; and income replacement payments for certain 
reserve component members.

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        health care professionals (sec. 612)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain 
health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; 
accession and retention bonuses for psychologists; the 
accession bonus for registered nurses; incentive special pay 
for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Selected Reserve health 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties; the 
accession bonus for dental officers; the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties.

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 
        officers (sec. 613)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending their period of active service; 
the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career 
annual incentive bonus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest


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

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

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

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

                      Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Subtitle C--Reports


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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury

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

Embedded behavioral health providers

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

Live tissue training

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

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

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

 Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

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

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

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

             Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                     Subtitle D--Contractor Matters


Contractor business systems (sec. 841)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contractor logistics support of contingency operations (sec. 857)

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Acquisition workforce strategic plan

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

          ``Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel 
        chartered pursuant to section 1423 of the National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 
        Law 108-136) reported that `curtailed investments in 
        human capital have produced an acquisition workforce 
        that often lacks the training and resources to function 
        effectively.' As a result, `The Federal Government does 
        not have the capacity in its current acquisition 
        workforce necessary to meet the demands that have been 
        placed on it.' The failure of DOD and other federal 
        agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, 
        the Panel concluded, is ```penny wise and pound 
        foolish,'' as it seriously undermines the pursuit of 
        good value for the expenditure of public resources.'''

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

Configuration Steering Boards

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

Contractor past performance information

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

Organizational conflicts of interest

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

Planning and implementation for hiring civilian employees to replace 
        contractor employees

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

Profit or fee for undefinitized contract actions

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

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

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

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

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

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

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

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities

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

                    Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters

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

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

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

Strategy on computer software assurance (sec. 932)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


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

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

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

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

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in 
Division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in 
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of 
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be 
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
Repeal of requirement for annual joint report from Office of Management 
        and Budget and Congressional Budget Office on scoring of 
        outlays in defense budget function (sec. 1002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 226 of title 10, United States Code. That section 
requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
to provide Congress with a joint report, no later than April 1 
of each year, containing an agreed-upon resolution of all 
differences between the technical assumptions used by OMB and 
CBO in preparing the estimates with respect to all accounts in 
function 050 (national defense) for the budget to be submitted 
to Congress in the following year. If the two Directors are 
unable to agree upon any technical assumption, the report 
reflects the use of averages of the relevant account rates used 
by the two offices.
    This report is unnecessary because it largely duplicates 
information already provided in the President's Budget. 
Furthermore, OMB and CBO already work together to reconcile 
outlay estimates and regularly alert Congress to where outlay 
estimates differ.

                Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

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

                    Subtitle C--Counterdrug Matters

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

             Subtitle D--Homeland Defense and Civil Support

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

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

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

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

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

         Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Subtitle F--Reports


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


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

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

                              Budget Items


International crime and narcotics analytical tools

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

National Guard counterdrug programs

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

United States European Command's counterdrug activities

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Army Cooperative Arrangements

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

Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department of Defense

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

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate

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

Export Control Reform

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

Special operations counter proliferation capabilities

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

Special operations integration with U.S. Embassy Country Teams

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

West Africa maritime security initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Item of Special Interest


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

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

                  Subtitle A--Training and Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Subtitle C--Reports


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on Cuba (sec. 1236)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of 
National Intelligence and Secretary of State, to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
180-days after enactment of this Act. The report would include 
descriptions of the Government of Cuba's activities in the 
western hemisphere and their effort to collaborate with like-
minded governments to undermine the national interests of the 
United States.

Report on Venezuela (sec. 1237)

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Comptroller General Report on the Islamic Republic of Iran

