    [Senate Report 111-35]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            Calendar No. 89

    =======================================================================
    111th Congress                                                   Report
                                     SENATE
     1st Session                                                     111-35

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

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                   __________

                                  R E P O R T

                             [To accompany S. 1390]

                                       on

    AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
     OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
                  FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                      July 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

       Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of June 25, 2009

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

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                                            Calendar No. 89

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

    111th Congress                                                   Report
                                     SENATE
     1st Session                                                     111-35

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

                         NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                            ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                   __________

                                  R E P O R T

                             [To accompany S. 1390]

                                       on

    AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
    OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
                  FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                      July 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

       Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of June 25, 2009

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    50-630                    WASHINGTON  :  2009

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

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
           Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                         (111th Congress, 1st Session)

                         CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

    EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
    EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
    JIM WEBB, Virginia                   RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    MARK UDALL, Colorado                 SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina
    MARK BEGICH, Alaska
    ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois

                       Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
                   Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                  __________

                                                                       Page
    Purpose of the Bill..............................................     1
        Committee overview...........................................     2
        Explanation of funding summary...............................     3
    Division A-Department of Defense Authorizations..................     5
    Title I--Procurement.............................................     5
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................     5
        Subtitle B--Navy Programs....................................    12
            Treatment of Littoral Combat Ship program as a major
              defense acquisition program (sec. 111).................    12
            Report on strategic plan for homeporting the Littoral
              Combat Ship (sec. 112).................................    13
            Procurement programs for future naval surface combatants
              (sec. 113).............................................    13
            Report on a service life extension program for Oliver
              Hazard Perry class frigates (sec. 114).................    14
        Subtitle C--Air Force Matters................................    14
            Limitation on retirement of C-5 aircraft (sec. 121)......    14
            Revised availability of certain funds available for the
              F-22A fighter aircraft (sec. 122)......................    14
            Report on potential foreign military sales of the F-22A
              fighter aircraft (sec. 123)............................    15
            Next generation bomber aircraft (sec. 124)...............    15
        Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters...................    16
            Modification of nature of data link utilizable by
              tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (sec. 131)...........    16
        Budget Items.................................................    16
            Army.....................................................    16
                Extended range multi-purpose Sky Warrior.............    16
                CH-47 multiyear procurement execution................    16
                Apache AH-64 fuselage manufacturing..................    16
                Blackhawk UH-60A conversion to UH-60L................    17
                Air warrior ensemble generation III..................    17
                Patriot command and control modifications............    17
                60mm mortars Army....................................    17
                Bomb line modernization..............................    17
                Mine protection vehicle family.......................    17
                Joint tactical radio system..........................    18
                Night vision devices.................................    18
                Fido explosives detector.............................    18
                Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program.......    19
                Operator driving simulators..........................    19
                Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System...    19
                Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System...............    19
                Urban training center instrumentation................    19
                Virtual Interactive Combat Environment System........    19
            Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............    20
                Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........    20
            Navy.....................................................    20
                F/A-18E/F............................................    20
                UH-1Y/AH-1Z..........................................    22
                Weapons industrial facilities........................    23
                Multiple User Objective System.......................    23
                Smart valves.........................................    23
                TB-33 thinline towed array...........................    23
                Man overboard indicators.............................    23
            Air Force................................................    24
                F-22A fighter aircraft...............................    24
                Global Hawk..........................................    25
                C-130 Avionics Modernization Program.................    25
                Advanced targeting pod...............................    25
                Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle....................    26
                Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle....................    26
                Halvorsen loaders....................................    26
                Unmanned modular threat emitter modernization........    26
                Joint threat emitter.................................    26
                Application software.................................    27
            Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund.............    27
                Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund.........    27
            Defense-wide.............................................    27
                MC-130W multi-mission modifications..................    27
                Advanced lightweight grenade launcher................    28
                Special operations visual augmentation systems.......    28
                Special operations forces multi-band inter/intra team
                  radio..............................................    28
                M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask........    28
                Procurement of computing services....................    29
            Items of Special Interest................................    29
                Body armor protocol and requirements.................    29
                Irregular warfare in the Navy........................    30
                Joint cargo aircraft.................................    31
                Reports to Congress on up-armored high mobility
                  multipurpose wheeled vehicles and mine resistant
                  ambush protected vehicle...........................    32
                Unmanned aerial vehicle planning.....................    32
    Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............    35
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    35
        Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
          Limitations................................................    35
            Continued development of competitive propulsion system
              for the Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211)........    35
            Enhancement of duties of Director of Department of
              Defense Test Resource Management Center with respect to
              the major range and test facility base(sec. 212).......    36
            Guidance on specification of funding requested for
              operation, sustainment, modernization, and personnel of
              major ranges and test facilities (sec. 213)............    36
            Permanent authority for the Joint Defense Manufacturing
              Technology Panel (sec. 214)............................    36
            Extension and enhancement of Global Research Watch
              program (sec. 215).....................................    37
            Three-year extension of authority for prizes for advanced
              technology achievements (sec. 216).....................    37
            Modification of report requirements regarding defense
              science and technology program (sec. 217)..............    37
            Programs for ground combat vehicle and self propelled
              howitzer capabilities for the Army (sec. 218)..........    38
            Assessment of technological maturity and integration risk
              of Army modernization programs (sec. 219)..............    39
            Assessment of strategy for technology for modernization
              of the combat vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle
              fleets (sec. 220)......................................    40
            Systems engineering and prototyping program (sec. 221)...    40
        Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................    41
            Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 241)    41
            Comprehensive plan for test and evaluation of the
              ballistic missile defense system (sec. 242)............    41
            Assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse
              Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
              (sec. 243).............................................    42
            Report on potential missile defense cooperation with
              Russia (sec. 244)......................................    43
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................    43
            Repeal of requirement for biennial Joint Warfighting
              Science and Technology Plan (sec. 251).................    43
        Budget Items.................................................    43
            Army.....................................................    43
                Army basic research..................................    43
                Minerva..............................................    43
                Materials technologies...............................    44
                Sensor research......................................    44
                Manned-unmanned systems teaming......................    44
                Advanced concepts and simulation.....................    45
                Ground vehicle research..............................    45
                Army electromagnetic gun.............................    45
                Reactive armor technologies..........................    46
                Acoustic sensors systems.............................    46
                Army electronics research............................    46
                Military engineering technology......................    46
                Ballistic protection systems.........................    47
                Medical technologies.................................    47
                Army advanced medical research and technologies......    48
                Army aviation technologies...........................    48
                Army weapons and munitions technology................    49
                Alternative energy research..........................    49
                Robotic systems......................................    49
                Tire development for joint light tactical vehicle
                  program............................................    50
                Vehicle energy and power programs....................    50
                Water analysis technologies..........................    50
                Training and simulation systems......................    50
                Mid-size unmanned ground vehicles....................    50
                Aircraft survivability systems.......................    51
                Advanced imaging technologies........................    51
                Bradley third generation forward looking infrared....    51
                Military engineering systems.........................    51
                Counter-mortar radar systems.........................    51
                Advanced environmental controls......................    52
                Advanced electronics integration.....................    52
                Adaptive robotic technology..........................    52
                Joint future theater lift............................    52
                Logistics and engineer equipment-advanced development    55
                Next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology    55
                Type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber
                  machine gun........................................    55
                Future combat system non-line of sight cannon........    55
                Future combat system manned ground vehicles and
                  common ground vehicle..............................    56
                Urban training development...........................    57
                Common guidance control module.......................    57
                Army test and evaluation programs....................    57
                3D woven preform technology for Army munitions.......    58
                Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated
                  Netted Sensor System...............................    58
                TOW missile improvements.............................    59
                Joint tactical ground station........................    59
                Collection management tools development..............    59
                A160 hummingbird.....................................    59
                Army manufacturing technologies......................    61
            Navy.....................................................    61
                Navy basic research..................................    61
                Energetics research..................................    61
                Navy force protection research.......................    61
                Warfighter sustainment technologies..................    62
                Advanced antenna technologies........................    62
                Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research........    62
                Undersea warfare systems.............................    63
                Low observable platforms.............................    63
                Mobile intelligence and tracking systems.............    63
                Force protection advanced technology.................    63
                High-integrity global positioning system.............    64
                Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations......    64
                Semi-submersible unmanned undersea vehicle...........    64
                Sonobouy wave energy module..........................    65
                Shipboard system component development...............    65
                Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project........    65
                Marine Corps ground combat/support systems...........    65
                Model-based management decision tools for ground
                  vehicles...........................................    66
                Navy energy program..................................    66
                Navy energy research.................................    66
                Optical interconnect.................................    66
                Radio frequency identification technology program....    67
                Mobile maritime sensor development...................    67
                Submarine communications at speed and depth..........    68
                Mold-in-place coating development....................    68
                New design SSN.......................................    68
                Submarine tactical warfare system....................    69
                Automated fiber optic manufacturing..................    69
                Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle..................    70
                Next-generation Phalanx..............................    70
                NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system.................    70
                Navy medical research................................    71
                Navy information technology programs.................    71
                Navy test and evaluation programs....................    71
                Advanced linear accelerator facility.................    71
                Expandable rigid wall composite shelter..............    71
                Marine personnel carrier support system..............    71
                Ultrasonic consolidation for smart armor applications    72
                High performance capabilities for military vehicles..    72
                Mobile User Objective System.........................    72
                Navy manufacturing technology........................    73
                National Shipbuilding Research Program-Advanced
                  Shipbuilding Enterprise............................    73
            Air Force................................................    74
                Air Force basic research.............................    74
                Air Force materials research.........................    74
                Aerospace vehicle technologies.......................    75
                Air Force propulsion research........................    75
                Reconfigurable electronics and software..............    76
                Seismic research program.............................    76
                Chemical laser research..............................    76
                High energy laser research...........................    76
                Air Force advanced materials research................    76
                Air Force advanced propulsion systems................    77
                Air Force manufacturing technology...................    77
                Optical interconnect technologies....................    77
                Space Protection Program.............................    77
                Space situational awareness..........................    78
                Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Demonstration/
                  Validation.........................................    78
                Operationally Responsive Space.......................    79
                Small imaging satellite competitive prototyping......    79
                National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
                  Satellite System...................................    80
                Internet routing in space............................    80
                Next-generation military satellite communications....    81
                B-1B bomber active electronically scanned array radar    81
                Space-based Infrared System..........................    81
                Joint Strike Fighter.................................    82
                Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle....................    82
                Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft........    83
                Air Force test and evaluation........................    83
                Multi-platform radar technology insertion program....    83
                Wide-area airborne surveillance......................    84
                Multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid................    85
                Joint Space Operation Center System..................    85
                Biometric signature and passive physiological
                  monitoring.........................................    86
            Defense-wide.............................................    86
                Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
                  Research...........................................    86
                In-vitro models for bio-defense vaccines.............    86
                Information and communications technology............    86
                Cognitive computing..................................    87
                Biological decontamination research..................    87
                Chemical and biological infrared detector............    87
                Funding for meritorious bio-defense projects.........    87
                Tactical technology..................................    88
                Blast mitigation and protection......................    88
                Combating terrorism technologies.....................    88
                Advanced aerospace systems...........................    88
                Integrated Sensor is Structure.......................    89
                Joint capability technology demonstrations...........    89
                High performance defense manufacturing technology
                  program............................................    89
                Defense Logistics Agency energy research.............    90
                High performance computing...........................    90
                Deep green...........................................    90
                Small unmanned aerial vehicle detection system.......    90
                Quick Reaction Fund..................................    90
                Special warfare situational awareness systems........    91
                Joint Forces Command activities......................    91
                Lithium ion battery safety research..................    91
                Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution
                  issues.............................................    91
                Real-time non-specific viral agent detector..........    92
                Airborne infrared surveillance technology............    92
                Aegis ballistic missile defense......................    92
                Short-range ballistic missile defense................    93
                Corrosion control research...........................    94
                Systems engineering and prototyping program..........    94
                Test and evaluation programs.........................    94
                Cyber test range.....................................    94
                Technology applications for security enhancement.....    94
                Policy decision point technology.....................    95
                Software assurance courseware development............    95
                Policy research, development, test, and evaluation...    95
                Logistics manufacturing research.....................    95
                Long endurance unattended ground sensor technologies.    96
            Items of Special Interest................................    96
                Ballistic missile defense overview...................    96
                Federally funded research and development centers....    98
                Ground/air task oriented radar.......................    98
                Israeli upper tier missile defense...................    98
                KC-X tanker replacement program......................    99
                Laboratory recapitalization and sustainment issues...    99
                Net-Enabled Command Capability.......................   100
                Test and evaluation workforce........................   101
                Third Generation Infrared Surveillance...............   101
    Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................   103
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   103
        Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions.........................   103
            Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for
              certain costs in connection with the former Nansemond
              Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia (sec. 311)......   103
        Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   103
            Modification of authority for Army industrial facilities
              to engage in cooperative activities with non-Army
              entities (sec. 321)....................................   103
            Improvement of inventory management practices (sec. 322).   103
            Temporary suspension of authority for public-private
              competitions (sec. 323)................................   103
            Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec.
              324)...................................................   104
            Modification of date for submittal to Congress of annual
              report on funding for public and private performance of
              depot-level maintenance and repair workloads (sec. 325)   104
        Subtitle D--Energy Provisions................................   104
            Energy security on Department of Defense installations
              (sec. 331).............................................   104
            Extension and expansion of reporting requirements
              regarding Department of Defense energy efficiency
              programs (sec. 332)....................................   105
            Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 333)..........   105
            Authorization of appropriations for Director of
              Operational Energy (sec. 334)..........................   105
        Subtitle E--Reports..........................................   105
            Study on Army modularity (sec. 341)......................   105
        Budget Items.................................................   107
            Army.....................................................   107
                Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.   107
                Funding for strategic planning and implementation of
                  interagency training, education, and research in
                  support of rule of law operations..................   107
            Navy.....................................................   107
                Naval aviation depot maintenance.....................   107
                Naval ship depot maintenance.........................   108
                Transfer of funding from overseas contingency
                  operations to base budget..........................   108
                United States Joint Forces Command National Program
                  for Small Unit Excellence..........................   108
                Gun depot overhauls..................................   109
                Naval Strike Air Warfare Center training.............   109
            Marine Corps.............................................   109
                Advanced load bearing equipment......................   109
                Marine Corps shelters................................   109
                Cold Weather Layering System.........................   109
            Air Force................................................   109
                Mission essential airfield operations equipment......   109
                National Security Space Institute....................   110
                Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements   110
            Defense-wide.............................................   110
                Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative....   110
                Authorization of appropriations for Director of
                  Operational Energy.................................   111
                Defense readiness reporting system...................   111
                Commercial imagery acquisition.......................   112
                Department of Defense Education Activity Operations &
                  Maintenance funding................................   113
                Undistributed bulk fuel savings......................   113
                Software licenses....................................   113
            Army Reserve.............................................   113
                Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve.............   113
            Army National Guard......................................   113
                Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard......   113
                Controlled humidity protection.......................   113
            Unobligated Balances.....................................   114
                Unobligated balances decrease in funding.............   114
        Items of Special Interest....................................   114
            Army organizational structure and personnel requirements.   114
            Continued assessment of plans for contracting support in
              combatant command operational plans....................   116
            Cost-benefit analysis of depot maintenance workload
              associated with AV-8B Harrier weapons system...........   116
            Depot-level maintenance and repair.......................   116
            Pollution Prevention Program.............................   117
    Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................   119
        Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   119
            End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............   119
            Additional authority for increases of Army active duty
              end strengths for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 (sec. 402)   120
        Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   120
            End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............   120
            End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
              the Reserves (sec. 412)................................   120
            End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
              (sec. 413).............................................   121
            Fiscal year 2010 limitation on number of non-dual status
              technicians (sec. 414).................................   121
            Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on
              active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   121
            Report on trainee account for the Army National Guard
              (sec. 416).............................................   122
        Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   122
            Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   122
        Budget Item..................................................   122
            Military personnel funding changes.......................   122
    Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   123
        Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   123
            Modification of limitations on general and flag officers
              on active duty (sec. 501)..............................   123
            Revisions to annual report requirement on joint officer
              management (sec. 502)..................................   123
            Grade of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint
              Chiefs of Staff (sec. 503).............................   123
            Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force
              (sec. 504).............................................   123
        Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   123
            Report on requirements of the National Guard for non-dual
              status technicians (sec. 511)..........................   123
        Subtitle C--Education and Training...........................   124
            Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical
              accession programs (sec. 521)..........................   124
            Expansion of criteria for appointment as member of the
              Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University
              of the Health Sciences (sec. 522)......................   124
            Detail of commissioned officers as students at schools of
              psychology (sec. 523)..................................   124
        Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............   125
            Continuation of authority to assist local educational
              agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
              armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
              employees (sec. 531)...................................   125
            Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
              532)...................................................   125
            Two-year extension of authority for assistance to local
              educational agencies with enrollment changes due to
              base closures, force structure changes, or force
              relocations (sec. 533).................................   125
            Permanent authority for enrollment in defense dependents'
              education system of dependents of foreign military
              members assigned to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers,
              Europe (sec. 534)......................................   125
            Study on options for educational opportunities for
              dependent children of members of the armed forces who
              do not attend Department of Defense dependents schools
              (sec. 535).............................................   126
            Sense of Senate on the Interstate Compact on Educational
              Opportunity for Military Children (sec. 536)...........   126
        Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters....   126
            Independent review of judge advocate requirements of the
              Department of the Navy (sec. 541)......................   126
        Subtitle F--Military Family Readiness Matters................   127
            Additional members on the Department of Defense Military
              Family Readiness Council (sec. 551)....................   127
            Comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, and
              treatment of substance use disorders and disposition of
              substance abuse offenders in the armed forces (sec.
              552)...................................................   127
            Military community support for children with autism and
              their families (sec. 553)..............................   128
            Reports on effects of deployments on military children
              and the availability of mental health care and
              counseling services for military children (sec. 554)...   128
            Report on child custody litigation involving service of
              members of the armed forces (sec. 555).................   129
            Sense of Senate on preparation and coordination of family
              care plans (sec. 556)..................................   130
        Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   130
            Deadline for report on sexual assault in the armed forces
              by Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military
              Services (sec. 571)....................................   130
            Clarification of performance policies for military
              musical units and musicians (sec. 572).................   130
        Items of Special Interest....................................   131
            Alaska Territorial Guard.................................   131
            Cultural and language proficiency........................   131
            Inspector General review of post-trial processes for
              court-martial record preparation and appellate review
              within the Department of the Navy......................   131
            Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program......................   133
    Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   135
        Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   135
            Fiscal year 2010 increase in military basic pay (sec.
              601)...................................................   135
            Comptroller General of the United States comparative
              assessment of military and private-sector pay and
              benefits (sec. 602)....................................   135
            Increase in maximum monthly amount of supplemental
              subsistence allowance for low-income members with
              dependents (sec. 603)..................................   135
            Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite
              Absence program for certain periods before
              implementation of program (sec. 604)...................   136
        Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   136
            Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities
              for Reserve forces (sec. 611)..........................   136
            Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities
              for health care professionals (sec. 612)...............   136
            Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for
              nuclear officers (sec. 613)............................   137
            Extension of authorities relating to title 37
              consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
              authorities (sec. 614).................................   137
            Extension of authorities relating to payment of other
              title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)...........   137
            Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral
              bonuses (sec. 616).....................................   137
            Special compensation for members of the uniformed
              services with combat-related catastrophic injuries or
              illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living (sec.
              617)...................................................   137
            Temporary authority for monthly special pay for members
              of the armed forces subject to continuing active duty
              or service under stop-loss authorities (sec. 618)......   138
        Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   138
            Travel and transportation allowances for designated
              individuals of wounded, ill, or injured members of the
              uniformed services for duration of inpatient treatment
              (sec. 631).............................................   138
            Travel and transportation allowances for non-medical
              attendants of seriously wounded, ill, or injured
              members of the uniformed services (sec. 632)...........   138
            Travel and transportation allowances for members of the
              Reserve components of the armed forces on leave for
              suspension of training (sec. 633)......................   139
            Reimbursement of travel expenses of members of the armed
              forces on active duty and their dependents for travel
              for specialty care under exceptional circumstances
              (sec. 634).............................................   139
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   139
            Authority to continue provision of incentives after
              termination of temporary Army authority to provide
              additional recruitment incentives (sec. 651)...........   139
        Items of Special Interest....................................   139
            Patriot Express..........................................   139
            Travel for active-duty personnel receiving treatment at
              Department of Veteran Affairs facilities...............   140
    Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................   141
        Subtitle A--TRICARE Program..................................   141
            TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the
              Retired Reserve, and family members, who are qualified
              for a non-regular retirement but are not yet age 60
              (sec. 701).............................................   141
            Expansion of eligibility of survivors under the TRICARE
              Dental Program (sec. 702)..............................   141
            Constructive eligibility for TRICARE benefits of certain
              persons otherwise ineligible under retroactive
              determination of entitlement to Medicare Part A
              hospital insurance benefits (sec. 703).................   141
            Reform and improvement of the TRICARE program (sec. 704).   142
            Comptroller General of the United States report on
              implementation of requirements on the relationship
              between the TRICARE program and employer-sponsored
              group health plans (sec. 705)..........................   143
        Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits.......................   143
            Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces
              deployed in connection with a contingency operation
              (sec. 711).............................................   143
            Enhancement of transitional dental care for members of
              the reserve components on active duty for more than 30
              days in support of a contingency operation (sec. 712)..   143
        Subtitle C--Health Care Administration.......................   144
            Comprehensive policy on pain management by the military
              health care system (sec. 721)..........................   144
            Plan to increase the behavioral health capabilities of
              the Department of Defense (sec. 722)...................   144
            Department of Defense study on management of medications
              for physically and psychologically wounded members of
              the armed forces (sec. 723)............................   145
        Subtitle D--Wounded Warrior Matters..........................   145
            Report on cognitive rehabilitation for members of the
              armed forces with traumatic brain injury (sec. 731)....   145
            Department of Defense task force on the care, management,
              and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured
              members of the armed forces (sec. 732).................   145
        Items of Special Interest....................................   146
            Comptroller General study on Department of Defense
              efforts to minimize and track military service hearing
              loss...................................................   146
            Continued Department of Defense and military department
              support for suicide prevention.........................   147
            Help for wounded, ill, and injured service members.......   148
            Report on case management services for TRICARE
              beneficiaries with severe mental health conditions.....   149
    Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
      Related Matters................................................   151
        Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
          Procedures, and Limitations................................   151
            Contract authority for advanced development of prototype
              units (sec. 801).......................................   151
            Justification and approval of sole-source contracts (sec.
              802)...................................................   151
        Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................   151
            Reporting requirements for programs that qualify as both
              major automated information system programs and major
              defense acquisition programs (sec. 811)................   151
            Funding of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
              Development Fund (sec. 812)............................   152
            Enhancement of expedited hiring authority for defense
              acquisition workforce positions (sec. 813).............   152
            Treatment of non-defense agency procurements under joint
              programs with the Department of Defense under
              limitations on non-defense agency procurements on
              behalf of the Department of Defense (sec. 814).........   152
            Comptroller General of the United States report on
              training of acquisition and audit personnel of the
              Department of Defense (sec. 815).......................   152
        Subtitle C--Contractor Matters...............................   153
            Authority for government support contractors to have
              access to technical data belonging to prime contractors
              (sec. 821).............................................   153
            Extension and enhancement of authorities on the
              Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
              Afghanistan (sec. 822).................................   153
            Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor
              personnel (sec. 823)...................................   153
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   154
            Enhanced authority to acquire products and services
              produced in Central Asia, Pakistan, and the South
              Caucasus (sec. 831)....................................   154
            Small arms production industrial base matters (sec. 832).   154
            Extension of SBIR and STTR business programs of the
              Department of Defense (sec. 833).......................   154
            Expansion and permanent authority for small business
              innovation research commercialization program (sec.
              834)...................................................   155
            Measures to ensure the safety of facilities,
              infrastructure, and equipment for military operations
              (sec. 835).............................................   155
            Repeal of requirements relating to the military system
              essential item breakout list (sec. 836)................   155
            Defense Science Board report on rare earth materials in
              the defense supply chain (sec. 837)....................   155
        Items of Special Interest....................................   156
            Contractor reimbursement for environmental remediation
              costs..................................................   156
            Knowledge management and decision support systems........   156
            Licensing fees for enterprise resource planning software.   157
            Performance by private security contractors of certain
              functions in an area of combat operations..............   157
            Requirements management for weapon system acquisitions
              before milestone B.....................................   158
    Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   161
        Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   161
            Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and Assistant
              Secretaries of Defense (sec. 901)......................   161
            Repeal of certain limitations on personnel and
              consolidation of reports on major Department of Defense
              headquarters activities (sec. 902).....................   161
            Sense of Senate on the Western Hemisphere Institute for
              Security Cooperation (sec. 903)........................   161
        Subtitle B--Space Matters....................................   162
            Provision of space situational awareness services and
              information to non-United States Government entities
              (sec. 911).............................................   162
            Plan for management and funding of National Polar-
              Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite system
              program (sec. 912).....................................   162
        Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters.............................   164
            Inclusion of Defense Intelligence Agency in authority to
              use proceeds from counterintelligence operations (sec.
              921)...................................................   164
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   164
            United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 931).......   164
            Instruction of private sector employees in cyber security
              courses of the Defense Cyber Investigations Training
              Academy (sec. 932).....................................   165
        Items of Special Interest....................................   165
            Commercial communications anti-jamming study.............   165
            Deep Space Climate Observatory...........................   166
            Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance task force   167
    Title X--General Provisions......................................   169
        Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   169
            General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   169
            Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department
              of Defense (sec. 1002).................................   169
        Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   169
            Temporary reduction in minimum number of aircraft
              carriers in active service (sec. 1011).................   169
            Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels
              of the strike forces of the Unites States Navy (sec.
              1012)..................................................   170
            Sense of Senate on the maintenance of a 313-ship Navy
              (sec. 1013)............................................   170
            Designation of USS Constitution as America's ship of
              state (sec. 1014)......................................   171
        Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   171
        Summary......................................................   171
            High priority National Guard counterdrug programs........   171
            Mobile sensor barrier....................................   172
            United States European Command Counterdrug activities....   172
            Relocatable over-the-horizon radar.......................   172
            Fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justification
              documents..............................................   172
            Extension and modification of authority to provide
              additional support for counter-drug activities of
              certain foreign governments (sec. 1021)................   173
            One-year extension of authority for joint task forces
              support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
              terrorism activities (sec. 1022).......................   174
            One-year extension of authority to support unified
              counter-drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia
              (sec. 1023)............................................   174
        Subtitle D--Military Commissions.............................   175
            Military commissions (sec. 1031).........................   175
        Subtitle E--Medical Facility Matters.........................   176
            Medical Facility Matters (sec. 1041-1047)................   176
        Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Requirements, Authorities, and
          Limitations................................................   177
            Congressional earmarks relating to the Department of
              Defense (sec. 1051)....................................   177
            National strategic five-year plan for improving the
              nuclear forensic and attribution capabilities of the
              United States (sec. 1052)..............................   177
            One-year extension of authority to offer and make rewards
              for assistance in combating terrorism through
              government personnel of allied forces (sec. 1053)......   178
            Business process reengineering (sec. 1054)...............   178
            Responsibility for preparation of biennial Global
              Positioning System report (sec. 1055)..................   178
            Additional subpoena authority for the Inspector General
              of the Department of Defense (sec. 1056)...............   178
            Reports on bandwidth requirements for major defense
              acquisition programs and major system acquisition
              programs (sec. 1057)...................................   178
            Multiyear contracts under pilot program on commercial
              fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air Force
              (sec. 1058)............................................   179
        Subtitle G--Reports..........................................   179
            National intelligence estimate on nuclear aspirations of
              non-state entities and nuclear weapons and related
              programs in non-nuclear-weapons states and countries
              not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
              (sec. 1071)............................................   179
            Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
              military whistleblower protections (sec. 1072).........   180
        Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   180
            Transfer of Navy aircraft N40VT (sec. 1081)..............   180
            Conveyance of Big Crow aircraft (sec. 1082)..............   180
        Items of Special Interest....................................   181
            National cyber security initiative.......................   181
            Ship decommissioning.....................................   182
            Strategic communications and public diplomacy............   182
    Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters.............................   185
            Repeal of National Security Personnel System; Department
              of Defense personnel authorities (sec. 1101)...........   185
            Extension and modification of experimental personnel
              management program for scientific and technical
              personnel (sec. 1102)..................................   185
            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)............................................   185
            Availability of funds for compensation of certain
              civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec.
              1104)..................................................   186
            Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (sec.
              1105)..................................................   186
            Review of defense laboratories for participation in
              defense laboratory personnel demonstration projects
              (sec. 1106)............................................   186
        Item of Special Interest.....................................   187
            Utilization of hiring authorities for civilian health
              care professionals.....................................   187
    Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations...................   189
        Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   189
            Increase in unit cost threshold for purchases using
              certain funds under the Combatant Commander Initiative
              Fund (sec. 1201).......................................   189
            Authority to provide administrative services and support
              to coalition liaison officers of certain foreign
              nations assigned to Joint Forces Command (sec. 1202)...   189
            Modification of authorities relating to program to build
              the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1203)....   189
            Modification of notification and reporting requirements
              for use of authority for support of special operations
              to combat terrorism (sec. 1204)........................   190
            Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
              coalition nations for support provided to United States
              military operations (sec. 1205)........................   191
            One-year extension and expansion of Commanders' Emergency
              Response Program (sec. 1206)...........................   192
            One-year extension of authority for security and
              stabilization assistance (sec. 1207)...................   193
            Authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense
              personnel between the United States and foreign
              countries (sec. 1208)..................................   193
            Defense cooperation between the United States and Iraq
              (sec. 1209)............................................   194
            Report on alternatives to use of acquisition and cross-
              servicing agreements to lend military equipment for
              personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1210).....   194
        Subtitle B--Reports..........................................   194
            Report on United States engagement with Iran (sec. 1221).   194
        Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   195
            Sense of Congress on establishment of measures of
              progress to evaluate United States strategic objectives
              in Afghanistan and Pakistan (sec. 1231)................   195
        Items of Special Interest....................................   195
            China's use of nonmilitary warfare concepts..............   195
            Recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia..........   195
    Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction.........................   197
            Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
              and funds (sec. 1301)..................................   197
            Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   197
            Authority to enter into agreements to receive
              contributions for Biological Threat Reduction program
              (sec. 1303)............................................   198
            Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction
              program funds for bilateral and multilateral
              nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 1304)   198
    Title XIV--Other Authorizations..................................   201
        Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   201
        Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   201
            Extension of previously authorized disposal of cobalt
              from National Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411)............   201
            Authorization for actions to correct the industrial
              resource shortfall for high-purity beryllium metal in
              amounts not in excess of $80,000,000 (sec. 1412).......   201
        Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home.....................   201
            Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
              Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................   201
        Budget Items.................................................   202
            T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship..........................   202
            Defense Coalition Support Fund...........................   202
            Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding..   202
            Medical products sustainment.............................   203
            Breast Cancer Center of Excellence.......................   203
            Department of Defense Inspector General..................   203
    Title XV--Overseas Contingency Operations........................   205
            Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   205
            Army procurement (sec. 1502).............................   205
            Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503)............   205
            Air Force procurement (sec. 1504)........................   205
            Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1505)..........   205
            Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1506)..   205
            Operation and maintenance (sec. 1507)....................   205
            Military personnel (sec. 1508)...........................   205
            Working capital funds (sec. 1509)........................   205
            Defense Health Program (sec. 1510).......................   206
            Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-
              wide (sec. 1511).......................................   206
            Defense Inspector General (sec. 1512)....................   206
            Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513).......   206
            Funding tables (sec. 1514)...............................   206
            Special transfer authority (sec. 1515)...................   206
            Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan
              Security Forces Fund (sec. 1516).......................   206
            Availability of funds in Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
              (sec. 1517)............................................   206
        Budget Items.................................................   207
            Single channel ground to air radio systems family........   207
            Force XXI battle command brigade and below...............   207
            Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............   207
            MQ-9 Reaper modifications................................   209
            Commanders' Emergency Response Program...................   209
            Human terrain teams......................................   209
            Information Dominance Center.............................   209
            Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund..........................   210
    Division B Military Construction Authorizations..................   211
            Summary..................................................   211
            Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   211
            Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
              specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   211
            Effective date (sec. 2003)...............................   212
            Funding tables (sec. 2004)...............................   212
    Title XXI--Army..................................................   213
            Summary..................................................   213
            Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2101)...................................   214
            Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   214
            Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)   214
            Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........   214
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006
              projects (sec. 2105)...................................   214
        Item of Special Interest.....................................   215
            Cooperative security location in Manta, Ecuador..........   215
    Title XXII--Navy.................................................   217
            Summary..................................................   217
            Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2201)...................................   217
            Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   217
            Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   217
            Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   218
            Modification and extension of authority to carry out
              certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 2205)..........   218
        Budget Item..................................................   218
            Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.................   218
        Items of Special Interest....................................   219
            Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam.   219
            Secretary of the Navy report on an outlying landing field   220
    Title XXIII--Air Force...........................................   223
            Summary..................................................   223
            Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2301)...................................   224
            Family housing (sec. 2302)...............................   224
            Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)   224
            Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)...   224
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007
              projects (sec. 2305)...................................   224
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006
              projects (sec. 2306)...................................   224
            Temporary prohibition on use of funds for military
              construction improvements, Palanquero Air Base,
              Colombia (sec. 2307)...................................   225
    Title XXIV--Defense Agencies.....................................   227
            Summary..................................................   227
        Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   228
            Authorized defense agencies construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   228
            Family housing (sec. 2402)...............................   228
            Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403).................   228
            Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec.
              2404)..................................................   228
            Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
              year 2008 projects (sec. 2405).........................   228
            Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
              year 2009 projects (sec. 2406).........................   228
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007
              projects (sec. 2407)...................................   228
        Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   229
            Authorization of appropriations, chemical
              demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411)   229
    Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
      Program........................................................   231
            Summary..................................................   231
            Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2501)...................................   231
            Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   231
    Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities..................   233
            Summary..................................................   233
            Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   233
            Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2602)...................................   233
            Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
              construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   233
            Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   233
            Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   233
            Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec.
              2606)..................................................   234
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007
              projects (sec. 2607)...................................   234
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006
              projects (sec. 2608)...................................   234
    Title XXVII--Base Closure and Realignment Activities.............   235
            Summary..................................................   235
            Authorization of appropriations for base closure and
              realignment activities funded through Department of
              Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701)..........   235
            Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded
              through Department of Defense base closure account 2005
              (sec. 2702)............................................   235
            Authorization of appropriations for base closure and
              realignment activities funded through Department of
              Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703)..........   235
            Report on global defense posture realignment and
              interagency review (sec. 2704).........................   236
            Sense of the Senate on need for community assistance
              related to base closures and realignments and force
              repositioning (sec. 2705)..............................   236
            Relocation of certain Army Reserve units in Connecticut
              (sec. 2706)............................................   237
    Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions...........   239
            Military construction and land acquisition projects
              authorized by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
              2009 (sec. 2801).......................................   239
        Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
          Housing Changes............................................   239
            Extension of authority to use operation and maintenance
              funds for construction projects inside the United
              States Central Command and United States Africa Command
              areas of responsibility (sec. 2811)....................   239
            Modification of authority for scope of work variations
              (sec. 2812)............................................   239
            Modification of conveyance authority at military
              installations (sec. 2813)..............................   239
            Two-year extension of authority for pilot projects for
              acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied
              housing (sec. 2814)....................................   240
        Subtitle B--Energy Security..................................   240
            Report on Department of Defense efforts toward
              installation of solar panels and other renewable energy
              projects on military installations (sec. 2821).........   240
        Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   240
            Land conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia (sec.
              2831)..................................................   240
        Items of Special Interest....................................   240
            Incrementally funded programs............................   240
            Report on long-term strategy to accommodate force
              structure initiative implementation at military
              installations..........................................   241
    Title XXIX--Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction
      Authorizations.................................................   243
            Summary..................................................   243
            Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2901)...................................   243
            Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2902)...................................   243
    Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
      and Other Authorizations.......................................   245
    Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   245
        Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   245
            Overview.................................................   245
            National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   246
                Weapons activities...................................   246
                Directed stockpile work..............................   246
                Campaigns............................................   246
                Readiness in the technical base......................   247
                Secure transportation asset..........................   248
                Nuclear counterterrorism incident response...........   248
                Safeguards and security..............................   248
                Facilities and infrastructure........................   248
                Site stewardship.....................................   248
                Support to intelligence..............................   248
                Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............   249
                Nonproliferation and verification research and
                  development........................................   249
                Nonproliferation and international security..........   249
                Fissile materials disposition........................   250
                Global threat reduction initiative...................   251
                International nuclear fuel bank......................   251
                Naval reactors.......................................   251
                Office of the Administrator..........................   251
            Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................   251
            Waste Treatment Plant....................................   252
            Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   252
            Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)...............   253
            Funding table (sec. 3105)................................   253
        Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
          Limitations................................................   253
            Nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec.
              3111)..................................................   253
            Elimination of nuclear weapons life extension program
              from exception to requirement to request funds in
              budget of the President (sec. 3112)....................   254
            Repeal of reliable replacement warhead program (sec.
              3113)..................................................   254
            Authorization of use of International Nuclear Materials
              Protection and Cooperation program funds for bilateral
              and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament
              activities (sec. 3114).................................   254
            Repeal of prohibition on funding activities associated
              with international cooperative stockpile stewardship
              (sec. 3115)............................................   254
            Modification of minor construction threshold for plant
              projects (sec. 3116)...................................   254
            Two-year extension of authority for appointment of
              certain scientific, engineering, and technical
              personnel (sec. 3117)..................................   255
            Repeal of sunset date for consolidation of
              counterintelligence programs of Department of Energy
              and National Nuclear Security Administration (sec.
              3118)..................................................   255
        Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   255
            Ten-year plan for utilization and funding of certain
              Department of Energy facilities (sec. 3131)............   255
            Review of management and operation of certain national
              laboratories (sec. 3132)...............................   255
            Inclusion in 2010 stockpile stewardship plan of certain
              information relating to stockpile stewardship criteria
              (sec. 3133)............................................   256
            Comptroller General of the United States review of
              projects carried out by the Office of Environmental
              Management of the Department of Energy pursuant to the
              American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec.
              3134)..................................................   256
            Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain
              Department of Energy pension obligations (sec. 3135)...   257
            Item of Special Interest.................................   257
            W-76.....................................................   257
    Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.............   259
            Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   259
    Title XXXIII--Maritime Administration............................   261
            Maritime Administration (sec. 3301)......................   261
    Division D--Funding Tables.......................................   263
            Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)...   263
            Item of Special Interest.................................   263
            Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
              Senate.................................................   263
    Title XLI--Procurement...........................................   265
            Procurement (sec. 4101)..................................   265
            Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
              4102)..................................................   265
    Title XLII--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..........   267
            Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)..   267
            Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
              contingency operations(sec. 4202)......................   267
    Title XLIII--Operation and Maintenance...........................   269
            Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)....................   269
            Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
              operations (sec. 4302).................................   269
    Title XLIV--Other Authorizations.................................   271
            Other authorizations (sec. 4401).........................   271
            Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
              (sec. 4402)............................................   271
    Title XLV--Military Construction.................................   273
            Military construction (sec. 4501)........................   273
            2005 base realignment and closure round FY 2010 project
              listing (sec. 4502)....................................   273
            American Recovery and Reinvestment Act military
              construction (sec. 4503)...............................   273
            Military construction for overseas contingency operations
              (sec. 4504)............................................   274
    Title XLVI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   275
            Department of Energy national security programs
              (sec.4601).............................................   275
    Legislative Requirements.........................................   275
            Departmental Recommendations.............................   275
            Committee Action.........................................   275
            Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   276
            Regulatory Impact........................................   277
            Changes in Existing Law..................................   277
            Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
              Senate.................................................   278
    Additional Views.................................................   325
            Additional views of Mr. Chambliss........................   236
            Additional views of Mr. Thune............................   326