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

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

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

Operation Unified Response and Joint Task Force--Haiti

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

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

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

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

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

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 
        1301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds 
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, 
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$522.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision 
would also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program 
element, require notification to Congress 30 days before the 
Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011 
funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in the 
provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days before 
the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011 
funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR 
program element.
    The committee notes that there is additional funding in the 
budget request for chemical weapons destruction, and supports 
the continuation of this line until the Russian chemical 
weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye, Russia is fully 
operational.
    The committee also notes that the defense and military 
contacts request includes funds to support interactions with 
foreign governments and entities in support of the CTR program. 
One of the goals of the CTR program when it was originally 
established was to improve relationships between the U.S. 
Department of Defense and the U.S. military, and the Ministries 
of Defense and the militaries of the states of the former 
Soviet Union. These interactions were successful and should be 
sustained. As the program has grown, however, particularly in 
the biological threat reduction area, much of the interaction 
is with civilian agencies and entities in the states of the 
former Soviet Union and elsewhere. The committee supports these 
broader interactions as long as they continue to support the 
CTR program and mission.
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence 
        in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds from being obligated 
to establish a center of excellence in any country outside of 
the former Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the Secretary 
of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a 
report on the particular center to be established. The report 
shall identify the country where the center will be 
established, the purpose for which the center will be used, the 
agreement under which the center will operate, and the funding 
plan for the center including any cost-sharing arrangement.
    The committee supports the expansion of CTR into countries 
outside of the FSU but would like to understand in more detail 
plans for new centers as these plans evolve.
    The committee also supports the effort to secure the most 
vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that 
this is a significant challenge that will require close 
interagency cooperation to be fully successful. The committee 
notes that the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, have a long 
and productive history of cooperation in threat reduction 
programs, and urge them to continue this close collaboration in 
the accelerated program.
Plan for nonproliferation, proliferation prevention, and threat 
        reduction activities with the People's Republic of China (sec. 
        1304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to submit a 
joint report to the congressional defense committees on the 5 
year plan to carry out nonproliferation and threat reduction 
activities with the People's Republic of China (PRC). The plan 
would be due by March 1, 2011.
    The committee supports expansion of the proliferation 
prevention efforts globally and the efforts of the Department 
of Energy and the Department of Defense to broaden the range of 
participants in such programs. The committee expects this 
effort to be a partnership and hopes that the PRC will fully 
support financially, technically, and politically, these 
important nonproliferation and threat reduction activities.
                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs

             Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Matters

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

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

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

                              Budget Items


Defense Coalition Support Fund

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

Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

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

Department of Defense Inspector General, second year growth plan

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

         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
    This section would provide that the amounts authorized for 
overseas contingency operations in this title are in addition 
to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to $4.0 billion of overseas contingency 
operations funding authorized in this title. These special 
transfer authorities are in addition to the general transfer 
authority contained in section 1001 of this Act, but the same 
reprogramming procedures applicable to transfers under section 
1001 would also apply to transfers under this section.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