    111th Congress                                                   Report
                                     SENATE
     1st Session                                                     111-35

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

    AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 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

                                    _______

                      July 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

                                    _______

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

                                  R E P O R T

                             [To accompany S. 1390]

        The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
    original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
    2010 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, 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 2010;
              (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
            military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
            fiscal year 2010;
              (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
            Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
            the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2010;
              (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 2010; and
              (7) authorize appropriations for national security
            programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
            2010.

    Committee overview

        The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed
    conflict for more than 7 years--7\1/2\ years in Afghanistan and
    6 years in Iraq. Whether engaged in combat in Afghanistan or
    Iraq, delivering humanitarian assistance to victims of
    disasters, 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 7 years of war, our military, particularly
    our ground forces, is severely stressed and the readiness of
    the military services to conduct the full range of their
    assigned missions is low.
        The administration has revised the overall strategy for the
    war in Afghanistan to encompass a more regional approach,
    including in particular a greater emphasis on Pakistan.
    Additional U.S. forces are being deployed to Afghanistan and a
    new American general has taken over as the U.S. and North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization Commander, with the promise of a
    change in operational strategy and tactics for conducting the
    war.
        Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense announced, and the
    President approved, a series of decisions relating to the
    budget for Fiscal Year 2010 that are based upon an increased
    emphasis on irregular war, implementing lessons learned in
    Iraq, terminating troubled acquisition programs, and delaying
    programs for which requirements are not yet defined.
        To date in this First Session of the 111th Congress, the
    Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 35 hearings
    and numerous briefings on the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2010 and related defense matters, as well as six
    nomination hearings. The committee's early focus on acquisition
    reform resulted in the enactment into law of the Weapon Systems
    Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23).
        In order to provide a framework for the consideration of
    these matters, the committee identified seven guidelines to
    guide its work on the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2010. These guidelines are:
              1. Provide fair compensation and first rate health
            care, address the needs of the wounded, ill and
            injured, and improve the quality of life of the men and
            women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National
            Guard and Reserves) and their families.
              2. Provide our servicemen 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. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter
            nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the
            proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
            means of delivery.
              5. 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.
              6. Terminate troubled programs and activities,
            improve efficiencies, and apply the savings to higher-
            priority programs.
              7. Ensure 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 2010 was $680.2
    billion. Of this amount $550.2 billion was for the so-called
    ``base'' budget of which $533.8 billion was for the Department
    of Defense and $16.4 billion was for the Department of Energy.
    The discretionary budget request included $130.0 billion for
    overseas contingency operations. In total, the bill authorizes
    $679.8 billion, which is slightly below the request. The bill
    authorizes $551.1 billion for the base budget and $129.3
    billion for overseas contingency operations. The bill also
    includes a general reduction of $500.0 million in Division A
    and Division B authorizations for management efficiencies.
        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 new mandatory proposal dealing
    with concurrent receipt. When these programs are added to the
    administration's budget the total request for national defense
    equals $693.1 billion as re-estimated by the Congressional
    Budget Office. The bill is consistent with this level with the
    exception that it does not include the concurrent receipt
    proposal as the proposed offsets were not within the
    jurisdiction of the committee.
        The following two tables summarize the direct
    authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
    fiscal year 2010 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.

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                              TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

         SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                            (In Thousands of Dollars)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Authorization     Senate         Senate
                                     Request        Change     Authorization
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED
                               SERVICES COMMITTEE

    Department of Defense
     Authorizations--Base Bill

      Division A: Department of
        Defense Authorization

    Title I--PROCUREMENT
    Aircraft Procurement, Army..     5,315,991       -171,100     5,144,891
    Missile Procurement, Army...     1,370,109          5,000     1,375,109
    Weapons & Tracked Combat         2,451,952                    2,451,952
     Vehicles, Army.............
    Procurement of Ammunition,       2,051,895          8,000     2,059,895
     Army.......................
    Other Procurement, Army.....     9,907,151       -289,160     9,617,991
    Joint Improvised Explosive         564,850       -564,850
     Device Defeat Fund.........
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy..    18,378,312        277,100    18,655,412
    Weapons Procurement, Navy...     3,453,455         62,000     3,515,455
    Procurement of Ammunition,         840,675                      840,675
     Navy & Marine Corps........
    Shipbuilding & Conversion,      13,776,867                   13,776,867
     Navy.......................
    Other Procurement, Navy.....     5,661,176        -66,000     5,595,176
    Procurement, Marine Corps...     1,600,638                    1,600,638
    Aircraft Procurement, Air       11,966,276      1,111,600    13,077,876
     Force......................
    Missile Procurement, Air         6,300,728       -193,000     6,107,728
     Force......................
    Procurement of Ammunition,         822,462                      822,462
     Air Force..................
    Other Procurement, Air Force    17,293,141        -47,800    17,245,341
    Procurement, Defense-Wide...     3,984,352         65,700     4,050,052
    Mine Resistant Ambush                           1,200,000     1,200,000
     Protection Veh Fund........
    Rapid Acquisition Fund......        79,300                       79,300
    Defense Production Act            [38,246]
     Purchases\1\...............
    Subtotal, PROCUREMENT.......   105,819,330      1,397,490   107,216,820

    Title II--RESEARCH,
     DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
     EVALUATION
    RDT&E, Army.................    10,438,218        424,785    10,863,003
    RDT&E, Navy.................    19,270,932        326,764    19,597,696
    RDT&E, Air Force............    27,992,827        701,125    28,693,952
    RDT&E, Defense-Wide.........    20,741,542       -186,272    20,555,270
    Operational Test &                 190,770                      190,770
     Evaluation, Defense........
    Subtotal, RESEARCH,             78,634,289      1,266,402    79,900,691
     DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
     EVALUATION.................

    Title III--OPERATION AND
     MAINTENANCE
    Operation and Maintenance,      31,274,882       -342,000    30,932,882
     Army.......................
    Operation and Maintenance,      35,070,346        819,700    35,890,046
     Navy.......................
    Operation and Maintenance,       5,536,223         11,000     5,547,223
     Marine Corps...............
    Operation and Maintenance,      34,748,159       -694,600    34,053,559
     Air Force..................
    Operation and Maintenance,      28,357,246       -711,249    27,645,997
     Defense-wide...............
    Operation and Maintenance,       2,620,196          3,600     2,623,796
     Army Reserve...............
    Operation and Maintenance,       1,278,501                    1,278,501
     Navy Reserve...............
    Operation and Maintenance,         228,925                      228,925
     Marine Corps Reserve.......
    Operation and Maintenance,       3,079,228                    3,079,228
     Air Force Reserve..........
    Operation and Maintenance,       6,257,034          3,600     6,260,634
     Army National Guard........
    Operation and Maintenance,       5,885,761          2,700     5,888,461
     Air National Guard.........
    US Court of Appeals for the         13,932                       13,932
     Armed Forces, Defense......
    Defense Acquisition                100,000                      100,000
     Development Workforce Fund.
    Overseas Humanitarian,             109,869                      109,869
     Disaster and Civic Aid.....
    Cooperative Threat Reduction       404,093         20,000       424,093
    Environmental Restoration,         415,864                      415,864
     Army.......................
    Environmental Restoration,         285,869                      285,869
     Navy.......................
    Environmental Restoration,         494,276                      494,276
     Air Force..................
    Environmental Restoration,          11,100                       11,100
     Defense-Wide...............
    Environmental Restoration          267,700                      267,700
     Formerly Used Sites........
    Overseas Contingency                 5,000                        5,000
     Operations Transfer Fund...
    Subtotal, OPERATION AND        156,444,204       -887,249   155,556,955
     MAINTENANCE................

    Title IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL   136,016,281       -400,000   135,616,281

    Title XIV--OTHER
     AUTHORIZATIONS
    Defense Working Capital            141,388                      141,388
     Funds......................
    Defense Commissary Agency...     1,313,616                    1,313,616
    National Defense Sealift         1,642,758       -400,000     1,242,758
     Fund.......................
    Defense Coalition Support           22,000        -22,000
     Fund.......................
    Defense Health Program......    27,903,163         10,700    27,913,863
    Chemical Agents & Munitions      1,560,760                    1,560,760
     Destruction, Defense.......
    Drug Interdiction & Counter-     1,058,984         18,800     1,077,784
     Drug Activities, Defense...
    Office of the Inspector            272,444         16,000       288,444
     General....................
    Subtotal, OTHER                 33,915,113       -376,500    33,538,613
     AUTHORIZATIONS.............

         Division B: Military
     Construction Authorization

    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
    Military Construction, Army.     3,660,779       -194,633     3,466,146
    Military Construction, Navy      3,763,264       -224,493     3,538,771
     and Marine Corps...........
    Military Construction, Air       1,145,434         32,350     1,177,784
     Force......................
    Military Construction,           3,097,526       -241,399     2,856,127
     Defense-Wide...............
    Chemical Demilitarization          146,541          5,000       151,541
     Construction...............
    NATO Security Investment           276,314                      276,314
     Program....................
    Military Construction, Army        426,491         55,282       481,773
     National Guard.............
    Military Construction, Army        374,862          3,850       378,712
     Reserve....................
    Military Construction, Naval        64,124                       64,124
     Reserve....................
    Military Construction, Air         128,261        173,100       301,361
     National Guard.............
    Military Construction, Air          27,476         18,100        45,576
     Force Reserve..............
    Subtotal, MILITARY              13,111,072       -372,843    12,738,229
     CONSTRUCTION...............

    FAMILY HOUSING
    Family Housing Construction,       273,236                      273,236
     Army.......................
    Family Housing O&M, Army....       523,418                      523,418
    Family Housing Construction,       146,569                      146,569
     Navy & Marine Corps........
    Family Housing O&M, Navy &         368,540                      368,540
     Marine Corps...............
    Family Housing Construction,        66,101                       66,101
     Air Force..................
    Family Housing O&M, Air            502,936                      502,936
     Force......................
    Family Housing Construction,         2,859                        2,859
     Defense-Wide...............
    Family Housing O&M, Defense-        49,214                       49,214
     Wide.......................
    Homeowners Assistance Fund..        23,225        350,000       373,225
    DoD Family Housing                   2,600                        2,600
     Improvement Fund...........
    Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING....     1,958,698        350,000     2,308,698

    BRAC
    Base Realignment and Closure       396,768                      396,768
     Account 1990...............
    Base Realignment and Closure     7,479,498                    7,479,498
     Account 2005...............
    Subtotal, BRAC..............     7,876,266                    7,876,266

    Prior Year Savings..........                     -112,500      -112,500

    Subtotal, MILITARY              22,946,036       -135,343    22,810,693
     CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY
     HOUSING & BRAC.............

    General Transfer Authority     [5,000,000]   [-1,000,000]   [4,000,000]
     (non-add)..................

    SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF        533,775,253        864,800   534,640,053
     DEFENSE (051)..............

      Division C: Department of
        Energy Authorization

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

    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
     ADMINISTRATION
    Weapons Activities..........     6,384,431        106,188     6,490,619
    Defense Nuclear                  2,136,709                    2,136,709
     Nonproliferation...........
    Naval Reactors..............     1,003,133                    1,003,133
    Office of the Administrator.       420,754                      420,754
    Subtotal NATIONAL NUCLEAR        9,945,027        106,188    10,051,215
     SECURITY ADMINISTRATION....

    ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER
     DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
    Defense Environmental            5,495,831       -100,000     5,395,831
     Cleanup....................
    Other Defense Activities....       852,468                      852,468
    Defense Nuclear Waste               98,400                       98,400
     Disposal...................
    Subtotal ENVIRONMENTAL AND       6,446,699       -100,000     6,346,699
     OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...

    TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.    16,397,914                   16,397,914

    Independent Federal Agency
     Authorization

    Defense Nuclear Facilities          26,086                       26,086
     Safety Board...............
    Subtotal, DEFENSE NUCLEAR           26,086                       26,086
     FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD....

    SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY         16,424,000                   16,424,000
     DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).....

    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE        550,199,253        864,800   551,064,053
     (050)--BASE BILL...........

      Department of Defense Authorizations--Overseas Contingency Operations

      Division A: Department of
        Defense Authorization

    Title XV--OVERSEAS
     CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
     (OCO)

    PROCUREMENT
    Aircraft Procurement, Army..     1,636,229                    1,636,229
    Missile Procurement, Army...       531,570                      531,570
    Procurement of WTCV, Army...       759,466                      759,466
    Procurement of Ammunition,         370,635                      370,635
     Army.......................
    Other Procurement, Army.....     6,225,966        104,000     6,329,966
    Joint Improvised Explosive       1,535,000        564,850     2,099,850
     Device Defeat Fund.........
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy..       916,553                      916,553
    Weapons Procurement, Navy...        73,700                       73,700
    Procurement of Ammunition,         710,780                      710,780
     Navy and MC................
    Other Procurement, Navy.....       318,018                      318,018
    Procurement, Marine Corps...     1,164,445                    1,164,445
    Aircraft Procurement, Air          936,441        -40,000       896,441
     Force......................
    Missile Procurement, AF.....        36,625                       36,625
    Procurement of Ammunition,         256,819                      256,819
     AF.........................
    Other Procurement, Air Force     2,321,549                    2,321,549
    Procurement, Defense-Wide...       491,430                      491,430
    Mine Resistant Ambush            5,456,000                    5,456,000
     Protected Vehicle Fund.....
    Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO..    23,741,226        628,850    24,370,076

    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
     & EVALUATION...............
    RDT&E, Army.................        57,962                       57,962
    RDT&E, Navy.................       107,180                      107,180
    RDT&E, Air Force............        29,286                       29,286
    RDT&E, Defense-Wide.........       115,826                      115,826
    Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO........       310,254                      310,254

    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
    Operation & Maintenance,        52,170,661       -100,000    52,070,661
     Army.......................
    Operation & Maintenance,         6,219,583       -568,850     5,650,733
     Navy.......................
    Operation & Maintenance,         3,701,600                    3,701,600
     Marine Corps...............
    Operation & Maintenance, Air    10,026,868                   10,026,868
     Force......................
    Operation & Maintenance,         7,578,300                    7,578,300
     Defense-Wide...............
    Operation & Maintenance,           204,326                      204,326
     Army Reserve...............
    Operation & Maintenance,            68,059                       68,059
     Navy Reserve...............
    Operation & Maintenance,            86,667                       86,667
     Marine Corps Reserve.......
    Operation & Maintenance, Air       125,925                      125,925
     Force Reserve..............
    Operation & Maintenance,           321,646                      321,646
     Army National Guard........
    Operation & Maintenance, Air       289,862                      289,862
     National Guard.............
    Afghanistan Security Forces      7,462,769                    7,462,769
     Fund.......................
    Pakistan Counterinsurgency         700,000       -700,000
     Capability Fund............
    Iraq Freedom Fund...........       115,300                      115,300
    Subtotal, OPERATION AND         89,071,566     -1,368,850    87,702,716
     MAINTENANCE, OCO...........

    MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO.....    13,586,341                   13,586,341

    OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
    Defense Working Capital            396,915                      396,915
     Funds......................
    Defense Health Program......     1,155,235                    1,155,235
    Drug Interdiction and              324,603                      324,603
     Counter-Drug Activities,
     Defense....................
    Office of the Inspector              8,876                        8,876
     General....................
    Subtotal, OTHER                  1,885,629                    1,885,629
     AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO........

    Special Transfer Authority     [4,000,000]      [500,000]   [4,500,000]
     (non-add)..................

         Division B: Military
     Construction Authorization

    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
    Military Construction, Army.       923,884          6,600       930,484
    Military Construction, Air         474,500                      474,500
     Force......................
    Military Construction,               6,600         -6,600
     Defense-Wide...............
    Subtotal, MILITARY               1,404,984                    1,404,984
     CONSTRUCTION, OCO..........

    TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY    130,000,000       -740,000   129,260,000
     OPERATIONS.................

    TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   663,775,253        124,800   663,900,053
    Reduction in Authorizations                      -500,000      -500,000
     for Management Efficiencies
     (Divisions A and B)........

    GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL          680,199,253       -375,200   679,824,053
     DEFENSE....................

    MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE
     AUTHORIZATION
    Title IV--Armed Forces             134,000                      134,000
     Retirement Home (Function
     600).......................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Defense Production Act Purchases are not in the jurisdiction of the
      Armed Services Committee (see Budget Implication).

                  NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

                            (In Thousands of Dollars)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Authorization     Senate         Senate
                                     Request        Change     Authorization
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
                            Armed Services Committee
    SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF        533,775,253        864,800   534,640,053
     DEFENSE (051)..............
    SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY         16,424,000                   16,424,000
     DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).....
    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE        550,199,253        864,800   551,064,053
     (050)--BASE BILL...........
    TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY    130,000,000       -740,000   129,260,000
     OPERATIONS.................
    Reduction in Authorizations                      -500,000      -500,000
     for Management Efficiencies
     (Divisions A and B)........
    GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL          680,199,253       -375,200   679,824,053
     DEFENSE

        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              38,246                       38,246
     Purchases..................
    National Science Center,                25                           25
     Army.......................
    Disposal Of DOD Real                10,393                       10,393
     Property...................
    Lease Of DOD Real Property..         8,856                        8,856
    DOD Overseas Military                1,227                        1,227
     Facility Investment
     Recovery...................
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-               58,747                       58,747
     Function (051).............
    Formerly Utilized Sites            134,000                      134,000
     Remedial Action Program....
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-              134,000                      134,000
     Function (053).............
    Other Discretionary Programs     6,751,000                    6,751,000
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-            6,751,000                    6,751,000
     Function (054).............
    Total Defense Discretionary      6,943,747                    6,943,747
     Adjustments (050)

         OCO National Defense Discretionary Programs that are not in the
                  jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee
    FBI Salaries and Expenses...       101,066                      101,066
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-              101,066                      101,066
     Function (054)

          Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
    Department of Defense--        663,834,000       -375,200   663,458,800
     Military (051).............
    Atomic Energy Defense           16,558,000                   16,558,000
     Activities (053)...........
    Defense-Related Activities       6,852,066                    6,852,066
     (054)......................
    Total BA Implication,          687,244,066       -375,200   686,868,866
     National Defense
     Discretionary

        National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
    Concurrent receipt accrual       4,376,000                    4,376,000
     payments to the Military
     Retirement Fund............
    Concurrent receipt policy          330,000       -330,000
     proposal...................
    Revolving, trust and other       1,240,000                    1,240,000
     DOD Mandatory..............
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-            4,205,000       -330,000     3,875,000
     Function (051).............
    Energy employees                 1,377,000                    1,377,000
     occupational illness
     compensation programs and
     other......................
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-            1,377,000                    1,377,000
     Function (053).............
    Radiation exposure                  32,000                       32,000
     compensation trust fund....
    Payment to CIA retirement          291,000                      291,000
     fund and other.............
    Subtotal, Budget Sub-              323,000                      323,000
     Function (054).............
    Total National Defense           5,905,000       -330,000     5,575,000
     Mandatory (050)

        Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
                                    Mandatory
    Department of Defense--        668,039,000       -705,200   667,333,800
     Military (051).............
    Atomic Energy Defense           17,935,000                   17,935,000
     Activities (053)...........
    Defense-Related Activities       7,175,066                    7,175,066
     (054)......................
    Total BA Implication,          693,149,066       -705,200   692,443,866
     National Defense
     Discretionary and Mandatory
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Subtitle B--Navy Programs

    Treatment of Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense
            acquisition program (sec. 111)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department to manage and report on the Littoral Combat Ship
    (LCS) program as a major defense acquisition program (MDAP).
        The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
    Law 111-23) emphasizes the need to start acquisition programs
    on sure footing as a central mechanism by which the Department
    of Defense (DOD) can get control of cost growth and schedule
    slippage on MDAP programs. The cost and schedule reporting
    requirements in chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code,
    play a key role in ensuring that the Department and Congress
    are aware of emerging problems in such programs.
        The Navy was able to avoid this oversight in the case of
    the LCS program by claiming that the program was just to build
    a handful of ships to test their capabilities and then see what
    the Navy wanted to build later. From the outset of the LCS
    program, however, program proponents within the Navy, including
    all three Chiefs of Naval Operations in office during the
    development of the LCS program, have invariably called this a
    55-ship program. Some officials have even suggested that it
    might grow to be larger than that. The Weapon Systems
    Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 amended section 2430 of title
    10, United States Code, to ensure that the Department include
    future program spirals in assessing whether a program should
    fall within the definition of a MDAP. That modification alone
    should cause DOD to define LCS as a MDAP, but the committee
    recommends this provision to remove any discretion in treating
    this program.
        Had the Navy leadership been operating within the spirit of
    the title 10, United States Code, provisions regarding MDAPS,
    LCS would have fallen under the management and reporting
    requirements required for MDAPs.
        No one can say that MDAP oversight would have prevented the
    problems of poor requirements generation, poor requirements
    control, poor program oversight, insufficient supervision of
    program execution, and abysmal cost estimating. However, when a
    program is expected to cost roughly $12.0 billion (even under
    the rosiest cost scenario), it should be subject to the
    requirements development, cost estimating, acquisition
    planning, and other requirements established in statute and
    regulation for the beginning of MDAP programs. Otherwise, we
    will have little chance of fixing such programs after they fall
    into trouble, and DOD will never be able to get control of its
    acquisition problems.

    Report on strategic plan for homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship (sec.
            112)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Navy to report on the Navy's strategic plan
    for homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship on the east coast and
    west coast of the United States.

    Procurement programs for future naval surface combatants (sec. 113)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
    Navy from obligating any funds for building surface combatants
    after 2011 until the Navy conducts particular analyses, and
    completes certain tasks that should be required at the
    beginning of major defense acquisition programs (MDAP).
        For at least the past couple of years, the Navy's strategy
    for modernizing the major surface combatants in the fleet has
    been in upheaval. The Navy was adamant that the next generation
    cruiser had to begin construction in the 2011-2012 timeframe.
    After 15 years of consistent, unequivocal support of the
    uniformed Navy for the fire support requirement, and for the
    DDG-1000 destroyer that was intended to meet that requirement
    (i.e., gun fire support for Marine Corps or Army forces
    ashore), the Navy leadership, in the middle of last year,
    decided that they should truncate the DDG-1000 destroyer
    program and buy DDG-51 destroyers instead.
        The Defense Department has announced that the Navy will
    complete construction of the three DDG-1000 vessels and will
    build three DDG-51 destroyers, one in fiscal year 2010 and two
    in fiscal year 2011. Beyond that, the plan is less well
    defined, and includes building only a notional ``future surface
    combatant,'' with requirements, capabilities, and costs to be
    determined.
        Notwithstanding Navy protests to the contrary, this was
    mainly due to the Navy's affordability concerns. The committee
    notes with no little irony that this sudden change of heart on
    the DDG-1000 program is at odds with its own consistent
    testimony that ``stability'' in the shipbuilding programs is
    fundamental to controlling costs and protecting the industrial
    base.
        The Navy claims the change of heart on the DDG-1000 program
    was related to an emerging need for additional missile defense
    capability that would be provided by DDG-51s and is being
    requested by the combatant commanders, and would be used to
    protect carrier battle groups against new threats.
        The committee certainly believes that the services should
    have the ability to change course as the long-term situation
    dictates. However, since we are talking about the long-term and
    hundreds of billions of dollars of development and production
    costs for MDAPs, the committee believes that the Defense
    Department should exercise greater rigor in making sure such
    course corrections are made with full understanding of the
    alternatives and the implications of such decisions, rather
    than relying on inputs from a handful of individuals. The
    committee has only to look at the decision-making behind the
    major course correction in Navy shipbuilding that yielded the
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to be concerned by that prospect.
        Before deciding on a course of action regarding acquisition
    of surface combatants after 2011, we collectively have time to
    perform the due diligence that should be and must be performed
    at the beginning of any MDAP. That is what this section will
    ensure.
        In addition, in order to deter any delaying action on
    conducting and completing the activities required by this
    section before 2011, the committee directs that the Secretary
    of the Navy obligate no more than 50 percent of the funds
    authorized for fiscal year 2010 in PE 24201N, CG(X), until the
    Navy submits a plan for implementing the requirements of this
    section to the congressional defense committees.

    Report on a service life extension program for Oliver Hazard Perry-
            class frigates (sec. 114)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Navy to report on a potential service life
    extension program (SLEP) for the Oliver Hazard Perry-class
    frigates, to include: (1) costs and schedules for a program,
    and shipyards capable of conducting such a program; (2) a
    detailed plan for achieving a 313-ship fleet; (3) the strategic
    plan for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to fulfill roles and
    missions currently performed by Oliver Hazard Perry-class
    frigates; (4) the strategic plan for LCS if a SLEP were
    performed on Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates; and (5) a
    description of the manner in which the Navy has been meeting
    the needs of United States Southern Command during the past 5
    years.

                         Subtitle C--Air Force Matters

    Limitation on retirement of C-5 aircraft (sec. 121)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
    Air Force from retiring any C-5 aircraft until certain
    conditions are met. These include: (1) completing operational
    testing of the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining
    Program; (2) providing a report by the Director of Operational
    Testing on the results of that operational testing; and (3)
    delivering reports on the economic and risk analyses that led
    to any decision to retire the aircraft before the end of their
    useful service lives.

    Revised availability of certain funds available for the F-22A fighter
            aircraft (sec. 122)

        In section 134 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), Congress authorized
    $523.0 million in funds for F-22A advance procurement, but
    prohibited obligation of more than $140.0 million of that
    amount until the President certified to the congressional
    defense committees that: (1) the procurement of F-22A fighter
    aircraft is in the national interest of the United States; or
    (2) the termination of the production line for F-22A fighter
    aircraft is in the national interest of the United States. The
    certification was required to be submitted before March 1,
    2009.
        The President made no such certification. The Department
    has determined that, since the President did not make a
    determination under section 134 of Public Law 110-417, the
    remaining $383.0 million is unavailable for obligation.
        The President's budget request includes a proposal to
    terminate production for the F-22A and includes no funds for
    additional F-22A aircraft. The budget request also includes a
    request for $95.2 million to fund various activities related to
    the F-22A production line, and $350.7 million to purchase and
    install various modifications for the F-22A fleet.
        The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) repeal
    section 134 of Public Law 110-417 to lower the fence around the
    $383.0 million that might have been used for advance
    procurement; and (2) allow the Secretary of the Air Force to
    reallocate those funds for other priorities. Lowering that
    fence would allow the Secretary to use these fiscal year 2009
    funds to pay for fiscal year 2010 F-22A funding needs. The
    committee believes that, subsequent to action on the
    Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32) the
    Air Force should have $383.0 million available for such
    purposes.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $383.0
    million to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, with $350.7 million
    of that amount applied to the F-22A modifications request, and
    $32.3 million applied to the full funding line.

    Report on potential foreign military sales of the F-22A fighter
            aircraft (sec. 123)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
    State, and in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force,
    to report on: (1) the costs of developing an exportable version
    of the F-22A; (2) an assessment of whether such development is
    technically feasible, and if so, how long it would take; (3) an
    assessment of the strategic implications of permitting foreign
    sales of the F-22A; (4) an assessment of the potential impact
    of foreign sales on the domestic aerospace industry; and (5)
    any changes in law that would be required to permit such sales.

    Next generation bomber aircraft (sec. 124)

        The committee recommends a provision that would make a
    series of findings with respect to the next-generation bomber
    and that would declare that it is the policy of the United
    States to support a development program for next-generation
    bomber technologies.
        On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates announced that the United
    States ``will not pursue a development program for a follow-on
    Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the
    need, the requirement, and technology.'' Subsequent to this
    announcement, commanders of the United States Strategic
    Command, the United States Pacific Command, and the United
    States Joint Forces Command all testified before the committee
    that the capability that a next-generation bomber would provide
    will be needed in the future.
        The committee understands that discussion on a next-
    generation bomber will occur in the context of the Quadrennial
    Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review, which will
    inform the fiscal year 2011 budget deliberations.

                   Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters

    Modification of nature of data link utilizable by tactical unmanned
            aerial vehicles (sec. 131)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 141 of The National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), which mandates that all
    Department of Defense (DOD) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
    utilize data links from the Common Data Link family. The
    recommended provision would establish Internet Protocol-capable
    communications relays as an additional standard for DOD UAVs.
        The committee believes this change is necessary because new
    requirements exist for communications relays that are Internet
    Protocol-capable and that support mobile ad hoc networking,
    range extension, and point to multi-point networking, as well
    as interoperability between Joint Tactical Radio System air-
    and surface-domain waveforms, which are capabilities not
    previously available with the Common Data Link.

                                  Budget Items

                                      Army

    Extended range multi-purpose Sky Warrior

        The budget request included $651.4 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Army (APA), to procure 36 MQ-1C extended range
    multi-purpose (ERMP) Sky Warrior unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
    in the Overseas Contingency Operations account and the base
    budget request. The Government Accountability Office reports,
    as is confirmed in the APA budget exhibits, that only 24 of
    these 36 aircraft will be delivered over a single year period,
    and that, therefore, the budget request reflects substantial
    forward funding. The committee strongly supports the ERMP
    program, but agrees that the Army should budget only for a
    single year's worth of aircraft production and deliveries. The
    committee recommends a reduction to the request of 12 ERMP
    aircraft and $200.0 million.

    CH-47 multiyear procurement execution

        The budget request included $1,001.3 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Army (APA), for the purchase of CH-47 Chinook
    cargo helicopters. The Army informed the committee that funds
    requested are insufficient to support the multiyear procurement
    contract. The committee recommends a decrease of $22.0 million
    in APA, line 22 for the modification of CH-47 Chinook
    helicopters and an increase of $22.0 million in APA, line 13 to
    support CH-47 Chinook multiyear procurement.

    Apache AH-64 fuselage manufacturing

        The budget request included $426.4 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Army (APA) for Apache AH-64 helicopter
    modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5
    million in APA to procure one set of the special tooling
    required to qualify a domestic source for the manufacture of
    the Apache AH-64 fuselage.

    Blackhawk UH-60A conversion to UH-60L

        The budget request included $66.7 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Army (APA) for utility helicopter modifications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.4 million in APA to
    accelerate the conversion of older UH-60A model aircraft to the
    newer, more capable UH-60L model.

    Air warrior ensemble generation III

        The budget request included $52.7 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Army (APA) for aircrew integrated systems. The
    committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in APA for air
    warrior ensemble generation III systems.

    Patriot command and control modifications

        The budget request included $44.8 million in Missile
    Procurement, Army, for modification of Patriot missile systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to modify
    the Patriot Tactical Command System/Battery Command Post to
    meet the threshold requirements of the Patriot Advanced
    Capability 3 system. This upgrade will help improve the Patriot
    system capability until the follow-on Medium Extended Air
    Defense System is fielded.

    60mm mortars Army

        The budget request included $21.6 million in Procurement of
    Ammunition, Army (PAA) for 60mm mortars, all types. The
    committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PAA for the
    procurement of additional mortars.

    Bomb line modernization

        The budget request included $151.9 million in Procurement
    of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial
    facilities, but provided no funds for bomb line modernization
    at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma. The committee
    recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PAA for bomb line
    modernization.

    Mine protection vehicle family

        The budget request includes $134.7 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA), for 93 medium mine protected vehicles
    (MMPV). The committee notes that mine resistant ambush
    protected (MRAP) category 2 (Cat II) vehicles, of which the
    Army currently has approximately 2,000 in its inventory, and
    which have not yet been incorporated into Army doctrine,
    organization, or materiel, meet the Army's requirement for a
    medium mine protected vehicle. The committee is aware that,
    instead of deploying with vehicles organic to their formations,
    engineer and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units receive
    Cat II vehicles in theater. Therefore, the committee believes
    that procuring 93 more of an eventual 443 new Cat II MRAP
    vehicles which would principally be used for training, is
    imprudent, especially in light of the draw-down in forces from
    Iraq and the future availability of excess MRAP vehicles.
        In the interim, the committee recommends a decrease of
    $90.0 million in OPA to slow the production of these vehicles
    in fiscal year 2010 so that the Army may perform an assessment
    of its requirement and current inventory.

    Joint tactical radio system

        The budget request includes $55.2 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of engineering
    design model four-channel joint tactical radio system ground
    mobile radios for use in a multi-service operational test and
    evaluation. The committee understands that these tests will not
    occur until fiscal year 2011 due to ongoing technical
    complexities in the program's testing schedule and a recent
    shift in the program's milestone C decision. The committee also
    understands that both the Department's Defense Contract
    Management Agency and its cost analysis improvement group have
    conducted assessments indicating the schedule may slip further.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease in OPA of $55.2
    million due to program delays.

    Night vision devices

        The budget request includes $250.6 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for the procurement of enhanced night
    vision goggles (ENVG). The committee strongly supports the
    Army's ongoing efforts to equip soldiers with the most advanced
    night vision devices available and the ongoing work at the
    Army's night vision lab to maintain and extend the U.S.
    military's strategic advantage in this technology area. ENVGs
    permit superior tactical mobility and engagement during limited
    visibility conditions and enable soldiers to see, understand,
    and act first on the battlefield. This advantage is critical to
    current and future operations.
        The committee understands that the ENVG production line is
    significantly behind on its production schedule and has a
    backlog of systems due to failures found during monthly quality
    control testing of ENVG systems. Additionally, the committee
    understands that the ENVG contractor has notified the Army of a
    reduction in their capacity in the second quarter of 2009. The
    committee is aware of the Army's plan to award contracts to
    other suppliers in order to increase capacity; however, even
    with this mitigation strategy, the Army will not be able to
    execute all of the funding requested for fiscal year 2010.
        The committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in
    OPA due to ENVG production delays.

    Fido explosives detector

        The budget request included $56.1 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection
    systems, but provided no funds for the Fido explosives
    detector. 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 additional Fido explosives detectors.

    Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program

        The budget request included $33.7 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for medical combat support equipment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million in OPA to
    accelerate the upgrade of Army field medical equipment.

    Operator driving simulators

        The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices.
    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 $261.3 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 $5.5
    million in OPA for the IGS-VTS.

    Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System

        The budget request included $3.1 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Call for Fire Trainer, but
    included no funds for the Joint Fires and Effects Trainer
    System (JFETS) project. JFETS is a next-generation, virtual
    reality call for fire training simulation. The committee
    recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for JFETS.

    Urban training center instrumentation

        The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The
    committee notes that the Army's readiness and rotation training
    strategies call for units to accomplish more of their mission
    training and rehearsals at their local training areas and
    facilities. The Army is using several technologies to increase
    the flexibility and value of local training ranges and
    facilities including the Deployable Range Package, the
    Homestation Instrumentation System, and the Integrated Military
    Operations in Urbanized Terrain Training System. The committee
    recommends an increase of $2.0 million in OPA for the
    instrumentation of a regional urban operations training center.

    Virtual Interactive Combat Environment System

        The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but
    included no funds for the Virtual Interactive Combat
    Environment (VICE) system. VICE is a team tactics, techniques,
    and procedures training system for dismounted infantry tasks.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million in OPA for
    VICE.

                 Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

        The budget request includes $564.9 million for the Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), which funds
    the operations of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
    Organization (JIEDDO), including $203.1 million for JIEDDO's
    attack the network line of operation; $199.1 million for
    JIEDDO's defeat the device operation; $41.1 million for
    JIEDDO's train the force operation; and $121.6 million for
    JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure line of operation. The
    committee recommends full funding for JIEDDO, but recommends
    transferring all of JIEDDF funds from title I to the same
    budget activities in title XV, which funds the overseas
    contingency operations of the Department.

                                      Navy

    F/A-18E/F

        The budget request included $1,009.5 million to purchase
    nine F/A-18E/F aircraft. This is nine fewer aircraft than the
    Navy had planned to buy in fiscal year 2010 in the fiscal year
    2009 future-years defense program.
        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 (JSF) is available. The committee raised this
    issue in the committee reports accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept.
    110-77) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2008 and accompanying S. 3001 (S. Rept. 110-335) of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The
    committee is disappointed that the Navy has failed to provide
    the report comparing single versus multiyear procurement costs
    mandated by the second of those committee reports.
        Last year, the committee received testimony from the Navy
    of 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. The committee believes
    that the Navy's projection of this shortfall was, however,
    based on a series of questionable assumptions.
        This 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. The committee believes that the Navy
    has failed to present a budget in fiscal year 2010 that takes
    effective action to deal with this substantially increased
    projected shortfall in the Department of the Navy's tactical
    air fleet and is concerned about the potential risk such a
    shortfall could pose to national security. The committee also
    notes that this shortfall figure is still predicated on an
    initial operation capability of the F-35C in 2015 but that
    achieving this is considered optimistic by many observers. The
    Navy's delay in taking action causes concern that it: (1) is
    continuing to accept the substantial security risks associated
    with the projected shortfall; (2) remains overly reliant on a
    potentially costly service life extension program (SLEP) for
    legacy F/A-18s as a means to mitigate the gap until the Joint
    Strike Fighter achieves full operational capability; and (3) is
    not adequately considering realistic, fiscally responsible
    long-range procurement plans to address the carrier strike
    aircraft shortfall, such as a multiyear procurement of F/A-18E/
    F aircraft as opposed to a series of single year purchases.
        The committee is concerned that, in response to possible
    further delays, expanding costs and technological immaturity
    with the JSF, the Navy appears increasingly reliant on its
    proposal to extend the life of select legacy F/A-18's from
    8,600 to 10,000 flight hours through a SLEP currently estimated
    to cost on average $26.0 million per plane. This life extension
    would be in addition to the 2,600-hour service life extension
    that the Navy already plans for most legacy F/A-18s. By the
    Navy's own testimony, it is unclear how many of the planes are
    capable of reaching 10,000 flight hours even with a SLEP. The
    committee is concerned that the cost uncertainties of a SLEP
    achieving an additional 1,400 flight hours make such a plan
    risky. In any case, the committee believes such SLEP may be
    inefficient when compared with the benefits of procuring new F/
    A-18E/F's, which might cost less than $50.0 million each in
    2009 constant dollars under a multiyear procurement acquisition
    strategy. Normalizing costs for the expected return in
    additional service life, a SLEP to achieve the additional 1,400
    hours would cost approximately $18,571 per flight hour gained,
    versus $8,333 per flight hour provided by a new F/A-18E/F (at a
    6,000 flight hour life, the cost per flight hour of a new F/A-
    18E/F would fall even further to $5,814 if those planes are
    similarly extended to 8,600 flight hours as have legacy F/A-
    18s). In light of such costs, the committee believes the Navy
    must more carefully evaluate costs and benefits of new F/A-18E/
    F procurements, compared to investing in a SLEP of legacy
    aircraft.
        The committee further notes that new F/A-18E/F models come
    equipped with improved technological capabilities over the
    legacy F/A-18's, including active electronically scanned array
    radar, modernized avionics, advanced aerial refueling system
    capability, and added weapon hard points, among other features
    that would not be part of a SLEP upgrade package for the older
    aircraft. These factors would tend to increase the benefit of
    purchasing new F/A-18E/Fs compared to conducting a SLEP on
    legacy aircraft. The Navy projects that the F/A-18E/F will
    remain in the fleet until at least 2040, and should be able to
    use most or all of the full service life of any newly purchased
    aircraft.
        The committee understands that the Department of Defense
    intends to review the whole issue of tactical aircraft forces
    in the pending Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee
    expects the Department to conduct and submit the analysis of
    multiyear procurement for the F/A-18 as directed in the
    committee report last year to include cost differentials
    between single year and multiyear procurement strategies and
    tradeoffs between a SLEP and new procurements of the F/A-18E/F.
    The Department should include such information derived from
    that analysis in deciding how to implement the results on the
    ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review regarding tactical aviation.
        The committee expects that the Department's tactical
    aviation procurement strategies will be informed by the
    Quadrennial Defense Review. In light of the significant
    increase in the strike-fighter shortfall testified to before
    the committee this year, additional actions to address that
    shortfall cannot be delayed too long. The committee emphasizes,
    as it did last year, that if purchasing new F/A-18E/F aircraft
    proves to be the preferred method of resolving the shortfall,
    not acquiring those aircraft under a multiyear contract could
    lead to the loss of ``substantial savings'' to the government--
    subject to the outcome of required independent cost estimates.
    The committee notes that a request for a multiyear procurement
    must fully comply with the requirements of section 2306b of
    title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 811 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
    Law 110-181).
        In the interim, the committee fails to see the wisdom in
    cutting planned F/A-18E/F procurement with potential shortfalls
    this large. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
    $560.0 million to buy 18 F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2010
    as originally planned.

    UH-1Y/AH-1Z

        The budget request included $835.4 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy (APN), for the UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopter
    program. These funds would support purchasing 16 new UH-1Ys, 2
    new AH-1Zs, and remanufacturing 12 existing AH-1Ws to the AH-1Z
    configuration. This compares to the program for fiscal year
    2009 of 15 new UH-1Ys, and remanufacturing 5 existing AH-1Ws to
    the AH-1Z configuration.
        In conjunction with the plan to increase the size of the
    Marine Corps, the total program quantities have been increased
    to 123 UH-1Ys and 226 AH-1Zs. A total of 58 of the programmed
    226 AH-1Zs will be new production to reduce the impact on
    operational forces of taking operational helicopters off the
    line and inducting them into the remanufacturing effort. Fiscal
    year 2010 would be the first year of buying new AH-1Zs.
        Operational testing for the UH-1Y has been completed, which
    resulted in a positive Milestone B decision in September 2008.
    Operational testing for the AH-1Z has been delayed, mainly due
    to issues surrounding the targeting sight system. The program
    office now predicts that operational testing for the AH-1Z
    configuration will not be completed until late in fiscal year
    2010. Despite these delays, the fiscal year 2010 request
    reflects an increase of two AH-1Z aircraft since the plan last
    year.
        Also since last year, the Secretary of the Navy notified
    Congress that the Service Acquisition Executive had determined
    the program had breached the significant cost growth threshold
    of 15 percent, compared to the baseline average procurement
    unit cost.
        The committee supports the Marine Corps plans to expand the
    size of the force, but also believes that the Department should
    not proceed too quickly in ramping up this program absent
    successful operational testing.
        The committee recommends a decrease of $282.9 million to
    keep the UH-1Y/AH-1Z program at the same level of effort as
    fiscal year 2009.

    Weapons industrial facilities

        The budget request included $3.2 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.

    Multiple User Objective System

        The committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million in
    Weapons Procurement, Navy, line 18 for the Multiple User
    Objective System (MUOS). A complete discussion of the MUOS
    program is contained in title II of this Act.

    Smart valves

        The budget request included $11.4 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy (OPN), for firefighting equipment, but
    included no funding to expand the application of ``smart
    valves'' for firefighting systems to support the DDG-51
    modernization program.
        The Navy developed smart valve technology as part of the
    DDG-1000 autonomic fire suppression system (AFSS). These
    systems support reducing crew sizes because they can
    automatically reconfigure a ship's firefighting system to route
    around damaged sections of piping without human intervention.
        The current DDG-51 modernization program is upgrading
    various systems on the DDGs, including the hull, mechanical and
    electrical systems. If the Navy were to make appropriate
    engineering changes, this smart valve technology could be
    backfit to the DDG-51 during this modernization period, and
    provide the opportunity to reduce crew sizes.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
    million in OPN for expanding the application of smart valve
    technology.

    TB-33 thinline towed array

        The budget request included $28.2 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy (OPN), for purchasing various components of
    the thinline towed systems. Installing these arrays holds the
    promise of providing much better acoustics performance for our
    submarines.
        The committee understands that additional funding would
    permit the Navy to accelerate initial qualification testing,
    implement automated manufacturing processes, qualify commercial
    suppliers for critical components, and improve acceptance
    testing methods.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
    million in OPN for the TB-33 thinline towed array.

    Man overboard indicators

        The budget request included $55.3 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 $4.0
    million for the procurement of additional MOBI systems.

                                   Air Force

    F-22A fighter aircraft

        The budget request included $95.2 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the F-22A aircraft program,
    including $64.0 million for shutting down the production line.
        The committee recommends an increase of $1.75 billion to
    purchase an additional seven F-22A aircraft in fiscal year
    2010. The committee also directs that the production shutdown
    costs be applied to other program requirements.
        The Air National Guard is charged with providing homeland
    aerial defense for the United States and is primarily
    responsible for executing the air sovereignty alert (ASA)
    mission as part of the National Defense Strategy. In carrying
    out this mission on a daily basis, the Air National Guard
    relies on more than 1,600 Air National Guard men and women who
    operate legacy F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft. The committee
    has been informed that the projected retirements of these
    legacy aircraft with which the Air National Guard currently
    executes the ASA mission will leave the Guard short of the
    required number of aircraft to execute this mission.
    Additionally, the Government Accountability Office has
    commented that ``unless the Air Force modifies its current
    fielding schedules or extends the service lives of its F-15s
    and F-16s . . . it will lack viable aircraft to conduct ASA
    operations at some of the 18 current ASA sites after fiscal
    year 2015.''
        The committee is concerned that no plan has been developed
    to fill this shortfall, either through modernizing legacy
    aircraft or buying new aircraft. Of specific concern is the
    fact that 80 percent of the F-16s will be gone in 8 years and
    since the majority of the ASA mission is accomplished by these
    F-16s, this will negatively impact the Air National Guard's
    ability to execute the ASA mission.
        In a recent letter, the Director of the Air National Guard
    commented, ``While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the
    nature of the current and future asymmetric threats to our
    Nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a
    fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to
    address them. The F-22's unique capability in this arena
    enables it to handle a full spectrum of threats that the Air
    National Guard's current legacy systems are not capable of
    addressing . . . basing F-22 (and eventually F-35s) at
    strategic Air National Guard locations throughout the United
    States while simultaneously making them available to
    rotationally support worldwide contingency operations is the
    most responsible approach to satisfying all of our Nation's
    needs.''
        For these reasons, the committee directs the Secretary of
    the Air Force to develop a plan, including force structure and
    basing requirements, for executing the ASA mission over the
    next 2 decades. The Secretary shall deliver that plan to the
    congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2010.
    The plan shall give full consideration toward: (1) stationing
    the additional F-22s procured in fiscal year 2010 at strategic
    Air National Guard locations; (2) creating new or expanding
    current Active/Guard associate units in which both active-duty
    and Air National Guard personnel could operate these additional
    aircraft, as well as F-22s and F-35s procured in the future;
    and (3) transitioning earlier model F-22s as well as F-35s
    procured in the future to the Air National Guard at the first
    possible opportunity.