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

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

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

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items


Base Expeditionary Targeting and Surveillance System--Combined

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

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

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

Joint Strike Fighter

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

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

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

Wide-area airborne surveillance exploitation

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

Commanders' Emergency Response Program

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

Iraq Security Forces Fund

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

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

    The budget request included $1.55 billion for the Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO) Transfer Fund. Of this amount, 
$350,000,000 was requested for detainee operations, including 
$245,000,000 for costs associated with the improvements to a 
detention facility at Thomson, Illinois, that is planned to be 
acquired by the Federal Government from the State of Illinois, 
and for detention operations conducted at that facility once 
acquired and the improvements are made. The committee 
recommends a decrease in the OCO Transfer Fund of $245,000,000. 
Elsewhere in this title the committee recommends a provision 
that would restrict the use of the remaining $105,000,000 of 
the $350,000,000 requested within the OCO Transfer Fund solely 
for detainee operations at the United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
    Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military 
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It 
includes funding authorizations for the construction and 
operation of military family housing as well as military 
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, 
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security 
Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base 
closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental 
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the 
decisions in base closure rounds.
    The following tables provide the project-level 
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized 
in Division B of this Act, other than the overseas contingency 
operations projects authorized in title XXIX, and summarize 
that funding by account. Funding for base closure projects is 
summarized in the table that follows, and is explained in 
additional detail in the table included in title XXVII of this 
report.
    The fiscal year 2011 budget requested $20.0 billion for 
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, 
$14.2 billion was requested for military construction, $1.8 
billion for the construction and operation of family housing, 
and $2.7 billion for base closure activities, including $2.35 
billion to implement the results of the 2005 Base Realignment 
and Closure round.
    Excluding the overseas contingency operations projects in 
title XXIX, the committee recommends authorization of 
appropriations for military construction and housing programs 
totaling $18.7 billion. The total amount authorized for 
appropriations reflects the committee's continuing commitment 
to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and 
infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
division B of this Act as the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing 
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization infrastructure program as October 1, 2013, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $4.08 billion for military construction and $610.0 million 
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$3.8 billion for military construction and $610.0 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends moving $101.5 million of military 
construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) 
area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas 
Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $71.0 million in 
canceled or accelerated Army projects from the Overseas 
Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these 
funding changes will allow for more efficient execution of 
CENTCOM military construction projects.
    The committee recommends incrementally funding the Aviation 
Task Force Hanger at Fort Wainwright, Alaska and the Sensitive 
Compartmentalized Information Facility at Weisbaden Air Base in 
Germany. This action is taken without prejudice and merely to 
facilitate the most efficient use of taxpayer funds.
    The committee recommends deferring funding for three museum 
support operations buildings until the Department of the Army 
can develop a plan to collocate these facilities with 
privately-funded museums planned for construction at the same 
locations. The committee believes there are higher funding 
priorities this fiscal year.
    The committee also eliminated funding for barracks at Soto 
Cano Air Base in Honduras. The lack of a host nation agreement 
governing the construction of permanent military facilities 
makes this project unnecessary. The committee understands that 
the facilities in Soto Cano require improvement and will seek 
to work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to find alternate 
acceptable solutions.
    The committee eliminated funding for a commissary at U.S. 
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) headquarters in Miami-Dade County, 
Florida. The committee believes that DOD Instruction 1330.17 
clearly states that significant growth (more than 25 percent in 
2 years) is required to use appropriated dollars to fund 
construction of a new commissary at an existing installation. 
There has not been significant growth at SOUTHCOM headquarters, 
therefore, appropriated dollars should not be used. The 
committee finds that the clarification memorandum signed by 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness) Michael Dominguez on December 1, 2008, serves only 
to confuse the matter by misquoting the Instruction. The phrase 
``initial establishment of a commissary on an existing 
installation'' is not contained in the original text and is 
therefore not persuasive. The committee believes that the 
Surcharge Fund created by 10 U.S.C. 2484(d) is the appropriate 
source of funds as allowed by 10 U.S.C. 2484(h).
    The committee eliminated funding for Phase 1, Increment 2 
of an Aviation Task Force Complex at Fort Wainwright, Alaska as 
the Department has informed the committee that funding for this 
increment of the project is no longer required.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the active component of the 
Army for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on 
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Army for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize 
funds for facilities that support family housing, including 
housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage 
facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2011 to improve existing Army family 
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for military construction and family housing projects for the 
active-duty component of the Army. The State list contained in 
this report is the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 projects (sec. 
        2105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization for eight Army fiscal year 2008 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2012, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later. This extension was 
requested by the Department of Defense.

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

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

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

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

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $3.88 billion for military construction and $552.0 million 
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal 
year 2011.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$3.7 billion for military construction and $552.0 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee notes that the fiscal year budget request 
continues to contain funding for the relocation of Marines from 
Okinawa to Guam. The committee recommends the elimination of 
funding for three projects on Guam totaling $320.0 million. 
These three projects are ahead of need. The committee notes 
that two of these projects, both at Andersen Air Force Base, 
have significant amounts of fiscal year 2010 dollars that 
cannot be obligated or expended in advance of a Record of 
Decision planned for September 2010. The committee believes 
that these funds are sufficient to keep these projects on 
schedule so no additional funds are required in fiscal year 
2011. The committee believes that site preparations at 
Finegayan are ahead of need as long as significant progress is 
not made to fulfill Marine Corps live fire training 
requirements on or near Guam. An item of special interest later 
in this title more fully reflects the committee's views on this 
critical program.
    The committee notes that the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement identifies two parcels of land on Guam currently 
under the control of the Government of Guam or private owners. 
No alternatives meet 100 percent of the Marine Corps' need. The 
committee recommends that the Department explore the use of 
Tinian Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands as alternatives should it become impossible to acquire 
adequate land on Guam.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Navy for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize 
funds for facilities that support family housing, including 
housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage 
facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2011 to improve existing Navy family 
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy 
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. 
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount authorized for military construction and family housing 
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the 
Marine Corps. The State list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008 project (sec. 
        2205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2008 authorization for various world-wide host 
nation infrastructures until October 1, 2011, or the date of an 
act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2012, whichever is later.
Technical amendment to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project (sec. 
        2206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
section 2204(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84).