    Global Hawk

        The budget request included $554.8 million for procurement
    of the Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned aerial system. The
    Government Accounting Office recommends a reduction to the
    request to slow production because of continued delays in the
    program, including operational testing. Accordingly, the
    committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million to the
    request.

    C-130 Avionics Modernization Program

        The budget request included $354.4 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C-130 Modifications
    Program, including $209.5 million for the C-130 Avionics
    Modernization Program (AMP). The C-130 AMP effort suffered a
    Nunn-McCurdy breach in February 2007, which caused the
    Department of Defense to significantly restructure and
    recertify the program in June 2007. Since last year, there have
    been additional delays in starting production, primarily
    because of software testing issues and a failure to complete
    required documentation. The milestone decision review to
    authorize production is at least 1 year later than the
    projected date of June, 2008. This means that production funds
    from fiscal years 2008 and 2009 will be awarded, at the
    earliest, sometime late this summer.
        While the committee remains supportive of the program, the
    committee sees no need to provide additional kit and
    installation funding in fiscal year 2010, with the program
    running at least a full year behind the planned schedule and
    not requiring additional production funds until fiscal year
    2011.
        The committee recommends a reduction of $209.5 million in
    APAF for the C-130 AMP Modification Program.

    Advanced targeting pod

        The budget request included $103.3 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for other aircraft
    modifications, including $0.9 million for modifications of
    advanced targeting pods (ATP), also known as precision attack
    systems.
        The Air Force and the contractor team for the Litening ATP
    program have devised a spiral enhancement kit for existing
    Litening ATPs that will provide:
              (1) a new fourth generation forward-looking infrared
            sensor;
              (2) a new fourth generation charged coupled device
            camera that enables targeting acquisition and
            identification;
              (3) a C-Band video downlink capability which will
            provide exceptional standoff capability outside of most
            surface-to-air threats at twice the distance of the
            earlier Litening ATPs; and
              (4) a laser spot tracker and a laser target imaging
            processor which yield much improved performance for
            targeting at long-ranges using precision weapons.
        The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million in
    APAF for the procurement of spiral upgrade kits for Litening
    ATPs.

    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

        The budget request included $1.3 billion for the Evolved
    Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), in Missile Procurement, Air
    Force, line 24. The committee recommends a reduction of $88.0
    million as a result of the delay of the Global Positioning
    System IIF satellite number 8 (GPS IIF-8). The EELV booster for
    GPS IIF-8 will have to be purchased in fiscal year 2011.

    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

        The budget request included $1.3 billion for the Evolved
    Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), in Missile Procurement, Air
    Force, line 24. The committee recommends a reduction of $105.0
    million as a result of the ability of the Air Force to utilize
    a previously purchased booster for AFSPC-4. As a result the
    funds requested for the AFSPC-4 booster in the fiscal year 2010
    budget request are excess.

    Halvorsen loaders

        The budget request included $19.6 billion for Other
    Procurement, Air Force, but did not include any funds for
    Halvorsen loaders. The committee recommends an increase of
    $12.0 million for the procurement of 15 Halvorsen loaders to
    assist the Air Force to meet its requirement of 538 loaders.

    Unmanned modular threat emitter modernization

        The budget request included $40.6 million in Other
    Procurement, Air Force, for Combat Training Ranges, but no
    funds to sustain the Unmanned Modular Threat Emitter (UMTE)
    modernization program. Current threat emitters supporting the
    Air Warfare Center Nellis Range Complex are out of date and
    inadequate for training, particularly with the F-22 and F-35.
    The UMTE modernization program will provide affordable and
    realistic threats at the required density, and the upgraded
    performance and extended life of existing assets needed at the
    Nevada Test and Training Range. The committee recommends
    authorization of $43.6 million, $3.0 million above the request
    for UMTE.

    Joint threat emitter

        The budget request included $40.6 million in Other
    Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for making improvements at
    combat training ranges, including $7.1 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 Air Force has developed a new infrared threat simulator
    for augmenting the JTE system, called the aviation crew trainer
    (ACT). The Air Force needs to buy additional ACT systems to be
    able to field that system to all of its training ranges.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2
    million in OPAF for buying additional ACT systems for the JTE
    program.

    Application software

        The budget request included $111.3 million in Other
    Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), line 37, for Milsatcom Space but
    no funds for the Application Software Assurance Center of
    Excellence. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0
    million for the Center to assess and strengthen defenses
    against cyber attacks at the software application level.

                  Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

    Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

        The base budget request included no funding for the Mine
    Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) Fund to procure MRAP
    all-terrain-vehicles (M-ATV). The overseas contingency
    operations (OCO) budget request, however, included $5,456.0
    million to procure approximately 2,080 M-ATVs and sustain the
    approximately 15,000 MRAP vehicles in the Department's existing
    inventory, much of which is in Iraq.
        The committee is aware that the Department is close to a
    decision to increase the M-ATV requirement to more than 5,200
    M-ATVs to support combat operations in Afghanistan. This
    process was spurred by the inadequate armor protection of the
    High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle and the poor
    mobility of the MRAP vehicles in Afghanistan's rugged terrain.
    In anticipation of an increase in the M-ATV requirement, the
    committee recommends an increase of $1,200.0 million for the
    MRAP Fund, thereby bringing the total funding in the base and
    OCO components to $6,956.0 million for M-ATVs.
        The committee is aware that the MRAP program office has
    funds available from lower-than-expected MRAP sustainment costs
    that can be shifted to begin production of additional M-ATVs.
    The committee is committed to ensuring that this critical force
    protection program proceeds rapidly with all the necessary
    resources.
        The committee also continues to monitor closely the Army's
    ongoing assessment of its MRAP fleet and how it plans to
    incorporate the more than 12,000 MRAPs it has procured over the
    past 2 years into its current force structure and fleet of
    tactical wheeled vehicles, as directed by the Secretary of
    Defense.

                                  Defense-wide

    MC-130W multi-mission modifications

        The budget request included $31.6 million in Procurement,
    Defense-wide for MC-130 Multi-Mission Modifications. These
    modifications fulfill an urgent combat requirement to rapidly
    arm and field multi-mission precision strike platforms. These
    aircraft will provide an enhanced armed-overwatch capability
    utilizing various sensors, communications systems, precision
    guided munitions, and a medium-caliber gun. The Commander of
    the U.S. Special Operations Command has identified an $85.0
    million shortfall in funding for these aircraft modifications.
        The committee recommends an increase of $85.0 million in
    Procurement, Defense-wide, C-130 Modifications, for the U.S.
    Special Operations Command.

    Advanced lightweight grenade launcher

        The budget request included no funding in Procurement,
    Defense-wide, for advanced lightweight grenade launchers for
    special operations forces. These grenade launchers provide
    special operations forces with a vehicle and man-portable
    weapon to defeat personnel and lightly armored targets from
    extended distances. U.S. Special Operations Command has a basis
    of issue requirement for 926 advanced lightweight grenade
    launchers, but has only fielded 709 toward that requirement.
        The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
    Procurement, Defense-wide, Small Arms and Weapons, to help the
    U.S. Special Operations Command meet its basis of issue
    requirement.

    Special operations visual augmentation systems

        The budget request included $33.7 million in Procurement,
    Defense-wide, for the special operations forces (SOF) visual
    augmentation, lasers, and sensor systems. However, no funding
    was included for the special operations visual augmentation
    systems hand-held imager/long-range. These hand-held imagers
    allow special operators to detect, recognize, and identify
    targets under varying conditions or at ranges at which the
    operator would not normally be able to see the target. The
    Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command has identified
    a $15.4 million shortfall in funding for these hand-held
    imagers.
        The committee recommends an increase of $15.4 million in
    Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Visual Augmentation, Lasers and
    Sensor Systems, for the U.S. Special Operations Command.

    Special operations forces multi-band inter/intra team radio

        The budget request included $32.9 million in Procurement,
    Defense-wide for Multi-band Inter/Intra Team Radios for special
    operations forces (SOF). These radios provide SOF with a
    lightweight, hand-held communications capability adequate for
    the air, ground, and maritime missions they are tasked to
    perform. The Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command
    has identified a $31.3 million shortfall in funding for these
    radios.
        The committee recommends an increase of $31.3 million in
    Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Tactical Radio Systems, for the
    U.S. Special Operations Command.

    M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask

        The budget request included $92.0 million in Procurement,
    Defense-wide for chemical and biological individual protection
    equipment, including $48.4 million for the Joint Service
    General Purpose Mask (JSPGM). However, there was no funding for
    the special operations forces variant of the JSPGM, the M53
    Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask (JCBPM). The
    committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in
    Procurement, Defense-wide, Line 93, for M53 JCBPM.
        United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has a
    validated requirement for 14,601 JCBPMs, but only 70 percent of
    that requirement has been procured to date. Additional funding
    for this program would allow the purchase of the remaining 30
    percent of the JCBPMs that are required by SOCOM.

    Procurement of computing services

        The committee recommends a total reduction of $300.0
    million from service and defense-wide operation and maintenance
    accounts that support the procurement and delivery of computing
    services. The reductions include a $75.0 million decrease from
    each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide accounts.
    The committee does not intend for these reductions to be
    assessed against Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
    computing services activities.
        The committee directs the services to aggressively explore
    increased opportunities to utilize DISA computing services and
    eliminate redundant, wasteful service-specific computing
    services activities. The committee notes that consolidation of
    computing services activities, such as reductions in numbers of
    computing centers, data storage systems, and electronic file
    servers, has saved the Department of Defense an estimated
    $200.0 million or more annually since 1990, according to DISA.
    Further, a June 2007 independent assessment of DISA's computing
    services noted that they ``...provided world-class computing
    services that enable the DOD community to better execute their
    missions,'' and compared DISA's services favorably to general
    government, federal, and workload peers. The assessment also
    recommended continuing assessment of organizational staffing,
    structure, and realignment, as well as continued maturation of
    data center processes. Finally, the committee notes that
    uncoordinated, Department-wide deployment of servers,
    mainframes, data warehouses, websites, and other computing
    services has resulted in inefficiencies, underutilization of
    computing infrastructure, and interoperability difficulties.
        The committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Networks and Information Integration initiate
    independent, comparative benchmarking studies of computing
    services across the Department of Defense to inform and
    accelerate the consolidation of the provision of computing
    services to increase efficiency, improve services, and reduce
    costs.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Body armor protocol and requirements

        The committee concurs with the Department of Defense
    Inspector General's recommendation that the Department should
    establish standardization for testing and evaluation of all
    body armor components. Standard protocols by all military
    departments will improve confidence in the level of ballistic
    protection provided by the Department and will better
    facilitate rapid procurement and fielding. The committee
    believes the use of common test and evaluation standards will
    also enable commercial ballistic test facilities and body armor
    component producers to more quickly and effectively respond to
    the Department's requirements.
        Additionally, the committee recommends the Department
    consult a peer review of any proposed standardized test and
    evaluation procedures from ballistics experts in other federal
    agencies and departments prior to publication. The committee is
    aware that such expertise resides in the Department of
    Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
    and in the National Institute of Justice. The committee would
    also recommend that representatives from commercial ballistics
    test facilities be given an opportunity to comment on the draft
    test and evaluation standards before final versions are issued.
        The committee believes body armor requirements for the
    military services should be coordinated through the Joint
    Capabilities Integration and Development System process. The
    committee encourages the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
    to review and determine if an update to the current body armor
    requirements is necessary.
        The committee echoes the testimony of the Vice Chief of
    Staff of the Army and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine
    Corps, that there is an urgent need to lighten the warfighter's
    combat load. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
    consider establishing and funding a Department-wide task force
    which could expedite efforts and advancements in weight
    reduction for body armor. The committee highlights similar task
    forces such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Task
    Force and the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
    Task Force which were created to confront the urgent
    operational requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Irregular warfare in the Navy

        In prepared statements before the committee on the posture
    of the Department of Defense regarding the authorization
    request for fiscal year 2010, the Secretary of Defense and the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both observed that the
    Department of Defense (DOD) needed to shift relative emphasis
    in resource allocations towards the threats we face today and
    will likely face tomorrow.
        One of those threats encompasses the irregular warfare (IW)
    mission area. The committee is concerned that DOD has not
    shifted enough emphasis quickly enough in certain areas. One
    such area is in the Department of the Navy's budget for IW
    programs, which may be inadequate to achieve the objectives the
    Secretary has laid out.
        A major component of the Navy's ability to contribute to
    the IW mission area is the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
    (NECC). A large proportion of NECC force structure is ground
    equipment (i.e., SEABEE equipment and vehicles), underwater
    demolition and diving equipment, small boats, riverine craft
    and maritime expeditionary force equipment. These categories of
    equipment have seen persistent use and have been exposed to the
    harsh elements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the
    Central Command theater of operations. The committee
    understands that much of that equipment will be left behind or
    given to local forces, such as the Iraqi National Army or
    police forces, when the U.S. withdraws the bulk of its forces.
        The committee expects that the Quadrennial Defense Review
    will review this situation and help inform DOD on the
    requirements to fully fund NECC modernization and sustainment
    requirements, and that the Navy will adequately apply resources
    to those requirements in future budgets. In addition, the
    committee believes that any such review of NECC requirements
    should account for equipment shortfalls due to: (1)
    transferring equipment to local forces; (2) changing force
    structure requirements; (3) changing threat levels requiring
    equipment modifications or different equipment entirely; (4)
    losing equipment in combat; (5) operating beyond economic
    service life; and (6) operating in environments which result in
    excessive wear and tear.

    Joint cargo aircraft

        The budget request included $319.1 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), to purchase eight C-27J Joint
    Cargo Aircraft (JCA).
        Over the past several years, the Department of Defense
    (DOD) has produced a number of studies for Joint Cargo
    Aircraft, including an Analysis of Alternatives, which the Army
    conducted in 2005-2006. More recent studies produced by the
    RAND Corporation as late as 2009 suggest that the requirement
    for the JCA program would be 78 aircraft. Originally, both the
    Army and Air Force planned to buy JCA aircraft, with 54 and 24
    aircraft in the future-years defense program for the Army and
    Air Force, respectively.
        This year, DOD, the Army, and the Air Force are
    recommending that the Air Force assume sole responsibility for
    the JCA program and mission set. Against that backdrop, the
    committee heard testimony from DOD and Air Force officials on
    their commitment to replace the Army National Guard's C-23
    Sherpa aircraft. That testimony reflected the Army's need for
    less than a full load of cargo carrying capacity for the ``last
    tactical mile,'' where the C-27J may be able to operate more
    effectively and efficiently than other Army or Air Force
    aircraft.
        This year, both the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force testified that the correct number of C-27J aircraft
    is at least 38, and that the goal for the program as identified
    in the budget request for a program of 38 C-27s was a floor,
    not the ceiling.
        The committee understands that DOD intends to review the
    whole issue of intra-theater airlift in terms of relative
    balance between heavy-lift helicopters, C-27s, and C-130s in
    the pending Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee
    believes that any complete review of intra-theater airlift
    requirements and programs must give due consideration to the
    potential requirements for and contribution of these systems to
    the homeland security mission.
        The committee will continue to follow this program through
    the QDR process and provide oversight to ensure that: (1) the
    program's schedule is maintained during transition from Army to
    Air Force management; (2) the Air Force meets flight test and
    aircraft worthiness certification schedules; (3) that the
    Department meets all Operational Test and Evaluation objectives
    in 2010; and (4) the Air Force satisfies the Army's direct
    support airlift requirements.
        In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
    Force, in conjunction with the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau, to submit a report to the congressional defense
    committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act on the Air
    Force's plans for: (1) integrating these aircraft in the
    Department of the Air Force's force structure; (2) deploying
    these aircraft to support combatant commander requirements; and
    (3) permanent stationing for these aircraft.

    Reports to Congress on up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled
            vehicles and mine resistant ambush protected vehicle

        The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
    Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-
    13) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
    congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after
    enactment, and every 60 days thereafter until the termination
    of Operation Iraqi Freedom, setting forth the current
    requirements of the armed forces for Up-Armored High Mobility
    Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). The U.S. Troop
    Readiness, Veteran's Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
    Accountability Act (House Report 110-104) directed the military
    services to jointly report on the mine resistant ambush
    protected (MRAP) vehicle program's status, requirements, and
    execution of funds.
        While both of these reports provide helpful information to
    the congressional defense committees, the committee believes
    the picture remains incomplete. As such, the committee directs
    the military services to consolidate these two reports into one
    single report that details the following information for
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: (1) current requirements
    for up-armored HMMWVs, MRAPs, and MRAP all-terrain-vehicles;
    (2) status of theater equipment (i.e., quantities and vehicles
    readiness levels); and (3) execution of funds to support these
    programs.

    Unmanned aerial vehicle planning

        The Air Force is required to acquire and maintain enough
    Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), along with
    the processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) capacity,
    for 50 combat air patrols (CAP). The committee is aware that
    U.S. Strategic Command is conducting a force mix study that may
    well result in an increase in the required number of CAPs.
        The Air Force has produced a plan to achieve the 50-CAP
    requirement by September 2011. The UAV Task Force in the Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
    and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) is concerned that the Air Force plan
    is substantially underfunded, specifically in sustainment of
    the Predator portion of the planned fleet, the money for which
    was re-directed to Reaper procurement. While the Air Force
    states that it will fully fund the plan in the next budget
    cycle, the Task Force expects that budget pressures on the Air
    Force will make it very difficult for the Air Force to make
    good on this pledge.
        The Air Force plan also shows that there will be a shortage
    of the number of aircraft required to fully equip the number of
    CAPs the Air Force is pledged to provide between 2010 and 2013.
    The Air Force plan is to compensate for the shortage by
    maintaining a ``surge'' profile, whereby less than the four
    aircraft standard for a CAP will be operated at higher tempo.
    The reason for this ``flat spot'' in the aircraft inventory is
    that funds appropriated in fiscal year 2009 for production of
    18 Predators have not been obligated and the Air Force
    indicates that the funds will be reprogrammed for other
    activities.
        The committee regards this as unacceptable and will not be
    favorably inclined towards a future reprogramming request. The
    committee urges the Secretary of Defense to resolve the issues
    between the Air Force and USD (AT&L) promptly and proceed to
    procure the Predator aircraft approved by Congress.
        The committee directs the USD (AT&L) to report to the
    congressional intelligence and defense committees coincident
    with the submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget request on:
           The number of endurance UAV CAPs required by
    date through the Future Years Defense Program;
           The Department's plans, including funding, to
    achieve the required CAP levels;
           The mix of Predators and Reapers over time,
    including the mix of Predator 1Bs and 1Cs;
           The adequacy of data relay and PED resources to
    support the CAPs, including appropriately cleared analysts to
    support sensitive special operations; and
           How the Department intends to manage the
    relationship between the Air Force Global Hawk and the Navy
    Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance version of the RQ-4, in terms
    of interoperability and data relays.
        The report also should include an update on the
    Department's efforts to engage the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) on all aspects of integrating UAVs into
    the national airspace control system. The committee is
    discouraged that the FAA has yet to establish a UAV program
    office to work jointly with DOD on this critical challenge. The
    committee believes that an FAA program office with a separate
    funding line and adequate resources is essential for the FAA to
    meet its obligations in this area.
             TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

        Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

    Continued development of competitive propulsion system for the Joint
            Strike Fighter program (sec. 211)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department to obligate sufficient funds for fiscal year 2010
    for the continued development and procurement of the F136
    competitive propulsion system for the F-35 Lightning II to
    ensure that the Department continues the system development and
    demonstration (SDD) program during fiscal year 2010. The
    committee understands that current plans for the F136 Joint
    Strike Fighter (JSF) propulsion system would complete the
    development in sufficient time to conduct a first competitive
    contract award in fiscal year 2012, concurrent with the award
    for the sixth lot of low-rate initial production aircraft.
        The budget request included $1,741.3 million in PE 64800N,
    and $1,858.1 million in PE 64800F for continued development of
    the JSF program, but included no funds for continuing the SDD
    phase of the F136 program.
        The committee continues to believe that, in light of
    studies performed by the Department of Defense, the Institute
    for Defense Analyses, and the Government Accountability Office,
    it is in the best interests of the Nation to continue the
    development of the F136. Though the results of these studies
    were, in the aggregate, inconclusive on whether there would be
    a financial benefit to the Department in continuing to develop
    a competitive propulsion system for the JSF program, the
    committee notes that all studies identified significant non-
    financial factors of a two-engine competitive program. These
    included better engine performance; improved contractor
    responsiveness; a more robust industrial base; increased engine
    reliability; and improved operational readiness. The committee
    believes that the benefits, which could be derived from the
    non-financial factors, favor continuing the JSF competitive
    propulsion system program.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $438.9
    million for continuing F136 SDD, with half that amount added to
    PE 64800N and the other half added to PE 64800F.
    Enhancement of duties of Director of Department of Defense Test
            Resource Management Center with respect to the major range and
            test facility base (sec. 212)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    authority of the Director of the Department of Defense Test
    Resource Management Center to review changes to major test
    range funding before changes are implemented. The committee
    established the Test Resource Management Center in order to
    ensure that the Department is adequately investing in the test
    capabilities it requires to develop and deploy needed defense
    systems to meet current and emerging operational needs. The
    provision would allow the Director to review changes to test
    resource funding that occur outside the traditional planning,
    programming, and budgeting process, as well as to ensure that
    the Director has access to all the information he or she needs
    to make recommendations to the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on test resource issues.
    Guidance on specification of funding requested for operation,
            sustainment, modernization, and personnel of major ranges and
            test facilities (sec. 213)
        The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
    information required in budget justification materials
    delivered to Congress describing amounts requested for test and
    evaluation activities. The committee is concerned that existing
    justification materials provide incomplete and inconsistent
    information and are not comparable across services and
    agencies. The committee believes that the Army, Air Force, and
    the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) are each
    underfunding test and evaluation capabilities potentially to
    the long-term detriment of the Department of Defense and its
    ability to develop and field new systems. The committee
    believes that the Director of the Test Resource Management
    Center should play a key role in ensuring that the budget
    justification materials are prepared and displayed in a
    consistent manner across the Department to provide maximum
    transparency for Congress and the public.
    Permanent authority for the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology
            Panel (sec. 214)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the establishment of a Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology
    Panel (JDMTP) as a permanent part of the statutorily mandated
    Manufacturing Technology Program. The committee notes that the
    December 2008 Report to Congress on Implementation of
    Department of Defense ManTech Projects estimated that
    investments in the program made between fiscal years 2003 and
    2005 could result in over $6.3 billion in savings for the
    Department through lower production costs and increased systems
    reliability and performance. The committee believes that the
    activities of the existing JDMTP have contributed significantly
    to these types of successes for the program, as well as other
    important initiatives, such as the use of manufacturing
    readiness level assessment tools, investment in joint
    manufacturing research projects, and enhanced dissemination of
    manufacturing advances into the defense industrial base. The
    committee directs the services and the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense to continue to support the activities and
    initiatives of the JDMTP in order to continue to reduce life
    cycle and acquisition costs for defense systems.
    Extension and enhancement of Global Research Watch program (sec. 215)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    requirement for the Department to execute the Global Research
    Watch program. The program was established by the committee to
    provide a centralized repository of information on
    international research and technology capabilities in areas of
    interest to the Department for the purposes of enabling
    international cooperative activities and providing data and
    analyses to inform Department research investment decisions.
    The provision would also limit the funds available to military
    department programs that support international research
    assessment activities until the military departments provide
    information consistent with the statutory goals of the Global
    Research Watch program to the Director of Defense Research and
    Engineering.
        The committee notes that Department efforts to comply with
    the statutory requirement for the program have not been
    complete or successful to date. The committee further notes
    that the Department has requested funding for fiscal year 2010
    in the Militarily Critical Technologies Program for the purpose
    of improving and expanding ``the focus of the DSTL [Defense
    Science and Technology List] effort to represent a broader
    global research watch.''
    Three-year extension of authority for prizes for advanced technology
            achievements (sec. 216)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    Department of Defense's authority to award prizes for advanced
    technology achievements. The committee notes that the
    Department has successfully used this authority to hold
    challenge competitions for robotic vehicles and wearable power
    technologies. These competitions have encouraged large groups
    of researchers and innovators to work on defense challenges for
    the first time, highlighted the importance of defense research
    and technology to address warfighter needs, and advanced state-
    of-the-art critical defense technologies.
    Modification of report requirements regarding defense science and
            technology program (sec. 217)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    funding objective established by Congress for the defense
    science and technology program as well as the reporting
    requirements triggered when the Department fails to achieve
    established goals. The committee notes that the Department's
    rhetoric on modernizing defense capabilities to meet the
    emerging threats of the 21st century does not match its
    investment strategy for the programs that develop those
    capabilities. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2010
    budget request for science and technology programs has
    decreased by over $50.0 million in constant dollars with
    respect to the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
        The committee notes that reduced investments in science and
    technology programs will inevitably lead to a number of
    negative consequences. First, the Department will not be able
    to take advantage of new research ideas and innovative
    technologies that are being developed within the private
    sector, which may lead to enhanced defense capabilities.
    Second, the United States may lose the technical lead it enjoys
    in critical defense research areas such as advanced materials,
    nanotechnology, biotechnology, and cybersecurity to global
    competitors. Both of these outcomes would result in a long-term
    loss of military superiority for the United States. The
    committee's provision requires the Department to provide
    information to Congress that will help address both of these
    concerns and better evaluate future science and technology
    budget submissions.
    Programs for ground combat vehicle and self propelled howitzer
            capabilities for the Army (sec. 218)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to carry out programs to develop, test,
    and field an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and
    affordable next-generation ground combat vehicle and next-
    generation self-propelled howitzer for the Army. The Secretary
    of Defense is further required to develop a strategy and plan
    for each of these programs and to report annually on the
    investments made for each in the budget request.
        On April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates announced the
    restructuring of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and
    cancelled the manned ground vehicle (MGV) component of the
    program, including the non-line of sight cannon (NLOS-C).
    Secretary Gates was concerned that there were significant
    unanswered questions in the FCS vehicle design strategy and
    that despite some adjustments to the MGVs, they did not
    adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close
    quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates was
    also critical that the Army's vehicle modernization and
    equipping strategy did not include a role for Mine-Resistant
    Ambush-Protected vehicles that have been used successfully in
    current conflicts. After re-evaluating requirements,
    technology, and approach, the Army will re-launch its next-
    generation ground combat vehicle modernization program,
    including a competitive bidding process. Also, in his April 6th
    announcement, and again shortly after at a speech delivered to
    the Army War College, Secretary Gates emphasized his conviction
    that the Army needs a next-generation ground combat vehicle
    program and his commitment to support the Army's resource
    requirements to field this vehicle in 5 to 7 years.
        Secretary Gates' decisions were implemented on June 23,
    2009, by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics issuing an Acquisition Decision
    Memorandum to the Secretary of the Army directing the
    cancellation of the FCS Brigade Combat Team acquisition program
    and a stop-work order for the NLOS-C.
        The committee recognizes that the Army will need some time
    to react to these programmatic changes and reexamine its ground
    combat vehicle requirements. The committee is also aware that
    Army modernization priorities and programs are subject to
    further adjustment depending upon the analysis and
    recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review. The
    committee is concerned that Secretary Gates' pronouncement that
    the Army will have a new ground combat vehicle in 5 to 7 years
    and the Chief of Staff of the Army's target fielding for such a
    system by 2015 to 2017 may be introducing schedule pressure on
    the program before its requirements have been defined and
    technologically realistic and affordable alternatives
    considered.
        The committee has been a strong supporter of Army
    modernization over the years, including FCS and its MGV and
    NLOS-C components. However, the committee is concerned that
    instability in Army modernization strategy and plans
    contributes to management problems and avoidable cost,
    schedule, and technology risk. The Army's best chance to
    ultimately deliver a next-generation ground combat vehicle and
    a self-propelled howitzer depends on the creation of well
    planned, realistic, and affordable programs resourced and
    managed in a disciplined manner consistent with acquisition law
    and regulation.
        The recommended provision would direct the creation of two
    development programs, one each for a next-generation ground
    combat vehicle and a next-generation self-propelled howitzer to
    ensure the continuation of the Army's effort to meet its future
    requirements for these capabilities. To the extent practical,
    these new programs should take advantage of the range of
    relevant and mature technologies already developed as part of
    the full FCS program and its MGV and NLOS-C components.
        The recommended provision would also require appropriate
    acquisition strategies and plans to ensure that these programs
    comply with the requirements of the recently enacted Weapons
    Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-124).
    Additionally, the provision would require an annual report
    detailing the investments requested to develop these
    capabilities and ensure that the Defense Department is honoring
    its commitment that necessary resources will be available for
    the next-generation ground combat vehicle to provide program
    stability and reduce risk.
        Finally, the committee understands that continuing analysis
    and important initial decisions will be made in the coming
    months with regard to the next-generation ground combat vehicle
    program. Information from these analyses and decisions could be
    available for the committee's consideration before completing
    action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2010. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
    the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense
    committees not later than September 8, 2009, that updates the
    Army's strategy and plans for the next-generation ground combat
    vehicle program, including its requirements determination,
    analysis of alternatives, and any cost and schedule estimates.

    Assessment of technological maturity and integration risk of Army
            modernization programs (sec. 219)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Director of Defense Research and Engineering to review and
    assess the technological maturity and integration risk of the
    technologies critical to the development and deployment of
    systems and technologies related to the platforms, sensors, and
    networks of the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The committee
    understands that major restructuring of the FCS program was
    partially driven by concerns over the lack of technological
    maturity of important elements of this system of systems. The
    committee believes that a detailed technical review and
    analysis of FCS-related technologies and associated systems
    will provide important insight and data to inform the
    requirements, structure, baseline, and schedule for a successor
    modernization program, as well as to help prioritize the
    investment of resources.
        The committee notes that these types of reviews and
    assessments are consistent with the mandates established in the
    Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
    23).

    Assessment of strategy for technology for modernization of the combat
            vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle fleets (sec. 220)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent assessment
    of a strategy for technology development that could support the
    modernization of the defense combat vehicle and tactical
    wheeled vehicle fleet. The committee notes that these types of
    vehicles have played a critical role in the military operations
    of various nations in operations in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and
    Iraq, and have incorporated new technologies, such as armor and
    improvised explosive device jammers, as a result of lessons
    learned from those operations.
        In light of the major restructuring of the Future Combat
    Systems program; the termination of the Manned Ground Vehicle
    program; the initiation of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
    program; the fielding of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
    Vehicles; the desire to reduce energy costs to the Department
    of Defense; and the proliferation of threats such as improvised
    explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators, and rocket
    propelled grenades; the committee believes that it is an
    opportune time to reshape the Department's vehicle
    modernization research, development, and fielding strategies,
    so as to prioritize capability gaps that need to be addressed
    and investments that will support those efforts. The committee
    understands that some of these discussions are currently
    ongoing in the Department of Defense and believes that an
    independent technical assessment will contribute useful data
    and analysis to those deliberations.
        The committee directs that this assessment address all
    aspects of vehicle systems and the full range of operational
    missions for the Army, Marine Corps, and U.S. Special
    Operations Command.

    Systems engineering and prototyping program (sec. 221)

        The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
    systems engineering and prototyping program in the Department
    of Defense under the management of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
        The committee notes that the Weapons Acquisition Reform Act
    of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) has highlighted the need for a
    greater emphasis on systems engineering and prototyping as a
    means to improve the acquisition process. The recommended
    provision would support those efforts by establishing a program
    that will help build and train the government and industry
    workforce needed to perform those critical design and
    engineering tasks. Through the funding of innovative, rapid
    systems engineering and prototyping projects this initiative
    will encourage the exercising of the Nation's systems
    engineering technical workforce as well as the development of
    systems and technology that can address Department needs and
    requirements.
        The provision would require the Under Secretary to manage
    the program through the services and defense agencies and would
    require cost sharing between organizations to help maximize the
    probability of addressing joint problems, grow the base of
    experienced acquisition personnel, and promote the likelihood
    of transition into programs of record or deployment. The
    committee intends that programs funded under the programs be
    selected on a competitive basis. Elsewhere in this report, the
    committee recommends an authorization of funding to support the
    initiation of this program.
        Finally, the committee notes that this provision is not
    intended to change in any way the requirements of the recently
    enacted Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
    Law 111-23) regarding competitive prototyping.

                      Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs

    Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 241)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of Congress regarding ballistic missile defense, namely
    that the United States should develop, test, field, and
    maintain operationally effective, cost-effective, affordable,
    reliable, suitable, and survivable ballistic missile defense
    systems that are capable of defending the United States, its
    forward deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations
    from the threat of ballistic missile attacks from nations such
    as North Korea and Iran; that the missile defense force
    structure and inventory levels of such missile defense systems
    should be determined based on an assessment of ballistic
    missile threats and a determination by senior military leaders,
    combatant commanders, and defense officials of the requirements
    and capabilities needed to address those threats; and that the
    test and evaluation program for such missile defense systems
    should be rigorous, robust, operationally realistic, and
    capable of providing a high level of confidence in the
    capability of such systems, including their continuing
    effectiveness over the course of their service lives, and that
    adequate resources should be available for such test and
    evaluation program, including interceptor missiles and targets
    for flight tests.

    Comprehensive plan for test and evaluation of the ballistic missile
            defense system (sec. 242)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive plan for the
    developmental and operational testing and evaluation of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System and its various elements. The
    plan would include a number of specific elements related to
    objectives, procedures, data requirements, and related test
    activities. The provision would require the Secretary to submit
    an unclassified report to the congressional defense committees,
    not later than March 1, 2011, setting forth and describing the
    test plan and each of its elements. Additionally, the report
    would include a description of test and evaluation activities
    specifically related to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
    (GMD) element, including plans for salvo tests, multiple
    simultaneous target engagement testing, intercept testing using
    the Cobra Dane radar as the engagement sensor, and plans to
    test and demonstrate the ability of the GMD system to
    accomplish its mission over the planned term of its operational
    service life (sustainment testing).

    Assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of
            the Ballistic Missile Defense System (sec. 243)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review
    and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, to conduct an
    assessment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element
    of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, and future options for
    the GMD element. The assessment would consider such matters as:
    the military requirement for GMD capabilities; current and
    planned GMD capabilities; force structure and inventory levels;
    infrastructure; and the number of Ground-Based Interceptors
    needed for operational and testing purposes.
        The provision would also require the Secretary to establish
    a plan for the GMD element, covering such matters as the GMD
    program schedule, funding plan, maintaining the effectiveness
    of the GMD element over the course of its service life; flight
    testing; and production of Ground-Based Interceptors for
    operational and testing purposes.
        The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the
    congressional defense committees, at the time of the budget
    submission for fiscal year 2011, a report setting forth the
    results of the assessment and a report setting forth the plan
    required in the provision.
        The provision would also express the Sense of Congress
    concerning the GMD element.
        The committee is aware that, as part of its plan to field
    30 effective operational Ground-Based Interceptors, the Missile
    Defense Agency plans to complete seven silos at Missile Field 2
    at Fort Greely, Alaska, to replace the older silos at Missile
    Field 1. The committee notes that four of the seven silos at
    Missile Field 2 are nearly complete, and that it would be
    possible to complete all seven silos in fiscal year 2010 with
    additional funding. The committee understands there could be a
    cost savings benefit to such an acceleration. If the Department
    believes there is benefit to completing the seven silos in
    Missile Field 2 during fiscal year 2010, the committee would
    look favorably upon a reprogramming request from the Secretary
    of Defense to provide the funds to complete the seven silos in
    fiscal year 2010.

    Report on potential missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 244)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
    defense committees, not later than 120 days after enactment of
    this Act, setting forth potential options for cooperation among
    or between the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO), and the Russian Federation on ballistic
    missile defense. The report would include a description of
    proposals made by the United States, NATO, or the Russian
    Federation for such cooperation, as well as a description of
    data sharing options, assessments of the potential for certain
    types of cooperation, and an assessment of the potential
    security benefits of such cooperation.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

    Repeal of requirement for biennial Joint Warfighting Science and
            Technology Plan (sec. 251)

        The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
    the biennial Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan
    reporting requirement. The committee commends efforts to invest
    in research and technologies that will develop joint
    warfighting capabilities, but believes that Department
    resources can be better invested in higher priority research or
    management endeavors.

                                  Budget Items

                                      Army

    Army basic research

        The budget request included $377.3 million for Army basic
    research programs. The Army's basic research program makes
    investments in a number of thrust areas including materials
    science, mathematical and information sciences, network
    science, and environmental science. Consistent with those
    research thrusts, the committee recommends increases in PE
    61102A of an additional $3.5 million for ballistic protection
    materials research and an additional $2.0 million for research
    characterizing critical global natural environments in support
    of military operations worldwide. The committee also recommends
    increases in PE 61103A of $2.0 million for nanocomposte
    materials research; $2.0 million for research on open source
    intelligence analyses techniques; $2.0 million for research on
    advanced nanoscale memory devices and nanosensors; $1.0 million
    for electrolyte research for battery applications; $1.2 million
    for immersive simulation research; $2.0 million for materials
    processing research; and $1.5 million for structural response
    modeling and analysis.

    Minerva

        The budget request included $88.4 million in PE 61103A for
    Army university research initiatives. This account includes a
    total of $13.3 million for the Minerva Research Initiative, a
    portion of the roughly $20.0 million being requested for this
    purpose across the Department of Defense. The committee directs
    that at least $7.5 million of the amount requested in PE 61103A
    be used to develop in-house Department of Defense capabilities
    at defense laboratories and schools consistent with the
    research goals of the Minerva Initiative. Further, the
    committee directs that no Minerva Initiative funds may be
    transferred to the National Science Foundation unless that
    agency equally matches any Department of Defense funding
    provided for research projects funded under the Initiative.

    Materials technologies

        The budget request included $27.2 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 Energy Strategy recommended that the Department
    continue to invest in mobile, in-theater synthetic fuels
    processes which would address the Department's fuel problem by
    reducing battlespace fuel demand. Consistent with that
    recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $4.0
    million for the research on advanced biofuels.
        The Army's current Future Combat Systems 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; $3.0 million for research on high strength glass
    fibers for armor applications; $2.5 million for advanced
    moldable composite armor technology development; $2.0 million
    for advanced manufacturing technologies; and $4.5 million for
    smart materials and structures research.
        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 research on manufacturing of
    nanosensors for military applications.

    Sensor research

        The budget request included $50.6 million in PE 62120A for
    applied research on sensors and electronic survivability. The
    2007 Department of Defense Nanotechnology Research and
    Development Report recommended that sustained support of
    development of novel devices and systems was necessary to
    enhance Department of Defense capabilities in information
    technology, energy storage, and other areas. In support of that
    recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
    million for research on nanoelectronic memory, sensor, and
    energy devices.

    Manned-unmanned systems teaming

        The budget request included $41.3 million in PE 62211A for
    research on aviation technologies. The 2005 National Research
    Council report on ``Interfaces for Ground and Air Military
    Robots'' identified one of the goals of Army efforts in
    robotics is to support collaborative operations among manned
    and unmanned vehicles. In support of that goal, the committee
    recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of
    guidance, navigation, and control technologies for manned-
    unmanned systems teaming operations.

    Advanced concepts and simulation

        The budget request included $17.5 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 $55.9 million in PE 62601A and
    $89.6 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 $2.0 million in PE 63005A
    for systems that identify and warn vehicles of incoming
    threats, and $11.0 million in PE 62601A for research on
    advanced coatings, composite materials, and metals for vehicle
    armor and vehicle shelters.
        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 $2.0 million in PE 62601A for research on engine
    and transmission friction and wear, and an increase of $23.5
    million in PE 63005A for development of suspension systems,
    advanced power electronics, reliability assessment systems, and
    other engine subsystems.
        The committee also recommends an increase of $20.0 million
    in PE 62601A for vehicle systems engineering and an additional
    $4.0 million in PE 63005A for equipment to accurately measure
    vehicle engine performance. These additions are to support Army
    efforts to integrate advanced armors, networks, active
    protection systems, power and propulsion systems, and to
    enhance the government workforce's capabilities to replace the
    systems engineering efforts that have been traditionally
    performed by contractors.

    Army electromagnetic gun

        The budget request included $11.7 million in PE 63004A,
    $4.1 million in PE 62618A, and $6.4 million in PE 61104A for
    activities related to the Army's Electromagnetic (EM) Gun
    initiative. The committee believes that the technologies
    related to EM Gun size, weight, power, and thermal management
    require a platform much larger than the system currently or
    will prospectively provide in direct-fire capability to the
    Army, therefore calling into question the operational utility
    of the system as currently envisioned. The committee is also
    concerned that the Army, Navy, and the Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency collaborative program on EM gun
    technologies, as envisioned originally by Congress and the
    Department of Defense, has never materialized. Therefore, the
    committee reduces funding relating to the Army's EM Gun
    initiative by $11.5 million in PE 63004A and $2.0 million in PE
    62618A. The committee continues to authorize funding for
    activities on power and energy issues and basic research
    efforts to support development of future EM gun systems.

    Reactive armor technologies

        The budget request included $61.8 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.

    Acoustic sensors systems

        The budget request included $41.1 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, and an additional $3.0 million for research on
    innovative acoustic signal processing techniques to address
    high clutter environment battlefield sensing challenges.

    Army electronics research

        The budget request included $61.4 million in PE 62705A for
    research on electronics and electronic devices. The Army's non-
    primary power system technology objective seeks to provide
    electrical power solutions for ground vehicles during engine-
    off operations. In support of that goal, the committee
    recommends an increase of $2.5 million for hybrid battery
    systems that could be used during silent watch operations.
        The Army's dismounted soldier power technology objective
    seeks to develop and demonstrate technologies to provide small,
    lightweight, low-cost power sources. Consistent with that
    objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million
    for research on hybrid portable power systems.

    Military engineering technology

        The budget request included $54.8 million in PE 62784A for
    military engineering technologies. In support of efforts to
    develop lower cost, lightweight, blast resistant materials for
    use at forward operating bases and other military
    installations, the committee recommends an additional $3.0
    million for research on ballistic materials for force
    protection applications.
        The Army's 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.
        The Army has a stated objective to create prognostics and
    diagnostic systems for operational readiness and condition-
    based maintenance by developing technologies to detect health
    status and performance as well as environmental conditions and
    metrics that limit the lifetime of military assets. In support
    of this objective, the committee recommends an additional $3.5
    million for sensors and communication systems to monitor
    structural integrity of defense infrastructure.

    Ballistic protection systems

        The budget request included $27.1 million in PE 62787A for
    warfighter technologies. The Army is currently undertaking
    efforts to improve the ballistic protection capabilities of
    infrastructures at base camps in order to reduce vulnerability
    to mortars and improvised explosive devices. In support of
    those efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
    million for development of advanced composite ballistic panels.
        The Army's enhanced performance personnel armor technology
    objective seeks to develop materials technology and tools to
    address emerging ballistic and blast threats. In support of
    that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
    million for research on enhanced ballistic protection
    materials. 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.

    Medical technologies

        The budget request included $99.0 million in PE 62787A for
    applied research on medical technologies. In support of the
    Army's objective to develop fluid resuscitation technology to
    reduce injury and loss of life on the battlefield, the
    committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on
    advanced functional nanomaterials for biological processes such
    as drug and critical fluid delivery.
        To support development of combat casualty care
    capabilities, the committee recommends an additional $5.5
    million for research on hemorrhaging, advanced tissue
    replacement, and bone regeneration relevant to military trauma
    care; an additional $3.5 million for biomechanics research to
    evaluate the risk of brain injury from blast and blunt loading;
    $3.5 million for research on equipment designs to reduce
    neurotrauma in warfighters; and $5.0 million for research on
    explosion blast interactions with protective equipment and
    personnel. The committee also recommends an additional $2.5
    million for research on secondary trauma issues facing service
    personnel who are treating mental health problems, in
    coordination with existing Army and Department of Defense
    programs in this area.
        The committee notes that although the Department of Defense
    has significantly increased investments in medical research
    over previous budget requests, there is still limited
    investment in capabilities to prevent and treat infectious
    diseases. To enhance efforts in this area, the committee
    recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on
    treatments for dengue fever and $2.5 million for malaria
    vaccine research.

    Army advanced medical research and technologies

        The budget request included $72.9 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, and $2.5 million for body
    temperature conditioning technologies.
        The committee notes that the Army has established the Armed
    Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM). The
    committee notes that AFIRM is developing clinical therapies in
    areas including burn repair, wound healing, and limb
    reconstruction, regeneration, or transplantation. The committee
    recommends an additional $4.0 million to support the activities
    of the institute.
        The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency 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 $8.0 million to
    support transition of prosthetics technologies to clinical
    practice to improve amputee patient care.
        The committee further recommends an additional $7.5 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 aviation technologies

        The budget request included $60.1 million in PE 63003A for
    advanced aviation technologies. The Army's aviation science and
    technology program includes funding for the Advanced Affordable
    Turbine Engine (AATE) program. The goal of the AATE program is
    to develop the next generation utility and attack helicopter
    engine. In support of that goal, the committee recommends an
    additional $4.0 million for the AATE program, and $5.0 million
    for the development of full authority digital engine controls.
        In support of the Army's technology objective to develop
    technologies for small JP-8 fueled engines for small unmanned
    aerial vehicles (UAV), the committee recommends an additional
    $3.0 million for research on heavy fuel UAV propulsion systems.
        Consistent with committee efforts to enhance systems
    engineering and prototyping capabilities, the committee
    recommends an additional $2.0 million for aviation weapon
    systems integration technologies and $3.75 million for an
    enterprise resource planning system for Army prototype
    integration efforts.
        The Army is currently investing in a number of capability-
    based operations and sustainment technologies that improve the
    operational availability of rotorcraft while reducing operating
    and support costs. In support of these efforts, the committee
    recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of an
    inspection system for helicopter rotor blades and other
    composite components.

    Army weapons and munitions technology

        The budget request included $66.4 million in PE 63004A for
    advanced weapons and munitions technologies. The committee
    recommends an additional $3.0 million for efforts to reduce
    vehicle weight and improve fuel efficiency by developing low
    cost, lightweight, high strength metals such as castings,
    powder metal forgings, and titanium components. In support of
    Department of Defense efforts to increase manufacturing
    capabilities of advanced systems based on nanotechnology, the
    committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for
    nanotechnology manufacturing research.

    Alternative energy research

        The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
    begun to make significant efforts to improve energy efficiency
    of its installations, processes, platforms, and weapons
    systems. These investments have the promise of reducing
    Department costs, increasing defense capabilities, and reducing
    dependence on foreign sources of energy.
        In order to support these efforts and expand Department
    investments in next generation energy technologies, promote
    technology demonstration and prototyping of advance energy
    technology systems, and to enhance the Department's role as an
    aggressive early adopter of novel energy technologies, the
    committee recommends a set of increases for competitively
    awarded energy research projects. The committee recommends an
    increase of $20.0 million in PE 63005A, $20.0 million in PE
    62123N, $20.0 million in PE 63216F, and $20.0 million in PE
    63712S for alternative energy research efforts.

    Robotic systems

        The budget request included $89.6 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 $24.5 million
    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
    63711D8Z for robotics operations training efforts. Finally, the
    committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62624A
    to continue the testing and development of weaponized unmanned
    ground vehicle platforms.

    Tire development for joint light tactical vehicle program

        The budget request includes $181.6 million for combat
    vehicle and automotive advanced technology development. The
    committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to continue
    development efforts for lighter, more agile tires. This project
    will also sustain a critical manufacturing capability in the
    defense industrial base, thereby providing the Department with
    competitive alternatives for critical components in price and
    supply.

    Vehicle energy and power programs

        The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A and
    $55.9 million in PE 62601A for combat vehicle research and
    development. The committee has been 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 enhance the
    operational capability of warfighters. To support the
    development of advanced battery technologies for vehicle
    systems, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million
    for battery research and demonstrations.
        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
    $30.6 million for hybrid engines and components.
        In support of the development of advanced auxiliary power
    units (APU) to meet growing vehicle and equipment power
    requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
    million for the development of advanced APU systems.

    Water analysis technologies

        The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A for
    combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The committee notes
    that water represents a significant part of the sustainment
    requirement for deployed operations. The committee recommends
    an increase of $2.0 million for the development of water
    analysis systems to improve water quality monitoring for
    deployed forces.

    Training and simulation systems

        The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 63015A for
    next generation training and simulation systems. To enhance
    training for battlefield lifesaving skills, the committee
    recommends an additional $2.5 million for combat medic training
    systems. The committee notes that the Army's Institute for
    Creative Technologies has developed a number of computer
    simulations that are being transitioned into Army training
    systems. To support these types of efforts, the committee
    recommends an additional $4.5 million for joint fires and
    effects trainer system enhancements.

    Mid-size unmanned ground vehicles

        The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63125A for
    technologies to combat terrorism. The Army has an established
    technology objective to develop near autonomous unmanned
    systems for a variety of combat missions. In support of this
    effort, and to encourage systems engineering and prototyping
    activities, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5
    million for development of mid-size unmanned ground vehicles
    for counterterrorism missions.

    Aircraft survivability systems

        The budget request included $19.2 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 $2.0 million for development
    of laser technologies to improve aircraft survivability against
    missile threats.

    Advanced imaging technologies

        The budget request included $64.0 million in PE 63313A 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 $3.0 million
    for imaging and networking research to enable rapid and precise
    target discrimination and identification.

    Bradley third generation forward looking infrared

        The budget request included $40.3 million in PE 63710A for
    night vision advanced technology, but provided no funds for
    third generation infrared technology. The committee recommends
    an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63710A for Bradley infantry
    fighting vehicle third generation forward looking infrared
    technology development.

    Military engineering systems

        The budget request included $5.9 million in PE 63734A for
    advanced military engineering technologies. The committee
    recommends an additional $500,000 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 for development of solar cell
    technologies for use at military installations.

    Counter-mortar radar systems

        The budget request included $41.2 million in PE 63772A for
    advanced tactical computer science and sensor technologies. The
    National Research Council's 2008 study on ``Directed Energy
    Technology for Countering Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars
    (CRAM)'' highlights the potential need for the development of
    radar systems that can perform precise tracking of targets in
    all-weather conditions. In support of that need, the committee
    recommends an increase of $4.0 million for research on advanced
    CRAM radar systems.

    Advanced environmental controls

        The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for
    Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
    advanced environmental control systems. The committee
    recommends an increase of $5.0 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 electronics integration

        The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for
    Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
    advanced electronics integration. The committee recommends an
    increase of $4.0 million in PE 63305A for advanced electronics
    integration to improve state-of-the-art weapon system
    electronics, with the goal of reducing the size, weight, and
    cost of electronic components, while also reducing hazardous
    materials used in such advanced electronics. This effort
    supports Army objectives for research, prototyping, testing,
    and production technologies that have potential to produce more
    efficient, high performance, less hazardous, and lower cost
    electronics.

    Adaptive robotic technology

        The budget request included $14.7 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 $3.5 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.

    Joint future theater lift

        The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63801A for
    Aviation Advanced Development, but no funds to sustain the
    technology base and risk reduction activities for advanced
    tiltrotor platforms, particularly for the joint future theater
    lift (JFTL) mission. In addition, the Joint Advanced Concepts
    Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), which has
    purview over all Department of Defense (DOD) vertical take-off
    and landing (VTOL) technology, has insufficient resources to
    conduct analyses, planning, and oversight. The committee is
    concerned that the Department of Defense is on the verge of
    losing an opportunity to exploit technology that could enable
    fundamentally new ground force operational concepts, and
    provide major energy efficiencies, a baseline for future VTOL
    aircraft, and major benefits to commercial aviation.
        The Army, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA), U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with private sector
    investments, have methodically matured technology for high-
    performance tiltrotor aircraft. In parallel, the Army, the Army
    Science Board, and the Defense Science Board, have examined the
    potential operational benefits and concepts of operation that
    advanced tiltrotor platforms could enable. The results of these
    activities indicate that a credible option exists to make large
    gains in effectiveness that the committee believes the
    Department must seriously address.
        These efforts have been building towards a decision point
    that DOD must, in any event, soon face: a long-term replacement
    for the C-130 theater lift capability. The 2008 Air Mobility
    Master Plan stated that planned initial operational capability
    for a C-130 replacement is 2021, and, to support that date,
    that a prototype would need to be flying by 2015. As far as the
    committee knows, the Department has budgeted no funds for
    accomplishing this objective.
        The Army and the Air Force are currently deadlocked over
    requirements for the JFTL platform. The Army is proposing
    requirements that only a high-performance VTOL/short take-off
    and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft could meet; the Air Force
    is insisting on requirements that favor a fixed-wing jet. The
    committee notes that the Air Force touts that the C-17 is
    designed for the strategic delivery of troops and cargo
    directly to forward bases in the deployment area, operating
    through small, austere airfields. Extrapolating from this, the
    committee would expect the Air Force to embrace the direct
    delivery goal on the operational and tactical level.
        The Army wants a VTOL/STOVL transport with strategic range
    that could (1) carry all the Army's ground vehicles except the
    M-1 tank; (2) support mounted vertical maneuver, including from
    sea basing; and (3) routinely deliver supplies and equipment
    directly to the point of need, instead of first to airfields
    and then via helicopter to forward locations. These missions
    could be conducted only with a heavy-lift VTOL/STOVL. Because
    of the ability to deliver cargo directly to the point of need,
    and the anticipated far greater efficiency of a tiltrotor as
    compared to helicopter transport, the Army projects that a
    tiltrotor JFTL would be far more efficient than a fixed-wing
    replacement for the C-130, providing major fuel savings, in
    addition to supporting revolutionary operational concepts.
        Proponents of advanced tiltrotor concepts in the Army, the
    Army Science Board, and the Defense Science Board argue also
    that it could serve as a flexible tanker able to operate from
    forward locations near the point of need, rather than from
    distant airbases, including picking up fuel at sea. Proponents
    foresee that a large tiltrotor would also have major benefits
    for commercial aviation in relieving congestion at airports.
    Scaled down in size, proponents believe that advanced tiltrotor
    platforms would provide tremendous gains in performance and
    efficiency over current helicopters, and could become the basis
    in the future for higher-performing unmanned aerial vehicles.
        The committee is aware that, for a number of years, the
    Army Science Board has recommended that the best way to resolve
    or prove whether these capabilities are realistic is to conduct
    a competitive prototyping effort. The Defense Science Board in
    2008 (Report on DOD Energy Strategy) made a similar, strongly
    worded recommendation.
        The cost of such a prototyping effort would be substantial
    if it were conducted in the normal manner. Moreover, a plan to
    wait to conduct a competitive prototyping effort as part of an
    acquisition program would take years to begin, and presupposes
    that the current requirements dispute is resolved and that
    there is confidence in the cost and performance estimates of an
    advanced tiltrotor. This scenario seems unlikely, but possible,
    provided funds are forthcoming to sustain the industrial base
    in the interim.
        An alternative would be to initiate now a competitive
    prototype of an advanced tiltrotor independent of a program of
    record and a formally approved requirement in the most
    streamlined manner possible. This is the approach used
    successfully to prototype the aircraft that became the F-16 and
    F-18 fighters, which was relatively inexpensive.
        The committee is aware that DARPA offered to fund half the
    cost of this type of prototyping effort if a suitable partner
    would step forward. In addition to the Army and Marine Corps,
    potential participants include SOCOM and the Central
    Intelligence Agency, which could value, for a variety of
    sensitive missions, an efficient, large, and long-range
    aircraft that requires no runway.
        The committee directs that the USD (AT&L), in consultation
    with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, report to
    the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2009, on:
              1. Plans to sustain the tiltrotor risk reduction
            activities for a JFTL;
              2. How the Department intends to determine whether
            the revolutionary benefits of a heavy lift tiltrotor
            can be realized so that the Department may make an
            informed decision on the C-130 replacement program; and
              3. The merits of initiating a low-cost, highly
            streamlined competitive prototyping effort immediately,
            at an appropriate scale to cover all potential mission
            applications, to determine whether cost and performance
            goals can be met, to help define requirements, and to
            sustain the industrial base.
        The committee also recommends authorization of $58.5
    million for Aviation Advanced Development, an increase of $50.0
    million above the request, to sustain the tiltrotor industrial
    base through risk reduction activities. The committee
    recommends authorization of $3.0 million in PE 63200D8Z, Joint
    Advanced Concepts Office, for planning and oversight of VTOL
    programs and activities across the Department.
        Finally, the committee urges the Vice Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs, as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight
    Council, to ask the combatant commanders (COCOM) to provide
    detailed views on the requirements for JFTL. The committee
    notes that section 105 of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform
    Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requires input from the COCOMs.