                        Item of Special Interest

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

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.31 billion for military construction and $591.0 million 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.38 billion for military construction and $591.0 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends moving $41.0 million of military 
construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) 
area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas 
Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $185.0 million in 
canceled or accelerated Air Force projects from the Overseas 
Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these 
funding changes will allow for more efficient execution of 
CENTCOM military construction projects.
    The committee recommends fully authorizing the budget 
request of $158.009 million for the Air Force Technical 
Application Center at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida, but 
incrementally funding the project with an authorization of 
appropriations of $100.009 million. This action is taken 
without prejudice and merely to facilitate the most efficient 
use of taxpayer funds.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2011. 
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction and planning and design of family housing 
units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2011. It would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2011 to improve existing Air Force 
family housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for military construction and family housing projects for the 
active-duty component of the Air Force. The State list 
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2007 project (sec. 
        2305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
fiscal year 2007 authorization for the replacement of 457 
housing units at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho until 
October 1, 2011, or the date of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later.
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

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

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2401)

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

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation 
projects.

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)

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

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

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

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations


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

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

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

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

                        Item of Special Interest


Design standards for schools of the Department of Defense Education 
        Activity

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

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriation of $258.88 million for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2011. 
The committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of 
$258.88 million for this program.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an 
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized 
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due 
to the United States for construction previously financed by 
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations of $258.88 million for the United States' 
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
Investment Program for fiscal year 2011.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $1.4 billion for military construction in 
fiscal year 2011 for National Guard and Reserve facilities. The 
committee recommends a total of $1.7 billion for military 
construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding 
recommendations are contained in the State list table included 
in this report.
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for 
fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal 
year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-
location basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are 
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for 
fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for 
fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the reserve component military construction 
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2011 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The 
State list contained in this report is the binding list of the 
specific projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 projects (sec. 
        2607)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2008 
military construction projects until October 1, 2011, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. These 
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.

                        Item of Special Interest

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

Summary and explanation of tables

    The budget request included $360.47 million for the ongoing 
cost of environmental remediation and other activities 
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 
and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The 
committee has authorized the amount requested for these 
activities in section 2701 of this Act.
    In addition, the budget requested an authorization of 
appropriations of $2.35 billion for implementation of the 2005 
BRAC round. Section 2702 of this Act would authorize the full 
$2.35 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 
2011.
    The following table provides the specific amount authorized 
for each BRAC military construction project as well as the 
amount authorized for appropriations for all BRAC activities, 
including military construction, environmental costs, 
relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent 
change of station costs for military personnel, and other BRAC 
costs.

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment 
        activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
        Account 1990 (sec. 2701)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for ongoing activities that 
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 
1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2702)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for fiscal year 2011 that are 
required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title 
of the report lists the specific amounts authorized at each 
location.

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment 
        activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
        Account 2005 (sec. 2703)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2011 that are required to implement the decisions of the 
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for BRAC military construction projects. The State list 
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.
          TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL MATTERS

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

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

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


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

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

                      Subtitle C--Energy Security


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

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

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

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

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances


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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Subtitle E--Reports


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

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

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest


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

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

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

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

Summary
    The President's Overseas Contingency Operations budget 
request for fiscal year 2011 included $1.26 billion for 
military construction projects in Afghanistan. The table in 
section 4504 describes the specific projects and recommended 
adjustments for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends moving $101.5 million of military 
construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) 
area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas 
Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $71.0 million in 
canceled or accelerated projects from the Overseas Contingency 
Operations accounts. The committee believes these funding 
changes will allow for more efficient execution of CENTCOM 
military construction projects.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$1.0 billion in overseas contingency military construction 
projects for the Army for fiscal year 2011.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$150.8 million in Overseas Contingency Operations military 
construction projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2011.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Overview
    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
2011, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear 
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration 
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes 
appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental 
cleanup; and (3) other defense activities.
    The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at 
the Department totaled $17.7 billion, a 7.4 percent increase 
above the fiscal year 2011 regular appropriated level. Of the 
total amount requested:
          (1) $11.2 billion is for NNSA, of which:
                  (a) $7.0 billion is for weapons activities;
                  (b) $2.7 billion is for defense nuclear 
                nonproliferation activities;
                  (c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors; and
                  (d) $448.3 million is for the Office of the 
                Administrator;
          (2) $5.6 billion is for defense environmental 
        cleanup; and
          (3) $878.2 million is for other defense activities.
    The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy 
supply.
    The committee recommends $17.7 billion for atomic energy 
defense activities, the amount of the budget request.
    Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
          (1) $11.2 billion for NNSA, of which;
                  (a) $7.0 billion is for weapons activities, 
                an increase of $6.2 million above the budget 
                request;
                  (b) $2.7 billion is for defense nuclear 
                nonproliferation activities, the amount of the 
                budget request;
                  (c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors, the 
                amount of the budget request; and
                  (d) $448.3 million is for the Office of the 
                Administrator, the amount of the budget 
                request;
          (2) $5.6 billion for defense environmental cleanup 
        activities, the amount of the budget request; and
          (3) $878.2 million for other defense activities, the 
        amount of the budget request.
    The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a 
reduction of $6.2 million.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $11.2 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal 
year 2011 for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security, an 
increase of $6.2 million above the budget request.
Weapons activities
    The committee recommends $7.0 billion for weapons 
activities, an increase of $6.2 million above the budget 
request. The committee authorizes the following activities: 
$1.9 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion for 
campaigns; $1.9 billion for readiness in the technical base and 
facilities; $248.0 million for the secure transportation asset; 
$233.1 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response; 
$119.0 million for facilities and infrastructure 
recapitalization; $105.5 million for site stewardship; $844.3 
million for safeguards and security; and $20.0 million for 
science, technology, and engineering capability.
Directed stockpile work
    The committee recommends $1.9 billion for directed 
stockpile work, a decrease of $25.0 million below the amount of 
the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports 
work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including 
day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, 
engineering, and certification activities to support planned 
life extension programs. This account also includes fabrication 
and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, 
weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support 
equipment.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million for 
the W-76 life extension program. The committee fully supports 
the life extension program for the W-76, the most numerous of 
all the nuclear systems in the stockpile. The committee is 
aware, however, that because of technical issues, the program 
is behind schedule and will not need all of the requested funds 
in 2011.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in 
management, technology, and production for increased 
surveillance activities. The committee is concerned that in 
spite of the substantial increases in the NNSA weapons 
activities account, the budget does not fully support the 
enhanced surveillance efforts.
    The committee recommends a $20.0 million decrease in 
plutonium infrastructure sustainment as excess to requirements.
Campaigns
    The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns, a 
decrease of $2.0 million below the amount of the budget 
request. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts 
involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada 
Test Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is 
focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the 
nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. 
These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the 
Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile 
remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons 
testing. The committee is very concerned about the preliminary 
decision of the NNSA to eliminate the readiness campaign with 
the exception of tritium readiness. The readiness campaign 
provides foundational support for key activities in the nuclear 
stockpile. If the NNSA decides to eliminate the readiness 
campaign the committee directs NNSA to identify clearly how and 
where these foundational activities will be maintained.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 
National Ignition Facility (NIF) campaign for diagnostics, 
cryogenics and experimental support. The committee wants to 
insure that there are adequate diagnostics to fully utilize and 
support the experimental capability of the NIF.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in the 
readiness campaign for tritium readiness. The reduction for 
tritium readiness takes into account a large carryover balance 
resulting from contracting delays and problems with the tritium 
producing bars.
Readiness in the technical base
    The committee recommends $1.9 billion for readiness in the 
technical base (RTBF), an increase of $30.0 million above the 
budget request for operations of facilities. This account funds 
facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex 
and includes construction funding for new facilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to 
support deferred maintenance at the Pantex plant. The committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to support deferred 
maintenance at the Y-12 facility. The committee recommends an 
increase for the PF-4 facility at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory to address the active ventilation system issues that 
have been identified by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety 
Board.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million for 
the Kansas City Plant specifically for the Kansas City 
Responsive Infrastructure Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) 
plan, the plan to acquire a replacement facility for the 
existing Kansas City Plant. The Kansas City Plant replacement 
is being managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). 
The new facility will be built by a private development 
company, but will be owned by a Kansas City redevelopment 
authority, which will in turn lease it to the development 
company to sublease to GSA to sub-sub lease to NNSA for the 
Kansas City operations. The committee is aware of cost 
estimates for the new complex ranging from $500.0 million to 
$673.0 million with an estimated life cycle cost of $4.7 
billion. The committee notes that the budget request for KCRIMS 
includes funds for ``unique facility upgrades for utility and 
interior requirements.'' The committee questions why funds are 
needed for upgrades and unique requirements at a facility that 
is being built to NNSA specifications.
    The basis for the decision to build the new facility using 
GSA/third party approach rather than the normal government 
construction line item approach was that the life cycle costs 
would be less using the GSA/third party approach. The committee 
is concerned that NNSA may be supplementing the construction 
costs. The committee also notes that ground breaking for the 
new building has been delayed until August 2011. For future 
budget submissions, the committee directs the NNSA to 
specifically identify funds for the KCRIMS project as a 
separate element of the RTBF and the purpose for which they 
will be spent.
    The committee continues to believe that replacing the 
existing Chemical and Metallurgical Research facility is 
essential but that the new Chemical and Metallurgical Research 
Replacement (CMRR) facility has many unresolved issues 
including the appropriate size of the facility. CMRR will be a 
category I facility supporting pit operations in building PF-4. 
Now that the Nuclear Posture Review is completed the NNSA and 
the Department of Defense (DOD) are in a better position to 
ensure that the facility is appropriately sized. Elsewhere in 
this act the committee has recommended a provision to require 
construction project baselines and to track cost and schedule 
issues. The committee is very concerned that the NNSA follow 
the DOE 413 order series and project management and guidance. 
The NNSA is also directed to conduct a true independent cost 
estimate for the CMRR Nuclear Facility, phase III of the CMRR 
project. The committee is concerned that the phase III project 
is being divided into multiple sub-projects. Notwithstanding 
this management approach the committee directs the CMRR 
baseline to reflect all phases and subprojects for the purposes 
of the cost and schedule baseline provision and to be accounted 
for as a single project.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for 
the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) refurbishment, 
Project 09-D-007. The LANSCE supports the only machine capable 
of performing nuclear cross section measurements of weapons 
materials to support the resolution of significant findings 
investigations. LANSCE refurbishment would also further enhance 
the ability of the NNSA to perform surveillance on the 
stockpile. The committee recognizes that there is considerable 
deferred maintenance at the LANSCE facility that will need to 
be addressed as the final design for the LANSCE refurbishment 
is determined. In the interim the committee authorizes the NNSA 
to use such funds in fiscal year 2011 as needed to maintain the 
facility while the design is finalized.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 
the high explosive pressing facility at the Pantex Plant, 
Project 08-D-802 to accelerate construction of the facility. 
This new high explosive facility is needed for life extension 
programs and will provide a modern, safe, working environment 
for these high risk operations.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