    Logistics and engineer equipment-advanced development

        The budget request includes $32.1 million in PE 63804A for
    the ongoing development of the joint light tactical vehicle
    (JLTV). The committee continues to support the Army and Marine
    Corps development of a next-generation family of light tactical
    vehicles. However, the committee understands that the Army and
    Marine Corps lack a long-term tactical wheeled vehicle
    strategy. Additionally, the committee is concerned about the
    uncertainty in the services' plan to incorporate the sizable
    fleet of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAP) and
    the MRAP all-terrain-vehicle (M-ATV), which is still in
    development. Further, the committee believes that lessons
    learned from the eventual deployment of the M-ATV in
    Afghanistan will ultimately benefit the JLTV program and that
    JLTV should be more appropriately phased to incorporate these
    lessons.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
    million in funding for the JLTV program. This decrease is in
    addition to the committee's $12.0 million reduction in the
    Marine Corps' funding request for the JLTV program.

    Next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology

        The budget request included $74.8 million in PE 64601A for
    infantry support weapons. The committee notes that the Army is
    accelerating research and development of materials to increase
    personal protective equipment while reducing its weight. The
    committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 64601A
    for next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology.

    Type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun

        The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64601A for
    the development of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun. The
    committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64601A
    to complete the type classification of the lightweight .50
    caliber machine gun.

    Future combat system non-line of sight cannon

        The budget request included $58.2 million in PE 64647A for
    the contract termination liability associated with the
    cancellation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) non-line of
    sight cannon (NLOS-C).
        The Department of Defense has directed the cancellation of
    the FCS Brigade Combat Team acquisition program and issued a
    stop-work order with respect to the NLOS-C pending resolution
    of statutory requirements for system fielding. The committee
    understands that as of June 2, 2009, $215.9 million in fiscal
    year 2009 research and development, procurement, and advanced
    procurement funds for FCS NLOS-C has not been executed. Final
    termination liability will not be negotiated until the program
    is formally cancelled; however, unexecuted funds currently
    available in the program appear adequate to cover the potential
    cost. Therefore, the funds requested for fiscal year 2010 are
    unjustified.
        The committee notes that the Army has been attempting to
    modernize its armored self-propelled howitzer fleet for several
    years. The cancellation of the NLOS-C, following cancellation
    of the Crusader program in 2002, means that the current self-
    propelled howitzer system, the M109A6 Paladin, may remain the
    workhorse of the Army's armored artillery for several more
    years.
        In 2008, the Army started the Paladin Integration
    Management (PIM) program to modernize and upgrade the M109A6
    Paladin. The PIM program is part of the Army's overall heavy
    force management strategy to ensure the sustainability of
    current armored weapon systems capabilities. Planned Paladin
    upgrades to improve power train, suspension, power management,
    and electronic subsystems will support the modernization of
    fire control, navigation, communications, and gun drive
    systems. All these improvements will increase the Paladin's
    performance and reliability, reduce life cycle costs, and
    address electronic obsolescence issues to meet the Army's needs
    to 2050.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $58.2
    million in PE 64660A and an increase of $58.2 million in PE
    64854A to complete testing, continue cost reduction efforts,
    and accelerate low rate initial production of the PIM program.
        The committee further notes that the most mature prototype
    FCS NLOC-C technologies were those mission module components
    that were in some cases carried forward from the cancelled
    Crusader program. These weapons system technologies applied to
    M109A6 Paladin could have the potential to significantly
    improve the accuracy, reliability, and responsiveness of
    indirect fire support. The committee acknowledges that the
    Paladin PIM program provides critical capability updates for
    the M109A6 Paladin for today's heavy force. At the same time,
    the committee notes the need for a networked next-generation
    self-propelled howitzer program that keeps pace with other Army
    weapons modernization programs.
        The committee therefore directs that the Army conduct an
    analysis of the technical feasibility, suitability, and
    affordability of upgrading the M109A6 Paladin with NLOS-C
    mission module components, such as fire control, munitions
    handling, and crew station capabilities. The Army shall provide
    the congressional defense committees with a report on the
    results of this analysis not later than September 30, 2009. The
    report required is not intended to delay the current PIM
    development or production schedule.

    Future combat system manned ground vehicles and common ground vehicle

        The budget request included $368.6 million in PE 64660A for
    the contract termination liability associated with the
    cancellation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground
    vehicle (MGV).
        The Department of Defense has directed the cancellation of
    the FCS Brigade Combat Team program and initiation of a new
    Army ground vehicle program. After re-evaluating requirements,
    technology, and approach, the Department of Defense will re-
    launch the Army's combat vehicle modernization program,
    including a competitive process.
        The committee understands that as of June 2, 2009, $612.7
    million in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 funds for FCS MGV has not
    been executed. Final termination liability has not been
    negotiated; however, unexecuted funds currently available in
    the program appear adequate to cover the potential cost.
    Therefore, the funds requested for fiscal year 2010 are
    unjustified.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $323.6
    million in PE 64660A.
        The committee agrees with the Secretary of Defense's
    assessment that the Army does need a next-generation ground
    combat vehicle modernization program and believes that the
    funds requested are better invested in related armored and
    tactical vehicle research and development activities. The
    committee recommends increases as follows for research and
    development activities to support Army ground vehicle
    modernization:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    PE 62601A Army vehicle modernization research..................... $25.0
    PE 62618A Army vehicle survivability research..................... $25.0
    PE 63005A Army vehicle modernization technologies................. $50.0
    PE 63653A Advanced tank armament systems.......................... $50.0
    PE 64604A Medium tactical vehicle development..................... $10.0
    PE 64622A Heavy tactical vehicle development...................... $10.0
    PE 78045A Combat vehicle manufacturing technology................. $30.0

        Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
    increases for additional high priority Army vehicle research
    and development projects.
        The committee further recommends that all of the $45.0
    million remaining in PE 64660A shall be available only for the
    research and development of active protection systems for
    light, medium, and heavy vehicles against the full range of
    threats, including rocket-propelled grenades, antitank guided
    missiles, kinetic energy rounds, and other threats. The
    committee believes that these funds should be used to leverage
    ongoing live fire testing activities previously mandated by
    Congress, to develop common active protection system (APS)
    components that can be used for a variety of vehicle types, and
    also to address specific APS vehicle integration issues.

    Urban training development

        The budget request included $30.2 million in PE 64715A for
    engineering development of non-system training devices. The
    committee recognizes the importance of developing up to date
    concepts and systems for training joint military operations in
    complex urban terrain that will increase unit effectiveness at
    reduced training costs. The committee recommends an increase of
    $3.0 million in PE 64715A for research projects leading to the
    development of concepts and systems for joint military training
    in urban terrain and cultural environments.

    Common guidance control module

        The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 64802A for
    development of precision guidance systems for artillery and
    mortar munitions. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5
    million in PE 64802A to accelerate the development of a common
    guidance control module adapted to the precision guidance kit
    for 105mm howitzer munitions.

    Army test and evaluation programs

        The budget request included $51.8 million in PE 64759A for
    major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that
    this account funds 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 Director of the Test Resource
    Management Center has not certified the Army's fiscal year 2010
    test budget after analyses indicated there was insufficient
    funding in this account to support the projected workload. The
    insufficient request in the fiscal year 2010 budget seems to
    indicate to the committee that the Army is willing to take
    risks with the effectiveness of both Army and other joint
    systems by providing inadequate testing resources. Risking
    inadequate testing resources can quickly lead to unknowable
    consequences for the cost and effectiveness of deployed systems
    as well as for the warfighters who depend on those systems. The
    committee directs the Secretary of the Army to work more
    closely with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics to ensure that future Army
    investments in test resources is sufficient to meet the
    projected workload requirements of the users of Army test
    facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $25.6
    million in PE 65601A to correct the Army's underfunding of this
    account.
        The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 65605A for
    the Department of Defense High Energy Laser Test Facility
    (HELSTF). The committee notes that in 2009, the Army will
    complete a significant upgrade of the facility by adding a
    solid-state laser source from the Joint High Power Solid State
    Laser program. Following these upgrades, the Army plans 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 $6.0
    million for HELSTF.
        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 development of
    these capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of
    $7.0 million for data fusion and 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 $3.0 million for tools for frequency management, airspace
    deconfliction, and real-time monitoring of ranges.

    3D woven preform technology for Army munitions

        The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 65805A for
    munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety, but
    provided no funds for 3D woven preform technology. The
    committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 65805A
    for 3D woven preform technology for Army munitions
    applications.

    Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System

        The budget request included $360.1 million in PE 12419A for
    continued development of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile
    Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS). The committee
    notes that the JLENS program schedule has slipped by 1 year
    since last year. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
    reduction of $20.0 million in PE 12419A for the JLENS program.

    TOW missile improvements

        The budget request included no funds in PE 23802A for other
    missile product improvements. The committee recommends an
    increase of $5.0 million in PE 23802A for TOW missile
    improvements to demonstrate a new propulsion system that will
    be insensitive-munitions compliant, reduces time of flight, and
    extends the missile's maximum effective range beyond 5,000
    meters.

    Joint tactical ground station

        The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 28053A for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the Joint
    Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS), and $6.7 million in Other
    Procurement, Army, line 70. The committee concludes that this
    program is an unnecessary expense since the Air Force provides
    the same missile warning data through the same principal data
    dissemination means--the Global Broadcast System. The Air Force
    also maintains survivable direct downlink and processing
    capabilities for assured injection into the broadcast. The
    committee recommends no funding in these accounts for JTAGS.

    Collection management tools development

        The budget request included $2.1 million in PE 33028A for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Security and
    Intelligence Activities, but no funds to sustain the program to
    develop and improve automated tools for tasking the all-source
    intelligence collection process on foreign missile threats,
    from the identification of collection requirements through
    optimization of collection system deployment. The committee
    recommends an authorization of $5.0 million above the requested
    amount for this activity.

    A160 hummingbird

        The budget request included $202.5 million for Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, in PE 35204A for Army
    Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), but no funds for the
    A160 Hummingbird. The A160 was developed by the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and has completed
    successful demonstrations. The A160 can carry a larger payload
    than the Predator with the same endurance and range, but, as a
    helicopter, is not dependent on any sort of prepared runway
    surface. The optimal speed rotor on the A160 makes it quiet and
    fuel efficient. There is every reason to believe that the A160,
    when matured through the accumulation of flight time, will be
    an excellent platform with huge potential across multiple
    mission areas.
        DARPA developed the A160 along with the Foliage Penetration
    Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar
    (FORESTER). This radar has a demonstrated capability to detect
    and track people walking beneath forest canopy at substantial
    range, but only when operated from a motionless platform like
    the A160. DARPA's objective was to produce a system that could
    support special forces and conventional forces in conducting
    surveillance in the forest and jungle, such as in U.S. Southern
    Command (SOUTHCOM).
        Congress and DARPA have already funded the production of a
    significant number of A160 airframes, in various
    configurations, most of which are owned by U.S. Special
    Operations Command (SOCOM). SOCOM has budgeted significant
    funds for an upcoming 4-month duration operational deployment
    to SOUTHCOM. However, SOCOM lacks the resources to sustain the
    factory and workforce that build the A160. Without additional
    funding by the start of fiscal year 2010, the factory will shut
    down, which could, practically speaking, mean the end of the
    program before users can determine fully its value. This
    situation is a reflection of DARPA's recurring problem in
    transitioning even its most successful technology developments.
        The committee is dismayed at the prospect of the A160
    program dying. It is very hard to conceive that the Department
    of Defense (DOD) would have no use for an endurance vertical
    take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV that requires no airfield and
    carries a large payload. Fortunately, the Army and the
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force
    have begun to take notice of this platform and recognize its
    potential. The Army G2 has indicated to the committee that the
    Army wants to deploy four A160 aircraft to Afghanistan, to be
    flown with the FORESTER or another radar that is also designed
    to detect humans walking, only in the open rather than under
    foliage. This radar, called the vehicle and dismount
    exploitation radar (VADER), also was developed by DARPA and the
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization.
        VADER does not have to be operated on a motionless platform
    to detect the movement of dismounted people, but platform speed
    affects performance. Above a certain platform speed, VADER
    cannot discriminate small target velocities from platform
    motion-induced clutter. The committee understands that the ISR
    Task Force intends to deploy VADER to Afghanistan as soon as
    possible. The VADER radar is too large for the Predator-1B and
    even the Predator-1C UAVs. The Task Force reluctantly decided
    to deploy on the Reaper UAV, and reportedly will seek funding
    in a reprogramming request.
        However, the Reaper minimum airspeed is at the limit of
    where VADER is calculated to be able to detect dismounts, and
    is therefore a poor candidate for an initial deployment, at
    least until more sophisticated versions of VADER are available.
    The A160, in contrast, would be an excellent match for VADER,
    as it is for FORESTER. The committee therefore urges DOD to
    alter any planned reprogramming request to direct funds to an
    A160 deployment, as outlined here.
        To support a sustained A160 deployment to Afghanistan, DOD
    would need to standardize existing SOCOM airframes, and
    manufacture new ones. These activities would sustain the
    factory and workforce through the end of fiscal year 2010 and,
    significantly, through the deployment to SOUTHCOM and part of
    the deployment to Afghanistan. The expectation is that, by that
    time, the A160 will have accumulated enough flight time to
    determine its vitality and utility. At that point, DOD could
    make a fully informed decision on transitioning the A160 to a
    program of record.
        The committee recommends $288.5 million, $86.0 million
    above the request, to support the sustained deployment of the
    A160 to Afghanistan with the FORESTER and VADER systems,
    including the production of five additional aircraft.

    Army manufacturing technologies

        The budget request included $68.5 million in PE 78045A for
    manufacturing technologies. Among the Army's manufacturing
    technology program goals are the development of advanced
    manufacturing processes, enhancing quality while reducing cost,
    and transferring improved manufacturing technologies to the
    industrial base. In support of those goals, the committee
    recommends increases of $2.0 million for the development of
    software-based intelligent manufacturing techniques to reduce
    costs of systems production; $2.75 million for manufacturing
    metrology research; and $2.5 million for repair technology
    development for aging and battle-damaged equipment.

                                      Navy

    Navy basic research

        The budget request included $531.3 million for Navy basic
    research activities. 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 $2.0 million in PE 61153N for blast
    and impact resistant structures, and an increase of $2.0
    million for research on nanoscale materials.
        In support of efforts to train the next generation of
    defense scientists and engineers, the committee recommends an
    increase of $1.0 million in PE 61152N for education outreach
    programs.

    Energetics research

        The budget request included $59.8 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.

    Navy force protection research

        The budget request included $91.4 million in PE 62123N for
    applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy's
    power, 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 to a range of
    naval systems. To support this goal, the committee recommends
    increases of: $4.0 million for research on integrated power
    systems for future platforms that have all-electric propulsion
    and weapon loads and $2.5 million for research on
    reconfigurable shipboard power systems to increase system
    reliability and survivability.
        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 $3.5 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 continued
    design and development of composite high-speed boats.

    Warfighter sustainment technologies

        The budget request included $104.2 million in PE 62236N for
    applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies.
        In support of continuing Navy and Department of Defense
    initiatives to reduce corrosion cost, the committee recommends
    an additional $4.0 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 $3.0 million in PE 65790D8Z for research
    on anti-tamper software.

    Advanced antenna technologies

        The budget request included $64.8 million in PE 62271N for
    applied research on electromagnetic systems. The Navy is
    seeking to reduce the number and size of antennae needed on
    ships but still maintain all necessary radar, communication,
    target tracking, and imaging capabilities. To support these
    efforts, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million
    for advanced digital radar systems.

    Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research

        The budget request included $48.8 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 the performance of sea platforms to
    meet operational requirements. In support of this goal, the
    committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for advanced
    unmanned undersea vehicle research.
        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 $2.0 million for research on extended range
    underwater imaging sensors and optical communications networks.

    Undersea warfare systems

        The budget request included $55.7 million in PE 62747N for
    applied research on undersea warfare technologies. The
    committee notes that undersea unmanned gliders are being
    developed for use in intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare missions. In support
    of those efforts, and to promote systems engineering and
    prototyping activities, the committee recommends an increase of
    $3.0 million for littoral glider development.

    Low observable platforms

        The budget request included $40.9 million in PE 62782N for
    applied research on mine and expeditionary warfare
    capabilities. To support Navy science and ethnology objectives
    to develop multi-spectral low observable technologies to
    improve platform stealth, the committee recommends an
    additional $2.0 million for the development of electromagnetic
    signature assessment systems, and an increase of $750,000 in PE
    62747N for quiet, compact power systems for naval platforms.

    Mobile intelligence and tracking systems

        The budget request included $108.0 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 $4.0 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.

    Force protection advanced technology

        The budget request included $66.0 million in PE 63123N for
    force protection advanced technology. This program addresses
    applied research associated with providing force protection
    capability for all naval platforms.
        The budget request included no funding to develop advanced
    coating process technologies for naval aviation platforms and
    components. The committee believes that advancements in
    technologies, such as thermal/plasma spraying and physical/
    chemical vapor deposition would be suitable for naval aviation
    components. For example, these spray and vapor deposition
    technologies have the potential to produce thermal barrier
    coatings using conventional ceramics/metals or even novel nano-
    materials that produce the same or better properties than
    currently available exotic materials, while achieving
    substantial savings. The committee recommends an increase of
    $3.0 million for developing and testing the advanced coating
    process technologies in manufacturing and remanufacturing naval
    aviation components.
        The budget request 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.
        The committee recommends a total authorization of $74.0
    million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology.

    High-integrity global positioning system

        The budget request included $59.1 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.

    Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations

        The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 63640M for
    Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The most
    recent Marine Corps Science and Technology Strategic Plan
    identifies science and technology objectives related to
    development of high information content tactical sensors and
    urban-specific situational awareness capabilities. In support
    of those objectives, the committee recommends an increase of
    $7.5 million for the development of acoustic sensors systems
    for ground warfare missions.
        The Marine Corps Science and Technology Strategic Plan has
    a specific technology objective of developing advanced robotics
    systems for ground combat. In support of that objective, the
    committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the
    development of unmanned ground vehicle systems.

    Semi-submersible unmanned undersea vehicle

        The budget request included $116.1 million in PE 63207N for
    air/ocean tactical applications. This program identifies new
    state-of-the art government and commercial technologies,
    transitions, demonstrates, and integrates them into Navy combat
    systems that determine the operational effects of the physical
    environment on the performance of combat forces and their new
    and emerging platforms, sensors, systems, and munitions.
        The budget request included no funding to develop a
    semisubmersible unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) that could be
    used to evaluate new sensor technologies and reduce risk of
    employing them in regular Navy applications.
        The committee understands that at least one such vehicle
    has been designed and completed development, and with modest
    additional funding, could complete launch and recovery
    validations and demonstrate UUV performance.
        The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million in PE
    63207N for these purposes.

    Sonobuoy wave energy module

        The budget request included $16.6 million in PE 63254N for
    anti-submarine warfare systems development, but included no
    funding for developing technology that would extend the in-
    water life of sonobuoys. One such technology would rely on wave
    energy to recharge batteries of operating sonobuoys. The
    committee understands that this technology could also yield the
    benefit of replacing existing batteries with lighter, and more
    environmentally friendly power sources.
        The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
    63254N for maturing this wave energy application for sonobuoys.

    Shipboard system component development

        The budget request included $1.7 million in PE 63513N for
    shipboard system component development, but included no funding
    for developing a hybrid propulsion system for the DDG-51 Aegis
    destroyer.
        The committee believes that such a system installed on a
    DDG-51 would pay back the investment very quickly, as it would
    save potentially thousands of barrels of fuel per ship per
    year. The committee recommends an increase of $9.3 million to
    design, build and test a hybrid electric drive system for DDG-
    51 destroyers.
        The committee recommends a total authorization of $11.0
    million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component
    development.

    Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project

        The budget request included $22.5 million in PE 63563N for
    ship concept advanced design activities, 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 $5.8
    million in PE 63563N for developing and fielding this
    capability.

    Marine Corps ground combat/support systems

        The budget request includes $58.0 million in PE 63635N for
    the ongoing development of the joint light tactical vehicle
    (JLTV). The committee continues to support the Army and Marine
    Corps development of a next generation family of light tactical
    vehicles. However, the committee understands that the Army and
    Marine Corps lack a long-term tactical wheeled vehicle
    strategy. Additionally, the committee is concerned about the
    uncertainty in the services' plan to incorporate the sizable
    fleet of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAP) and
    the MRAP all-terrain-vehicle (M-ATV), which is still in
    development. Further, the committee believes that lessons
    learned from the eventual deployment of the M-ATV in
    Afghanistan will ultimately benefit the JLTV program and that
    JLTV should be more appropriately phased to incorporate these
    lessons.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.0
    million in funding for the JLTV program. This decrease is in
    addition to the committee's $10.0 million reduction in the
    Army's funding request for the JLTV program.

    Model-based management decision tools for ground vehicles

        The budget request included $73.8 million in PE 63635M for
    Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, of Marine Corps
    Ground Combat and Support Systems, but no funds for model-based
    management decision tools for ground vehicles.
        The development of modern ground combat vehicles is more
    difficult due to the growing complexity of vehicle armor,
    suspension, electronics, and weapons. This complexity increases
    development time and expense, including the time to test
    components and subsystems. Computer simulation technology,
    however, is now robust enough to accurately model and simulate
    the behavior of multiple components simultaneously (co-
    simulation). Full-vehicle co-simulation could lower costs,
    speed development, and improve designs.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of
    $78.3 million, an increase of $4.5 million for computer
    simulation tools for ground vehicle design and evaluation.

    Navy energy program

        The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63724N for
    the Navy energy program. The Navy has indicated that the budget
    request is not funding any energy research programs outside
    those in science and technology accounts and was unable to
    provide additional justification for the projects to be funded
    with the money requested in this program element. Therefore,
    the committee recommends a reduction of $8.476 million from
    this account to reflect a lack of coordination with other Navy
    energy research investments.

    Navy energy research

        The budget request included $8.5 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 $5.5 million for the development of
    fuel cell technologies for naval applications, and an
    additional $4.75 million for solar heat reflective materials to
    reduce cooling requirements.

    Optical interconnect

        The budget request included $4.3 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 $4.0
    million to develop this important technology.

    Radio frequency identification technology program

        The budget request included $4.3 million in PE 63739N for
    Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but included no
    funding to develop next-generation logistics management models
    that would allow the Department of the Navy and the Department
    of Defense to exploit the full potential of radio frequency
    identification (RFID) systems. The Department of Defense
    continues to field RFID systems, but has yet to exploit the
    full potential of the information available from RFID systems
    and the contribution such information could make to improving
    logistics management information systems. The committee
    recommends an increase of $1.0 million to improve the decision
    support capability of existing logistics models and develop
    better algorithms for these models.

    Mobile maritime sensor development

        The budget request included $190.0 million in PE 64501N for
    development efforts in support of a next-generation cruiser,
    CG(X). CG(X) is planned to be the replacement for the CG-47
    class cruiser, with primary missions including air and missile
    defense. The Navy's last long-range shipbuilding plan proposed
    to procure the first ship of the CG(X) program in 2011. That
    schedule was clearly too optimistic.
        Part of the delay came from questions about the CG(X)
    Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), called the Maritime Air and
    Missile Defense of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) AoA. One problem has
    been that demanding threat requirements have led to very
    demanding sensor requirements, some of which could only be fit
    on a cruiser-size vessel by achieving major technology
    breakthroughs.
        Another cause of the delay was that, as the committee
    understands it, the Secretary of the Navy was asking questions
    about potential contributions of off-board, networked sensors
    and why the MAMDJF vessel had to be self-sufficient for target
    acquisition and tracking.
        The committee recognizes that there are at least two other
    platforms within DOD inventories that could provide the basis
    for developing a more robust off-board sensor augmentation.
    Such an incremental development approach might not require that
    the Navy make such heroic technology improvements in surface
    combatant radar technology. These are the Navy's own programs
    to develop a Cobra Judy replacement vessel, and the Missile
    Defense Agency's Sea-Based X-Band radar.
        A mobile maritime sensor could improve upon the performance
    of either of these radars by making more modest technology
    improvements that could provide requisite capability for radars
    that would be less risky, cheaper to acquire and operate, and
    potentially available sooner than sensors that must provide
    equivalent performance from within the relatively constrained
    confines of a surface combatant.
        The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to:
    (1) develop a radar architecture that would provide full field
    of view; (2) design of a partial array prototype; (3) develop,
    build, and test components of such an array; and (4) fabricate
    and test a partial array prototype. Information resulting from
    such an effort could provide valuable information upon which to
    base informed decisions about the best way to support the
    maritime air and missile defense mission.

    Submarine communications at speed and depth

        The budget request included $122.7 million in PE 64503N,
    including $16.2 million to continue development of capabilities
    to communicate with submarines when they are operating at
    normal depths and speeds. Such communications capability would
    permit submarines to provide better support to other forces in
    a battle group, while allowing submarines to maintain their
    stealthy posture.
        The Navy has embarked on a program to develop this
    capability that is divided into two parts: Increment 1 and
    Increment 2. The Increment 1 program will bring some currently
    available, expendable buoy technologies to the fleet over the
    next 2 years.
        The Navy plans to begin the Increment 2 program in fiscal
    year 2011. This program will include submarine-towed buoy
    systems to provide more persistent connectivity to submarines
    operating below periscope depth. However, the committee does
    not believe that the Navy has provided sufficient funding in
    the fiscal year 2010 budget request to develop the advanced
    technologies required in order to implement this next phase of
    the program.
        The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
    develop these technologies.

    Mold-in-place coating development

        The budget request included $154.8 million in PE 64558N to
    support design and development activities for submarines, but
    included no funding for developing a mold-in-place technology
    for installing or restoring advance submarine hull coatings.
    Since current techniques for installing these coatings are
    expensive and manpower intensive, having a process available
    that would reduce the time and effort to install or replace
    these coatings would yield savings to the Navy.
        The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to
    develop this capability.

    New design SSN

        The budget request included $154.8 million in PE 64558N to
    support design and development activities for submarines, but
    included no funding for developing a common command and control
    module for application to Virginia-class submarines or a
    potential Trident replacement program.
        The committee understands that the Navy could design a new
    command and control module for submarines that 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. Starting such a design now would
    permit the Navy to take best advantage of potential savings
    from achieving a common configuration in the fleet.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
    million in PE 64558N to support these development activities.

    Submarine tactical warfare system

        The budget request included $59.7 million in PE 64562N for
    developing enhancements to submarine combat control systems.
        The budget request included no funding for developing an
    artificial intelligence-based combat systems kernel. Such a
    kernel would use expert systems, advanced signal and data
    processing, and mission-focused human systems integration to
    introduce much higher levels of automation that would optimize
    manning and increase command decision and combat system
    performance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
    million to support this development.
        The budget request included no funding for developing a
    weapon acquisition and firing system (WAFS). Today's weapons
    systems are complex and require many manual procedures using
    reference documents to determine weapon settings and tactics
    while ensuring the safety of ships by employing proper weapon
    safety settings. This cumbersome process is too slow and error
    prone in many close combat situations. The WAFS provides a data
    fusion capability that can automatically develop an accurate
    target solution based on acoustic and non-acoustic sensors,
    eliminating the need for reference documents and lowering ship
    manning requirements. The committee recommends an increase of
    $4.0 million to initiate research and development efforts as
    well as allowing for at-sea testing and implementation of real-
    time algorithms and associated in-board electronics necessary
    for installing WAFS on legacy and future classes of submarines.
        The budget request included no funding for developing a
    submarine environment for evaluation and development. The Naval
    Undersea Warfare Center has created a futuristic submarine
    attack center to evaluate new command decision aids in a
    realistic environment. This facility has provided a low-cost,
    easily accessible testbed for small businesses, academia, and
    production system developers to create and test innovative
    technologies without incurring the expense of creating their
    own test facility. This has led to getting better technology to
    the fleet more quickly. The committee recommends an increase of
    $4.0 million to expand this activity to improve the ability to
    perform proof of concept testing and concept of operations
    testing with fleet sailors using current submarines systems
    augmented by new technologies.
        The committee recommends a total increase of $13.0 million
    in PE 64562N for the submarine tactical warfare system
    programs.

    Automated fiber optic manufacturing

        The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 64567N for
    ship contract design, but included no funding to build on an
    Office of Naval Research initiative to provide automated
    manufacturing for military-grade fiber optic assemblies for
    aircraft carriers and other naval vessels. The committee
    believes that such an activity could: (1) improve the quality,
    reliability, and cost of such assemblies; and (2) facilitate
    field installation and maintenance of such systems for vessels
    while they are deployed. The committee recommends an increase
    of $2.0 million to continue this development.

    Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle

        The budget request included $35.5 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 $5.0 million to continue
    this development.

    Next-generation Phalanx

        The budget request included $34.2 million in PE 64756N for
    ship self-defense (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 a 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 $88.9 million for ship self-
    defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including
    $4.8 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) continue to pace anti-ship cruise missile threats
            with long pulse capability by incorporating radio
            frequency and digital design enhancements;
              (2) design an architecture that will ensure flawless
            operation with the SPY-3 multi-function radar (MFR);
              (3) integrate into 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 $9.0 million for
    the NULKA development program to continue these efforts.

    Navy medical research

        The budget request included $9.9 million in PE 64771N for
    medical systems development. To support efforts to protect
    deployed forces from infectious diseases, the committee
    recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research on dengue
    fever vaccines. To support efforts to treat injured service
    members, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million
    for research on composite tissue transplantation techniques for
    treatment of traumatic injuries, an additional $3.0 million for
    the development of advanced orthopedic surgical
    instrumentation, and an additional $2.0 million for the
    development of custom body part and prosthetic implants.

    Navy information technology programs

        The budget request included $69.0 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 the development of integrated network-centric
    technology systems, and an increase of $7.0 million for
    information systems research and technology.

    Navy test and evaluation programs

        The budget request included $79.6 million in PE 64759N for
    major test and evaluation investment. To support effective
    interoperability testing and evaluation of complex, emerging
    joint systems, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
    million for aviation enterprise interoperability upgrades.

    Advanced linear accelerator facility

        The budget request included $75.0 million in PE 11221N,
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but
    included no funding for the Crane linear accelerator facility
    (LINAC). The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million
    for the LINAC to simulate the high radiation environment in
    space. The committee notes that this will complete the
    construction of the LINAC facility. The committee directs the
    Navy to develop and use the additional funds in conjunction
    with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight
    Council.

    Expandable rigid wall composite shelter

        The budget request included $120.4 million in PE 26623M for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Marine Corps
    Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. Current rigid wall
    shelters do not have ballistic protection, cannot carry loads
    such as sandbags on the roof, are poorly insulated, are subject
    to corrosion, and cannot be efficiently stacked on container
    ships. New carbon fiber hybrid composite technology will
    provide lightweight, rugged, thermally efficient, and
    electromagnetic interference-hardened shelters for the Marine
    Corps. The committee recommends an authorization of $1.3
    million for this initiative.

    Marine personnel carrier support system

        The budget request included $120.4 million for Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, in PE 26623M for Marine
    Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems, but no funds to
    initiate the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) Design for
    Supportability System. This system, initiated during the
    program's design phase, will reduce management and maintenance
    costs throughout the program's life cycle using modern modeling
    and collaborative software technology. The committee recommends
    an authorization of $123.4 million, an increase of $3.0 million
    above the request.

    Ultrasonic consolidation for smart armor applications

        The budget request included $120.4 million in PE 26623M,
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, for Marine
    Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems, but insufficient
    funds to complete development of Ultrasonic Consolidation for
    Armor Applications technology.
        Ultrasonic consolidation is a low-temperature process that
    enables the production of laminates of dissimilar metals to
    achieve properties not possible with conventional casting and
    welding techniques. This process can be used to fashion
    titanium aluminide, a lighter, cheaper, and more effective
    armor.
        The committee recommends authorization of $124.3 million,
    $3.9 million above the request, to complete development of this
    technology.

    High performance capabilities for military vehicles

        The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 26624M for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Marine Corps
    Combat Services Support, but no funds for the high performance
    capabilities for military vehicles project. This project is
    dedicated to applying the best practices of the motorsports
    industry to military vehicles, including engineering expertise,
    equipment, and technology. The committee recommends
    authorization of $18.1 million, $1.0 million above the request
    for this project.

    Mobile User Objective System

        The Navy is responsible for maintaining narrow band ultra-
    high frequency (UHF) satellite communications capability. The
    current on-orbit capability is provided through a combination
    of leased satellite capability, the Ultra-high frequency
    follow-on (UFO) satellites, the last of which was launched in
    2003, and two previous generation UHF satellites, which have
    long surpassed their design lives. Several of the UFO
    satellites have failed early and several others are single
    string satellites. As a result, the UHF constellation is very
    fragile. If all the satellites continue to operate with no
    further failures the Navy expects to see the UHF constellation
    degrade to unacceptable levels in May 2010. The first Mobile
    User Objective System (MUOS), the next-generation UHF
    satellite, is already 11 months behind schedule and continues
    to have technical problems.
        The committee continues to believe that the Navy should
    initiate a UHF backup capability through leased or hosted
    payload options. The committee understands that $32.0 million
    remains from the brief but cancelled prior effort to look at
    this option. The committee recommends a decrease in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 303109N line 192 of
    $32.0 million and an increase of $32.0 million in Weapons
    Procurement, Navy, line 18, for a small UHF payload, of eight
    or fewer channels, on an existing small satellite bus. The
    committee directs the Navy to explore using a competition for a
    fixed price contract for additional UHF capability. In
    reviewing this option the Navy should look at utilizing the
    Operationally Responsive Space Office as a possible option for
    managing the augmentation, if the Navy believes that
    augmentation efforts will take program office focus away from
    the MUOS program.
        The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report
    back to the congressional defense committees no later than
    January 1, 2010, with the plans for UHF augmentation and
    constellation sustainment.

    Navy manufacturing technology

        The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 78011N for
    Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes
    that the Defense Science Board has 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, and an additional $2.5 million for development of
    advanced materials processing technologies and lower cost
    repair methods for a variety of sea and air systems.

    National Shipbuilding Research Program-Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise

        The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for
    maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research
    Program--Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP-ASE) is a
    collaborative effort between the Navy and industry which has
    yielded significant productivity improvements for Navy ship
    construction and repair. Under this program the Navy provides
    funding that is matched and exceeded by industry investment.
    Using this approach, the Navy has achieved a high return on
    investment by providing near-term savings and avoiding
    significant future costs. The committee believes that
    continuation of the NSRP-ASE effort is a vital element of the
    overarching objective of improving the affordability of naval
    warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative
    shipbuilding industrial base.
        The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
    78730N for the NSRP-ASE. The committee expects that the Navy
    will allocate funds directly to this program in future budget
    requests.

                                   Air Force

    Air Force basic research

        The budget request included $321.0 million in PE 61102F for
    defense research sciences activities. To support efforts in the
    development of next generation energy sources for military
    applications, the committee recommends an additional $1.0
    million for research supporting liquid fuel production
    processes and an additional $1.5 million for research on
    wireless beamed power systems.
        The National Research Council's 2006 study on ``Basic
    Research in Information Science and Technology for Air Force
    Needs'' recommended that the Air Force invest in research in
    information security ``in support of the goal of measurable,
    available, secure, trustworthy, and sustainable network-enabled
    systems.'' Consistent with that recommendation the committee
    recommends increases of: $4.0 million for development of cyber
    security related educational programs; $4.0 million for
    research on security for critical and vulnerable control
    networks; and $2.0 million for software engineering research to
    develop secure embedded software systems.
        The report also highlighted the significant challenges that
    the Air Force will face in managing ever-larger volumes of
    data. To support the development of enhanced information
    management capabilities, the committee recommends an additional
    $1.5 million for informatics research.
        Finally, consistent with the committee's efforts to enhance
    systems engineering capabilities in the Department of Defense,
    the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for
    research on integrated design and manufacturing technologies
    and systems.

    Air Force materials research

        The budget request included $128.0 million in PE 62102F for
    applied materials research. The committee notes that advanced
    tactical aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 are facing critical
    thermal management issues which are forcing operational
    adjustments and potentially costly design and engineering
    changes. To help address these issues, the committee recommends
    an additional $3.0 million for research on advanced thermal
    management structures.
        The Air Force Research Laboratory has found that 3.9
    percent (or nearly $1.5 billion) of the Air Force's fiscal year
    2004 operations and maintenance budget went toward addressing
    the costs of corrosion on Air Force platforms and weapon
    systems. To address corrosion issues in the Air Force, the
    committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 62102F
    for corrosion protection materials, and $1.0 million to address
    corrosion issues in light alloy aerospace and automotive parts.
        The Air Force's Energy Program Policy has a stated
    objective of developing renewable resources on Air Force bases.
    In support of that objective, the committee recommends an
    increase of $4.0 million for efforts to design, implement, and
    test systems and processes capable of producing renewable
    energy at large scales for military installations, and an
    additional $4.0 million for research to refine, as well as
    develop novel, energy bioconversion technologies to support
    defense needs.
        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 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 $1.0 million
    for research on intelligent manufacturing models, analyses, and
    controls to develop the next generation of manufacturing
    processes and systems.
        Finally, the committee recommends an additional $2.75
    million for the development of infrared laser media materials
    to support the development of laser communications,
    countermeasure, and sensing systems.

    Aerospace vehicle technologies

        The budget request included $127.1 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.

    Air Force propulsion research

        The budget request included $196.5 million in PE 62203F for
    applied research in aerospace propulsion. Advanced aircraft
    engines require high reliability components that survive high
    vibrations, temperature, and speeds. In support of component
    development for the F-35, the committee recommends an increase
    of $1.0 million for high speed bearing research.
        In support of efforts to meet onboard electrical power
    requirements of engines and airborne weapon systems, the
    committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for materials
    research and development via prototype fabrication and
    developmental testing of novel electric power technologies for
    propulsion applications. The committee also recommends an
    additional $7.0 million for the development of lithium ion
    batteries for aviation applications.
        To support efforts to develop hypersonics technology for
    missile, aircraft, and space access missions, the committee
    recommends an additional $3.5 million for scramjet research.
        Finally, to support efforts to reduce operating
    temperatures of turbine engines and improve their efficiency,
    the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the
    development of thermally efficient engine fuel pumping systems.

    Reconfigurable electronics and software

        The budget request included $104.1 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 $2.0
    million for research on reconfigurable electronics.
        The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million
    in PE 63203F for the development of secure reconfigurable
    computing systems that would support development of protection
    technologies with sensors to meet the requirement for critical
    weapon systems technology to be tamperproof and uncompromised.

    Seismic research program

        The budget request included $104.1 million in PE 62601F for
    space technologies. The committee recommends an additional $7.5
    million for the Air Force seismic research program. The
    committee notes that this program has and will continue to
    enable the United States to monitor compliance with the current
    moratorium on nuclear testing.

    Chemical laser research

        The committee notes that the 2008 Air Force Scientific
    Advisory Board study on advanced tactical lasers highlighted
    the fact that chemical lasers would be unsuitable for tactical
    applications ``due to the atmospheric propagation of its
    operational wavelength, its weight and volume, its logistical
    requirements, and its limited magazine.'' The committee notes
    that the Department of Defense is moving towards the
    development and eventual fielding of solid state, fiber, and
    free electron lasers for a variety of missions that require
    high energy lasers, but has no such similar plans for chemical
    lasers. Therefore the committee recommends a reduction of $5.75
    million in PE 62605F and $6.1 million in PE 62890F for
    activities related to chemical laser research and development.

    High energy laser research

        The budget request included $52.8 million in PE 62890F for
    applied research on high energy lasers. The Department of
    Defense's report ``Adaptive Optics for Military Applications:
    Laser Weapons and Space Surveillance'' identified the
    development of deformable mirrors as a technical challenge to
    achieving laser weapon systems. The committee recommends an
    additional $2.0 million to support research on advanced
    deformable mirrors for high energy laser weapons systems.

    Air Force advanced materials research

        The budget request included $37.9 million in PE 63112F for
    the development of advanced materials for weapon systems. The
    committee recommends an additional $7.0 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.
        To support Air Force efforts to develop cheaper,
    alternative sources of aviation fuel, the committee recommends
    an increase of $5.0 million for sewage-derived biofuels
    research. Finally, to support efforts to improve the readiness
    and maintainability of airframes, the committee recommends an
    increase of $2.0 million for research on nondestructive testing
    technologies.

    Air Force advanced propulsion systems

        The budget request included $175.7 million in PE 63126F 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 $10.0 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, logistics, and
    other missions. In support of those efforts, the committee
    recommends an additional $3.5 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 $6.0 million for research
    on silicon carbide electronics.

    Air Force manufacturing technology

        The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 63680F for
    the Air Force manufacturing technology program. The committee
    recommends an additional $3.25 million for research on casting
    technology to support efforts to provide the Department of
    Defense an integrated approach to metal castings used in
    defense systems to improve component performance and
    affordability.

    Optical interconnect technologies

        The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63788F for
    development and demonstration of battlespace knowledge
    technologies. The Defense Research and Engineering's 2007
    strategic plan highlights networks and communications,
    including technologies to address airborne networks, as an
    enabling technology that should receive the highest level of
    corporate attention and coordination. To support these efforts,
    the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for
    development of optical interconnects to support data
    communications onboard unmanned aircraft systems and
    satellites.

    Space Protection Program

        The budget request included $97.7 million for Space Control
    Technology in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air
    Force, in line 40 including $6.5 million for the Space
    Protection Program (SPP). The committee recommends an
    additional $6.5 million for the SPP.
        Improving space situational awareness and protecting space
    assets is a high priority for the intelligence community and
    the Department of Defense as well as for the civilian
    community. A recent ``day without space'' exercise made clear
    that not only military systems but a broad array of civilian
    systems are dependent on military and intelligence space
    systems. Even such simple tasks such as getting money from an
    ATM or using a credit card to fill up a gas tank become
    impossible without space assets.
        The SPP is a joint Air Force-National Reconnaissance Office
    program to bring in-depth analytic capacity to the problem of
    protecting space assets from natural occurring events,
    accidental events, and intentional actions of adversaries. The
    committee supports this collaborative approach to protect U.S.
    space interests and commends the Air Force and the National
    Reconnaissance Office (NRO) for establishing this unique
    effort. Having established this needed effort the committee
    expects both the Air Force and the NRO to support the effort.
        The committee expects the SPP to execute an integrated
    strategy to review threats identified by the intelligence
    community to ascertain risks and vulnerabilities to space
    capabilities and then recommend solutions leading to
    comprehensive space protection capabilities. Specifically, the
    SPP office should focus on developing space protection
    architectures, identifying national capabilities and
    interdependencies, delivering tailored decision aids to
    operations centers, develop methodologies to address
    vulnerabilities in multiple orbit regimes, integrate cyber
    risks and threats into the National Infrastructure Protection
    Framework, and continue with the specific tasks currently
    assigned.

    Space situational awareness

        The budget request included $97.7 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 63438F
    for Space Control Technology but no funds to integrate data
    from the Missile Defense X-band radar on the Sea-based X-band
    platform to integrate into the space surveillance network. The
    committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to develop a
    prototype to import this sensor capability into the space
    surveillance network.

    Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Demonstration/Validation

        The budget request included $66.1 million for
    Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Demonstration
    Validation in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air
    Force, PE 63851F line 46. The committee notes that the various
    ICBM modernization programs will be coming to a close and will
    need to focus on sustainment. ICBM Demonstration Validation is
    focused on future ICBM concepts some of which, such as guidance
    systems, could be common to the Air Force and the Navy. The
    committee notes that the Navy is working on common concepts and
    urges the two services to work together to determine the full
    range of common applications for ballistic missile sustainment
    and modernization if needed. As a result the committee
    recommends a reduction of $5.0 million.

    Operationally Responsive Space

        The budget request included $112.9 million for
    Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) in Air Force Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation PE 64857 including $31.9
    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. The budget request does not keep the
    manufacture of the ORS-1 on schedule to meet the CENTCOM
    schedule. The committee notes that the Air Force intends to
    reprogram some additional funds to support ORS-1 but more is
    needed. The committee recommends an additional $40.0 million
    for ORS-1.
        On May 18, 2009, the ORS Office successfully launched
    another small satellite, which is in the process of completing
    its on-orbit check out. The committee expects the ORS Office to
    keep it informed as to the progress and operational utility of
    this most recent satellite.
        ORS continues to make progress in all of its three tiers
    and in continuing to assess the value of small satellites to
    the warfighter, including the ability to rapidly configure and
    launch small satellites to meet need not otherwise met by
    airborne platforms. One of the ORS efforts could have
    applicability to the general space community approach to
    command satellites thorough multi-purpose systems rather than
    stove-piped ground systems.
        The committee commends the ORS Office and 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. ORS has been
    ably supported in its acquisition by the Air Force Space
    Development and Test Wing and the committee believes that this
    is a productive partnership.
        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.

    Small imaging satellite competitive prototyping

        The budget request included $112.9 million in PE 64857F for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the
    Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. Elsewhere in this
    report, the committee recommends that the Department of Defense
    acquire the equivalent of one 1.5-meter commercial-class
    electro-optical imaging satellite, along with acquisition of
    the equivalent of one additional 1.1-meter commercial imaging
    satellite. These actions are recommended to mitigate risks in
    the collection capabilities of the intelligence community, to
    enhance the availability and utility of unclassified imagery
    for the warfighter, to increase the frequency of satellite
    coverage, and to also enhance the survivability of space-based
    imaging in wartime.
        For the longer-term, however, the committee believes the
    time has come to try a different approach to moderate-
    resolution imagery collection from space. The committee is
    persuaded that the technology exists to build very small and
    very inexpensive medium resolution (approximately .5 meter
    ground resolution) imaging satellites. A large constellation of
    very small satellites would provide frequent revisit, inherent
    survivability, graceful degradation, broad-area coverage and
    faster upgrades. The costs should not exceed $100.0 million per
    satellite, including launch, with the ultimate goal being fixed
    pricing. If achievable, this concept would open up important
    new opportunities for the commercial data providers and
    government consumers alike.
        The committee believes that the time is right to establish
    a competitive prototyping program to test the industry's cost
    claims and to demonstrate performance levels.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends $227.9 million,
    $115.0 million above the request, to initiate a competitive
    proof-of-concept demonstration involving at least two credible
    industry teams. The committee expects that the Department of
    Defense will require each vendor to deliver at least two
    satellites, with a goal of spacecraft in orbit within 36 months
    of award. The satellites should be limited to a small mass and
    volume, with low development and recurring costs. The program
    should be guided by the Joint Staff, U.S. Strategic Command,
    the Air Force A2, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Intelligence.

    National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

        The budget request includes $396.6 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 35178F
    for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
    satellite system (NPOESS). As a result of a recent review, the
    Department of Defense has determined that the program is not
    adequately funded in fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends
    an additional $80.0 million for NPOESS.

    Internet routing in space

        The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, to support the
    demonstration, evaluation, and use of a commercial Internet
    Router in Space (IRIS) for military communications on a
    commercial satellite for 1 year. The IRIS program, a joint
    concept technology demonstrator (JCTD) sponsored by U.S.
    Strategic Command, was funded as a demonstration project and
    will be launched later this year. Funding for the JCTD,
    however, only supports a 3 month demonstration of the
    capability. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
    million in PE 604xxxF to continue the demonstration and to
    provide operational capability for an additional year. To
    address this and other new communications technologies for
    military communications satellites the committee recommends a
    new program element (PE) designed to reduce technological risk
    and mature technologies for potential future applications. This
    PE is discussed more fully elsewhere in this report.
        The committee notes that IRIS is not useful for protected,
    secure, survivable communications such as had been envisioned
    for the transformational communications satellite program
    because the router is not designed to be radiation hardened. On
    the other hand, the router could be useful for other satellite
    applications, such as the Wide-band Global System (WGS) that do
    not have a requirement for radiation hardening.

    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.
    When the transformational communications satellite (T-Sat) was
    cancelled, several risk reduction efforts that could have
    application on future satellites were also cancelled. In
    addition, work on military unique radiation hardening
    requirements was also cancelled.
        The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in a
    new program element, PE 604xxxF. This new PE would be created
    to explore communications technologies that could be utilized
    on future blocks of current communications satellite or
    eventually on next-generation communications satellite. This
    program would be similar in concept to the Third Generation
    Infrared Satellite System (3GIRS), which is conducting risk
    reduction efforts for next-generation overhead persistent
    infrared technologies. 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 if
    there are to be new or evolved communications satellites, the
    committee wants to ensure that the technologies are
    sufficiently mature to be fielded with low cost and schedule
    risk.

    B-1B bomber active electronically scanned array radar

        The budget request included no funds in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF) in PE
    64226F for the B-1B bomber. The committee recommends an
    increase of $2.0 million to design, install, and test an active
    electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on a B-1B bomber to
    evaluate the utility of an AESA to bomber operations. The AESA
    was developed for use on fighter and other aircraft and should
    require minimum modification for application and evaluation on
    the B-1B.

    Space-based Infrared System

        The budget request included $512.6 million for the Space-
    based Infrared system (SBIRS) for Research, Development, Test,
    and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64441 including $62.6 million for
    ground systems development. The committee recommends an
    additional $15.0 million for Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)
    ground integration and data exploitation.
        The SBIRS program is a missile early warning, technical
    intelligence, and battlespace awareness system. Currently,
    there are two of the HEO sensors on orbit. The Geosynchronous
    Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites continue to be plagued by schedule
    delays and cost overruns. The GEO-1 satellite has slipped an
    additional year since last year as it continues to have
    software problems. Additional funds were reprogrammed into
    SBIRS in fiscal year 2009 but the problems continue with the
    GEO-1 satellite. As a result, funds needed to resolve ground
    issues and HEO data exploitation have not been sufficient. The
    committee is very concerned that the performance capability of
    the two HEO sensors be fully understood and exploited including
    the benefits from HEO stereo applications.
        Notwithstanding the continuing GEO-1 problems the Air Force
    will continue the SBIRS program through GEO-4 and most likely
    to GEO-5, -6, and even beyond. In looking ahead the committee
    is concerned that the Air Force is not buying the future GEO
    satellites in the most cost effective way possible. To reduce
    the cost of future GEO satellites, the committee directs the
    Secretary of the Air Force to determine the number of GEO
    satellites that will be needed beyond GEO-4 and the possibility
    of buying these satellites using fixed pricing. The committee
    notes that the overhead persistent infrared architecture study
    will be completed later this summer and that this study will
    inform the future requirements for SBIRS satellites and
    sensors.

    Joint Strike Fighter

        The budget request included $1,741.3 million in PE 64800N,
    and $1,858.1 million in PE 64800F for continued development of
    the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, including $476.0
    million for management reserves to cover unforeseen problems
    that may arise during the system development and demonstration
    (SDD) phase of the program.
        The Department conducted a review of JSF program costs and
    schedules last year. The group conducting the review, called
    the Joint Estimating Team (JET), recommended, among other
    things, that the management reserves available to the program
    executive officer (PEO) be increased throughout the remainder
    of SDD program. As a result of the JET recommendations, the
    Department increased management reserves to the level requested
    in the budget.
        The Department has informed the committee that the PEO now
    believes that he can fully execute the fiscal year 2010 SDD
    program with only $320.0 million, or $156.0 million less than
    was included in the request.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $78.0
    million in PE 64800N and a decrease of $78.0 million in PE
    64800F to eliminate these excess management reserves.

    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

        The budget request included $26.5 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64853F for the
    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) but no funds to
    continue the Global Positioning System (GPS) based metric
    tracking effort. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
    million for GPS metric tracking. The committee understands that
    the Air Force will be reprogramming fiscal year 2009 funds for
    EELV GPS metric tracking and funds are needed in fiscal year
    2010 to continue this important effort need to support the east
    and west coast launch ranges. The long-term plan is to have all
    launches utilize GPS and reduce the amount of radar support for
    launches.

    Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft

        The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 65277F for
    development of the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement
    Aircraft (CSAR-X). These fund various activities, including
    program support and purchasing helicopters for replacing
    operational losses.
        The Air Force anticipated awarding the development contract
    for the CSAR-X in the spring of 2008, but the award was delayed
    twice by successful protests, and Secretary Gates has
    recommended terminating the current effort while the Department
    reviews the entire combat search and rescue mission area as
    part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
        The committee believes that funds available within this
    program from prior years is sufficient to support all of these
    fiscal year 2010 activities, and therefore, recommends a
    reduction of $90.0 million in PE 65277F for CSAR-X. The
    committee strongly supports modernizing the combat search and
    rescue capability, but sees no need to authorize more funds
    than are required to support these activities in the interim
    while the Department conducts the QDR review.

    Air Force test and evaluation

        The budget request included $60.8 million in PE 64759F for
    major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that
    the Director of the Test Resource Management Center has
    expressed concern over the reductions in funding for government
    and contractor personnel at the Air Force's test ranges. The
    committee is also concerned that Air Force underinvestment will
    prevent the test ranges from fully meeting the workload
    projected for the ranges, putting developmental and operational
    testing of critical programs at risk. Cost growth and
    potentially insufficiently tested equipment may then be
    deployed to operational forces given insufficient testing.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
    to work more closely with the Director of the Test Resource
    Management Center to ensure that Air Force investment in its
    test ranges is sufficient to meet the workload requirements of
    its joint users. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0
    million in PE 65807F to address the shortfall in the Air Force
    budget request and alleviate the risk to operational users of
    equipment to be tested.
        The committee also notes the importance to preserve 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 $5.0 million for upgrades to the high speed test
    track at Holloman Air Force Base.

    Multi-platform radar technology insertion program

        The budget request included $140.7 million in PE 27581F for
    research and development projects for the E-8 joint
    surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS).
        The cancelled E-10 aircraft program was supposed to be a
    test bed for the multi-platform radar technology insertion
    program (MP-RTIP). The Air Force, however, intends to field
    this MP-RTIP sensor suite on a number of other air vehicles,
    including the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
        The committee believes that the Air Force should pursue
    another path, whether that would be the E-8 JSTARS or some
    other platform, and field the better capability than can be
    achieved with the Global Hawk. Therefore, the committee
    recommends an increase of $92.0 million in PE 27581F for
    maturing the MP-RTIP sensor suite.