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

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

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

Nonproliferation and international security

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

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation

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

Fissile materials disposition

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

Global threat reduction initiative

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

Plutonium reactor shutdown program

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

Secure transportation asset

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

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

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

Facilities and infrastructure

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

Site stewardship

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

Safeguards and security

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

Naval reactors

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

Office of the Administrator

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

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

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

Waste Treatment Plant

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

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

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

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Department of Energy energy parks program (sec. 3131)

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest


Department of Energy National Laboratories

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

Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System

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

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

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

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

Procurement (sec. 4101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title I of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for procurement programs and indicates those programs for which 
the committee either increased or decreased the requested 
amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for procurement for overseas contingency operations programs 
and indicates those programs for which the committee either 
increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
        TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title II of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for research, development, test, and evaluation programs and 
indicates those programs for which the committee either 
increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 
        operations (sec. 4202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas 
contingency operations programs and indicates those programs 
for which the committee either increased or decreased the 
requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
                 TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title III of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for operation and maintenance programs and indicates those 
programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 
the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 
        4302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for operation and maintenance for overseas contingency 
operations programs and indicates those programs for which the 
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
                    TITLE XLIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Other authorizations (sec. 4401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XIV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for other authorizations programs and indicates those programs 
for which the committee either increased or decreased the 
requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for other authorizations for overseas contingency operations 
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
                    TITLE XLV--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military construction (sec. 4501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act, in 
accordance with the requirements of section 4001. The provision 
also displays the funding requested by the administration in 
the fiscal year 2011 budget request for military construction 
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011 project 
        listing (sec. 4502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XXVII of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for 2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011 
project listing programs and indicates those programs for which 
the committee either increased or decreased the requested 
amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4503)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in 
title XIX of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of 
section 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 
by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 
for military construction for overseas contingency operations 
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget 
request are made without prejudice.
       TITLE XVI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

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

                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                      Departmental Recommendations

    By letter dated March 8, 2010, the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate 
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2011, 
and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed 
legislation were officially referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services on March 10, 2010 as Executive Communication 5026.
    Executive Communication 5026 is available for review at the 
committee.

                            Committee Action

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

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included 
in material presented during floor debate on the legislation.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National 
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.



                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              ----------                              


                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN

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

               ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN CHAMBLISS

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

                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN THUNE

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

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

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

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

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

                                  