    Wide-area airborne surveillance

        The budget request included $46.0 million in PE 35206F for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of the
    Gorgon Stare wide-area airborne surveillance system (WAAS);
    $19.9 million in Aircraft Procurement Air Force, Line 25, and
    $13.0 million in Operations and Maintenance, Air Force.
        The committee recommends no funds to continue Gorgon Stare
    development, following the action of the appropriations
    conference on the fiscal year 2009 supplemental to deny funding
    for additional quick-reaction capability (QRC) systems. The
    committee recommends this action for multiple reasons.
        WAAS requirements remain murky, despite the fact that the
    Gorgon Stare program passed through the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council (JROC) process. The Air Force and the Marine
    Corps canceled delivery of five Angel Fire WAAS systems that
    had already been largely paid for even though the first
    increment of Gorgon Stare would provide similar performance. If
    current systems are not useful, there is little point in
    spending large sums and waiting an additional 1-2 years for a
    similar capability, even if it is to be deployed on a longer-
    endurance platform.
        Data-driven studies by the Joint Staff, Program Analysis
    and Evaluation (PA&E), and the Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Intelligence (USDI), raise serious questions about
    the utility of moderate resolution wide-area motion imagery.
    Increasing the resolution of these cameras to the levels that
    these studies suggest are needed leads to a dramatic reduction
    in the size of the area imaged. This reduction, in turn, leads
    to a large increase in the number of orbiting combat air
    patrols (CAPs), which casts doubt on the affordability of the
    capability.
        Furthermore, the studies referenced above, so far, have not
    produced sufficient evidence that forensic analysis of
    moderate-resolution, wide-area motion imagery is productive
    enough to justify a large investment in sensors and platforms--
    especially in the absence of effective automated analytic
    tools.
        The committee is also concerned that the Air Force has not
    demonstrated that it is prepared to optimize its ability to
    perform the joint WAAS mission. The Air Force insists that the
    Reaper platform, even when conducting WAAS missions, must carry
    a large weapons load as well as ancillary sensors, which limits
    the weight, space and power available for the WAAS sensor.
        The committee's recommendation to terminate the Gorgon
    Stare program does not reflect lack of support for vigorous
    efforts to determine the potential value of, and requirements
    for, WAAS motion imagery. The committee fully supports
    sustaining the Army Constant Hawk program and fully examining
    the value of forensic analysis based on all sources of geo-
    referenced intelligence data. The committee urges the
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task
    Force, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency's Office of
    Counterterrorism, the Joint Staff, USDI, PA&E, and the Counter-
    improvised explosive device(IED) Operations Integration Center
    (COIC) of the Joint IED Defeat organization (JIEDDO) to
    rigorously assess the current and potential utility of the
    analysis of layered geo-referenced intelligence data, including
    WAAS and ground moving target indicator radar data.
        The committee also strongly supports the ISR Task Force
    recommendation to accept delivery of the Angel Fire WAAS
    systems, narrow the sensor field of view for higher resolution,
    and pair the system with high-resolution motion video and other
    sensors.
        These activities should assist the Department of Defense
    (DOD) in defining WAAS requirements. Meanwhile, DOD should
    sustain the vibrant WAAS technology industrial base to provide
    solutions to future QRC and program-of-record initiatives. The
    committee recommends authorization of $10.0 million in PE
    64400D8Z, Unmanned Systems Common Development, RDT&E Defense-
    Wide, line 101, for WAAS technology development broadly across
    the industrial base. The committee also recommends $5.0 million
    in the same account to sustain the innovative processing
    activities planned in the Gorgon Stare program, and to develop
    automated WAAS motion imagery exploitation tools to support
    forensic analysis.

    Multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid

        The Department of Defense faces a serious challenge in
    working with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop
    capabilities and procedures to enable unmanned aerial vehicles
    (UAVs) to operate safely within the national airspace. One
    element of these capabilities is sense and avoid technology for
    collision avoidance. The committee recommends authorization of
    $4.0 million in PE 35219F, for the continued development of
    multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid capabilities that will
    help achieve the goal of permitting UAV pilots/operators to
    file a flight plan, obtain an air traffic control clearance,
    and fly in domestic and international airspace.

    Joint Space Operation Center System

        The budget request included $131.3 million for the Joint
    Space Operation Center (JSpOC) system in Air Force Research,
    Development, Testing, and Evaluation PE 35614F line 210. This
    is a new program element that results from a consolidation of
    several previous separate space situational awareness programs.
    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.

    Biometric signature and passive physiological monitoring

        The budget request included $6.4 million in PE 91202F for
    research and development projects for Joint Personnel Recovery
    Agency, but included no funding to develop personnel
    identification technologies based on biometric sensors.
        Passive biometric sensors show promise as a way of uniquely
    identifying personnel prior to deploying air rescue and
    evacuation forces to extract them.
        The committee believes that the Department should pursue
    these technologies to avoid exposing search and rescue forces
    to needless risk. Therefore, the committee recommends an
    increase of $5.0 million in PE 91202F for developing biometric
    signature and passive physiological monitoring systems.

                                  Defense-wide

    Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

        The budget request included no funding in PE 61114D8Z for
    the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
    Research (DEPSCoR). This program was established by Congress to
    enhance the capabilities of universities in eligible States to
    perform defense science and engineering research by
    competitively funding defense basic research programs and
    investing in research infrastructure. The committee notes that
    the recent Institute for Defense Analyses' study on DEPSCoR
    found that the program has led to successful transition of
    research innovations into Department acquisition programs and
    operational use. The study also found that participating States
    have increased the number and value of non-DEPSCOR research
    awards they have received from the Department of Defense. To
    support these successes and continue the congressionally
    mandated program, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
    million for DEPSCoR.

    In-vitro models for bio-defense vaccines

        The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 61384BP for
    chemical and biological defense basic research, but included no
    funds for development of lung models to improve vaccine
    development. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
    million in PE 61384BP for development of an in-vitro lung model
    to support bio-defense vaccines against aerosolized pathogens.
    This research will improve understanding of the interaction
    between human lung immune cells and aerosolized biological
    agents, thus improving the effectiveness of future vaccines.

    Information and communications technology

        The budget request included $282.3 million in PE 62303E for
    information and communications technology development. The
    committee recommends a reduction of $4.5 million for the
    content distribution program. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $7.5 million for the next generation core optical
    networks program. The committee is concerned that these
    activities are not well coordinated with the well funded
    enterprise services and network communications programs in the
    military services and the Defense Information Systems Agency.

    Cognitive computing

        The budget request included $142.8 million in PE 62304E for
    development of cognitive computing systems. The committee
    recommends a reduction of $25.0 million for cognitive computing
    activities, including cognitive networking and computer
    learning programs such as Local Area Network droids, Situation-
    Aware Protocols in Edge Network Technologies, and Brood of
    Spectrum Supremacy. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency has been funding a number of these efforts in parallel
    for a number of years with limited transition success. The
    committee believes that some of these activities are redundant
    with extensive investments being made in the private sector and
    have unclear transition pathways to operational systems.

    Biological decontamination research

        The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP
    for chemical and biological defense applied research. The
    committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62384BP
    for research of improved decontamination capabilities against
    spores of anthrax and Clostridium difficile, two agents of
    considerable concern to the Department of Defense. Such
    capabilities could be used to improve both protection and
    treatment of military service members.

    Chemical and biological infrared detector

        The budget request included $209.1 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.

    Funding for meritorious bio-defense projects

        The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP
    for chemical and biological defense applied research, including
    $21.0 million for the Transformational Medical Technologies
    Initiative (TMTI) program. The TMTI program is intended to
    develop new technologies to reduce risk from the likely
    emergence of genetically engineered or manipulated biological
    agents. A recent Broad Agency Announcement for the TMTI program
    stated that ``the Government reserves the right to create and
    maintain a reserve list of proposals for potential funding, in
    the event that sufficient funding becomes available.'' The
    committee is aware that there are eight such proposed TMTI
    projects that have been judged meritorious of funding, for a
    total of $9.9 million. The committee believes that it is
    important for the Department to acknowledge when there are
    proposed projects that would advance our military capabilities
    if funding were available, and encourages the Department to
    make this information known to the congressional defense
    committees, to help guide an assessment of the adequacy of
    resources and in the authorization of new investment
    activities.
        The committee recommends an increase of $9.9 million in PE
    62384BP for the eight proposals that have been judged by the
    Department to be meritorious of funding, if funding becomes
    available.

    Tactical technology

        The budget request included $276.1 million in PE 62702E for
    applied research on tactical technologies. The committee
    recommends a reduction of $3.0 million from this account to
    delay the Submersible Aircraft new start program. The committee
    further recommends a reduction of $10.0 million from the
    Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance program. The committee
    believes that there are higher priority Army technologies on
    which the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the
    Army could be collaborating.

    Blast mitigation and protection

        The budget request included $219.1 million in PE 62718BR
    for the development of technologies to defeat weapons of mass
    destruction. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
    million in PE 62718BR to continue blast mitigation and
    protection analysis and software development to improve the
    Vulnerability Assessment and Protection Option analytic tool
    used by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to predict the
    effects of high-explosive blasts on buildings, and to design
    protection and mitigation options for military and government
    facilities.

    Combating terrorism technologies

        The budget request included $81.9 million in PE 63122D8Z
    for combating terrorism technology support. The committee notes
    that urgent operational need statements have called for
    improved intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance tools.
    To support efforts to fulfill these operational needs, the
    committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for advanced
    reconnaissance and data exploitation systems. In order to
    support 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.

    Advanced aerospace systems

        The budget request included $338.4 million in PE 63286E for
    advanced aerospace systems. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $4.0 million for the Heliplane program. The
    committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for the Disc-
    Rotor Compound Helicopter program. The transition pathway for
    these demonstrator programs to a Service is largely unclear at
    this time. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.0 million
    for the Triple Target Terminator program. The committee
    believes that there are higher priority threats that can be
    addressed with technology development activities than engaging
    counter air, countering cruise missile, and destroying enemy
    air defense targets.

    Integrated Sensor is Structure

        The budget request included $338.4 million in PE 63286E for
    Advanced Aerospace Systems. Of that amount, $180.5 million
    supports persistent or responsive intelligence, surveillance,
    and reconnaissance (ISR) programs, including Rapid Eye,
    Vulture, and Integrated Sensor is Structure (ISIS). The
    committee notes 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. The committee recommends a
    decrease in PE 63286E of $90.0 million for these efforts at
    DARPA. The committee directs the Director of Defense Research
    and Engineering, with assistance from the Director of DARPA and
    the military department science and technology acquisition
    executives, to review the portfolio of programs across the
    Department to ensure that the highest priority science and
    technology challenges in persistent unmanned capability are
    being addressed with limited available resources.
        The committee further recommends a reduction of $35.0
    million in PE 35205F for activities related to the support of
    the ISIS program. The committee notes that ISIS is a science
    and technology program and its funding should be derived from
    such accounts, and also that there is no clear indication of an
    Air Force transition strategy for the ISIS capability.

    Joint capability technology demonstrations

        The budget request included $198.4 million in PE 63648D8Z
    for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD). The
    committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million from JCTD new
    starts. The committee is concerned that the JCTD program record
    of transitioning technologies to operational forces or programs
    of record is limited. Often, a large investment of resources in
    a JCTD program results in only the delivery of a limited
    residual capability to a Service, defense agency, or
    operational unit, and no formal transition into a program of
    record or procurement for operational use. The committee
    believes that limited JCTD resources should be focused on
    fewer, higher priority concept and technology demonstration and
    development efforts, which have stronger support and greater
    cost-share from sponsoring Services or defense agencies, in
    order to increase the effectiveness of the program.

    High performance defense manufacturing technology program

        The budget request included $14.6 million in PE 63680D8Z
    for manufacturing science and technology programs. In title II,
    subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee established the
    High Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology Program to
    promote the use of information technologies, enhance
    manufacturing efficiency, undertake technology roadmapping
    efforts to coordinate research and manufacturing efforts, and
    to accelerate the dissemination of manufacturing innovations
    into the defense industrial base. To continue efforts under the
    program, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million
    for the High Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology
    Program.

    Defense Logistics Agency energy research

        The budget request included $19.0 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.
    In support of these objectives, the committee recommends an
    additional: $4.0 million for biofuels research; $2.5 million on
    research on the conversion of biomass into logistics fuels;
    $8.0 million to continue the vehicle fuel cell and logistics
    program; $3.0 million for development and demonstrations of
    microgrids at forward operating bases; and $3.75 million for
    research on the manufacturing of fuel cells for defense
    missions.

    High performance computing

        The budget request included $221.3 million in PE 63755D8Z
    for the high performance computing modernization program. The
    2007 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science
    and Technology recommended that a plan be developed to support
    the use of high-end computing assets to conduct long-term
    research on important national problems. Consistent with that
    recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
    million for research on high performance computational design
    of novel materials for defense applications.

    Deep green

        The budget request included $293.5 million in PE 63760E for
    command, control, and communications systems. The committee
    recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for the Deep Green
    program. The program's technologies are intended to transition
    into Army command and control systems. The committee notes that
    Army current and future command and control systems, such as
    the Global Command and Control Systems-Army and the Net Enabled
    Command Capability, are undergoing significant restructuring,
    thereby reducing the priority of this research investment.

    Small unmanned aerial vehicle detection system

        The budget request included $243.1 million in PE 63767E for
    sensor technology development. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $7.5 million for the development of the small
    unmanned aerial vehicle detection system. The committee
    believes that these funds can be better used addressing high
    priority threats.

    Quick Reaction Fund

        The budget request included $29.2 million in PE 63826D8Z
    for the Quick Reaction Fund. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $15.0 million for this effort. The committee
    commends efforts of the Department of Defense to transition
    promising technologies into programs of record and deploying
    them into operational use. The committee is concerned that the
    funds appropriated for the Quick Reaction Fund have been
    invested in technologies which are not close to transitioning,
    as well as to support studies and analyses efforts that are
    more properly supported by other accounts. Further, the
    committee is concerned about the lack of coordination between
    the activities of the Quick Reaction Fund and those of the
    Services and defense agencies. The Services and defense
    agencies should be encouraged to leverage the fund in order to
    accelerate the transition of promising technologies into their
    programs or into the hands of their operational organizations.

    Special warfare situational awareness systems

        The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63826D8Z
    for Quick Reaction Special Projects. The committee supports the
    Navy's efforts to integrate advanced threat awareness
    technology into all facets of small craft operations. To
    continue these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of
    $1.8 million for development of integrated situational
    awareness systems for special warfare missions.

    Joint Forces Command activities

        The budget request included $124.5 million in PE 63828D8Z
    for joint experimentation. The committee recommends a reduction
    of $5.0 million for efforts related to space control and global
    positioning system experimentation. The committee believes
    these are redundant to activities underway in both the Air
    Force and United States Strategic Command.

    Lithium ion battery safety research

        The budget request included $31.7 million in PE 1160402BB
    for the demonstration and evaluation of advanced technologies
    that, among other things, enhance the performance of mobility
    platforms. Lithium ion technology has shown promise for
    reducing the size of batteries while also improving their
    performance characteristics. The committee recommends an
    increase of $1.6 million for the development of monitoring
    techniques and battery management systems that will allow early
    detection and control of impending failures in lithium ion
    batteries.

    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution issues

        The budget request included $3,248.1 million for the
    research and management activities of the Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee notes that
    DARPA has had significant difficulty over the last few fiscal
    years in executing all of its authorized funds in a timely
    fashion. The committee also notes that, on average, since
    fiscal year 2005, DARPA has executed over $300.0 million less
    per year than the agency's annual appropriated budget. The
    funds have either been used as sources for reprogramming
    actions, Congressional rescissions, or have expired. The
    committee believes that this slow execution of funds reflects a
    combination of DARPA's program management style and a shortage
    of program managers within the agency. The committee recommends
    a reduction of $150.0 million from DARPA's overall budget to
    reflect continuing concerns about timely and effective
    execution of funds by the agency.

    Real-time non-specific viral agent detector

        The budget request included $206.0 million in PE 63884BP
    for chemical and biological defense advanced component
    development and prototypes, but included no funds for
    development of a mobile non-specific viral agent detector. The
    committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63884BP
    for development of a mobile real-time non-specific viral agent
    detector that would improve current detection capabilities.
    This could be a significant upgrade to the Joint Biological
    Agent Identification and Diagnostic System.

    Airborne infrared surveillance technology

        The budget request included $636.9 million in PE 63884C for
    ballistic missile defense sensors. The Missile Defense Agency
    has initiated an ascent-phase intercept program that will
    benefit from improved infrared sensor technology. The committee
    recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63884C for
    airborne infrared surveillance technology development to
    improve the capability for precision tracking data on ballistic
    missiles, particularly in their ascent phase.

    Aegis ballistic missile defense

        The budget request included $1.7 billion in PE 63892C for
    research and development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
    (BMD) program and its Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor.
        The committee notes with satisfaction that the budget
    request would increase substantially the planned inventory of
    SM-3 interceptors, from a previously planned inventory of 147
    to 329, and would increase by six the number of Aegis BMD ship
    conversions. As indicated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates,
    this increase in planned capability represents a fundamental
    shift in focus of the ballistic missile defense program to
    capabilities for protecting our forward-deployed forces,
    allies, and other friendly nations against the large number of
    existing short- and medium-range theater missile threats.
        This shift is consistent with the guidance provided by
    Congress over the last few years and with the findings of the
    Joint Capabilities Mix studies conducted by the Joint Staff
    over the last 3 years. Those studies concluded that the
    Department of Defense was planning to procure fewer than half
    of the minimum inventory of SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude
    Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors that would be needed to meet
    the operational requirements of the regional combatant
    commanders against existing and expected short- and medium-
    range missile threats.
        In the report to accompany the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
    the committee stated the following: ``The committee notes that
    the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) study, conducted by the Joint
    Staff, concluded that U.S. combatant commanders need about
    twice as many SM-3 and THAAD interceptors as currently planned
    to meet just their minimum operational requirements for
    defending against the many hundreds of existing short- and
    medium-range ballistic missiles. The committee is deeply
    disappointed that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not
    planned or budgeted to acquire more than a fraction of the SM-3
    interceptors needed to meet the warfighters' minimum
    operational needs. The committee believes that achieving at
    least the JCM levels of upper tier interceptors in a timely
    manner should be the highest priority for MDA, and expects the
    Agency to modify its plans and budgets to meet our combatant
    commanders' current operational needs.''
        The committee welcomes the shift in focus toward providing
    effective near-term capabilities against existing regional
    missile threats, and commends the Department of Defense for
    this shift.
        The budget request would also begin the development of a
    land-based variant of the SM-3 missile. The committee believes
    such a capability could provide a significant enhancement to
    U.S. missile defense capabilities in a number of circumstances.
    It is being developed, in part, as a relatively low-risk and
    near-term option as a component of an Israeli upper tier
    missile defense system, as a risk mitigation path for the
    possibility that the development of the Arrow-3 interceptor
    will take longer than planned, or might not achieve technical
    success. A land-based SM-3 could also provide regional defense
    capability in Europe and Asia, and could be a crucial element
    of the ascent-phase/early intercept capability initiative
    included in the budget request. In this regard, a land-based
    SM-3 has the potential, if deployed in the European theater, to
    defend Europe and the United States from a potential future
    long-range Iranian ballistic missile threat. The committee
    commends the Department for initiating this land-based SM-3
    development effort. The committee sees this program as a high
    priority, and considers it an item of special interest to the
    committee.
        The budget request of $1.7 billion in PE 63892C for the
    Aegis BMD system is nearly $600.0 million more than the level
    of funding provided in fiscal year 2009, a 34 percent increase.
    Although the committee strongly supports the Aegis BMD program,
    and the Department's shift in focus toward meeting the current
    needs of the regional combatant commanders against the
    thousands of existing short- and medium-range ballistic
    missiles, the committee believes that the proposed level of
    increased funding will be too high to execute. The committee
    therefore recommends, without prejudice, a reduction of $30.0
    million to PE 63892C for the Aegis BMD program.

    Short-range ballistic missile defense

        The budget request included $119.7 million in PE 63913C for
    cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, including
    $45.8 million for joint development of a short-range ballistic
    missile defense system known as ``David's Sling.'' This system
    is intended to defend Israel against short-range missiles and
    rockets of the type fired from Lebanon. The United States is
    sharing 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 recommends an increase of
    $25.0 million in PE 63913C to accelerate the development of the
    David's Sling short-range ballistic missile defense system.

    Corrosion control research

        The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 64400D8Z for
    corrosion programs. In support of Department of Defense efforts
    to reduce maintenance costs due to corrosion, the committee
    recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE 64400D8Z for
    corrosion research activities.

    Systems engineering and prototyping program

        The budget request included $19.7 million in PE 64787D8Z
    for the Joint Systems Integration Command. The committee notes
    that the budget request is inconsistent with the Department's
    rhetoric on encouraging systems engineering and prototyping
    activities. The budget request reduces funding for advanced
    component development and prototype programs by 12.8 percent
    (more than $1.5 billion) relative to the fiscal year 2009
    budget request. To encourage more prototyping where warranted
    and more robust systems engineering activities, the committee
    recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 64787D8Z to be
    managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics to initiate the systems engineering
    and prototyping program established elsewhere in this Act.

    Test and evaluation programs

        The budget request included $145.1 million in PE 64940D8Z
    for test and evaluation investments. The 2007 Strategic Plan
    for Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Resources noted,
    ``Outdated threat missile fly-out models reduced the
    effectiveness of both active and passive countermeasures
    testing.'' To help address this shortfall, the committee
    recommends an additional $4.0 million for development of
    surface-to-air missile hardware simulators.

    Cyber test range

        The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 35103E for
    the Cyber Security Initiative. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $19.6 million for investment related development
    of a cyber test range. The committee notes that the Department
    of Defense is investing in the development of a number of cyber
    security related developmental and operational test ranges, in
    addition to currently operating a number of advanced ranges in
    this area. The committee also notes that the Director of the
    Test Resource Management Center is currently assessing the
    Department's overall capabilities for network systems testing,
    including for cyber security capabilities. The committee
    believes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's
    investment in this area should be limited to developing
    advanced tools for testing cyber security technologies, and
    should not expand into the wholesale development of operational
    test ranges or the management of such capabilities.

    Technology applications for security enhancement

        The budget request for PE 35884L, Research, Development,
    Test, and Evaluation, for the Defense Intelligence Agency's
    Intelligence Planning and Review Activities is classified. An
    effective national bio-security plan must address prevention,
    preparedness, response, and attribution. The committee
    recommends an authorization of $4.0 million for the Center for
    the Mitigation of Evolving Threats for research and development
    of early detection capabilities, impact mitigation, and
    forensic analysis.

    Policy decision point technology

        The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 33140N for
    the Information Systems Security Program (ISSP), but no funds
    for the development of a policy decision point capability for
    the Navy's Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services
    (CANES).
        The secure discovery function of CANES requires a policy
    decision point capability for access control that cannot be
    satisfied with available commercial or government-owned
    technology. The committee recommends an authorization of $27.7
    million for the Navy's ISSP, an increase of $3.5 million above
    the request.

    Software assurance courseware development

        The budget request included $408.3 million in PE 33140G for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for
    the Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for the
    continued development of information assurance instructional
    materials, curricula, and courseware reflecting best practices
    for institutes of higher education. Such instructional
    materials are essential for community colleges, colleges, and
    universities to educate students to produce secure software to
    protect government and commercial information systems from
    attack.
        The National Security Agency has conducted this activity at
    a designated National Center of Academic Excellence in
    Information Assurance Education for 2 years. An additional $1.8
    million will allow the completion of this capability.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of
    $410.1 million, an increase of $1.8 million above the request.

    Policy research, development, test, and evaluation

        The budget request included $6.9 million in PE 35186D8Z for
    policy research and development. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $6.0 million for this account. The committee is
    concerned that many of the international cooperation,
    linguistics, and wargaming activities that are planned for this
    funding are already being undertaken by other organizations
    within the Department of Defense, including the United States
    Joint Forces Command, service laboratories, and defense
    agencies. Further, the justification materials provided to
    Congress for the account are unclear and inconsistent. The
    committee directs that policy research and development
    activities be more closely coordinated with efforts in
    research, development, and acquisition programs under the
    oversight of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics.

    Logistics manufacturing research

        The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 78011S for
    Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manufacturing technology
    efforts. The DLA Advanced Microcircuit Emulation program
    develops continuing technical capability for providing military
    specification equivalent integrated circuits to mitigate
    electronic parts obsolescence in new and legacy defense
    systems. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an
    additional $4.5 million for microcircuit emulation efforts.
        DLA has a stated research thrust to improve casting
    procurement processes at its Defense Supply Centers in order to
    reduce lead times, improve reliability, and strengthen the
    defense supply chain. To enhance these efforts the committee
    recommends an additional $3.0 million for castings research.
        The Department of Defense has established a policy of
    increasing the use of insensitive munitions in all weapons
    applications. To support the production of these systems, the
    committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for
    insensitive munitions manufacturing research.
        Finally, 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 Undersecretary 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.

    Long endurance unattended ground sensor technologies

        The budget request included $21.2 million in PE 1160405BB
    for identification, development, and testing of intelligence
    equipment for special operators to provide timely exchange of
    intelligence and threat warning to all organizational echelons.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the
    development of long endurance unattended ground sensor
    technologies to provide special operators with enhanced
    situational awareness; target detection, imaging, tagging and
    tracking; and high bandwidth communication of data, voice, and
    video.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Ballistic missile defense overview

        The budget request included $7.8 billion for Missile
    Defense Agency (MDA) missile defense programs, including
    research, development, test and evaluation, procurement, and
    military construction funds. The committee notes a number of
    positive developments with the ballistic missile defense
    program of MDA included in the budget request.
        The budget request includes a shift in focus on increasing
    capabilities needed by regional combatant commanders to defend
    our forward deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations
    against the many existing short- and medium-range threats. As
    announced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the budget
    would increase funding by $900.0 million to increase the
    inventory of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and
    Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors, and to convert an
    additional six Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ships for
    deployment in the Atlantic Fleet. In accordance with the budget
    request, the Department of Defense would plan to increase the
    SM-3 interceptor inventory from 147 to 329, and increase the
    THAAD interceptor inventory from 96 to 289. These numbers are
    consistent with the level of THAAD and SM-3 interceptors
    recommended by the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) studies
    conducted by the Joint Staff, and are consistent with the
    guidance of the committee and Congress.
        For the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the
    budget request would continue to procure all 44 Ground-Based
    Interceptors (GBIs), with 14 of them planned for testing and
    spares. The budget request would cap the deployment of GBIs in
    Alaska and California at 30, and focus on further development
    and robust testing to improve the capability of this system to
    defend against the limited threat to our country from nations
    such as North Korea and possibly Iran in the future. This
    decision was supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
    relevant combatant commanders. Senior Department of Defense
    officials explained that the Department conducted an
    assessment, involving the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
    combatant commands, of the long-range missile threat to the
    United States and determined that, according to Secretary
    Gates, 30 GBIs ``are fully adequate to protect us against a
    North Korean threat for a number of years.''
        The committee welcomes the emphasis on improving the
    capability of the GMD system, including through robust and
    operationally realistic testing and evaluation. In December
    2008, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)
    reported that ``GMD flight testing to date will not support a
    high degree of confidence in its limited capabilities.'' In
    January 2009, DOT&E issued an annual assessment of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), which included a
    number of concerns about the GMD system. The committee notes
    that MDA has worked for half a year with DOT&E and the
    operational test elements of the military departments to
    establish a comprehensive test and evaluation plan for the
    BMDS, and expects that plan to be completed by the end of the
    summer. The committee expects that plan to guide a long-term
    test plan for GMD, including operationally realistic tests that
    provide a high degree of confidence in the capability of the
    system, including its ability to perform its mission for the
    duration of its operational life. If such testing requires
    additional interceptors, the committee notes that senior
    Department officials testified that it would be possible to buy
    more GBIs in the future if they are needed.
        The budget request includes an initiative to develop a new
    capability for ascent-phase (or early) intercepts, relying on
    improved use of existing and new sensors and interceptors such
    as the SM-3, whether on ships or on land. According to senior
    Department officials, such a capability would allow U.S. forces
    to engage threat missiles early in their flight, including
    long-range missiles, thus providing multiple opportunities to
    destroy the missiles in flight. In the case of long-range
    threat missiles, such a capability could also permit
    destruction of the threat missile before the GMD system would
    be needed to defend the Nation. If the initiative proves
    successful, such a capability could, if deployed in the
    European theater, provide defense of Europe and the United
    States against a potential future long-range missile threat
    from Iran. The committee supports this initiative, and commends
    the Department for conceiving of the concept for a cost-
    effective and operationally effective system that relies, to a
    large extent, on existing or near-term technologies.
        The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Gates decided
    to terminate a number of long-term research and development
    programs for missile defense that had technical, conceptual,
    cost, or operational problems. These decisions include the
    termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, the Kinetic
    Energy Interceptor program, and cancelation of the second
    Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft, and shifting the ABL program to
    a research and development effort. The Director of MDA
    testified that he recommended these changes, and Secretary
    Gates' decision was supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
    the combatant commanders. The committee supports the
    Secretary's decision.
        Finally, the committee notes that MDA has initiated a
    number of significant acquisition reform initiatives that are
    consistent with the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of
    2009 (Public Law 111-124), and are intended to increase the
    accountability and effectiveness of MDA acquisition programs.
    The committee welcomes these acquisition initiatives, and
    believes they are long overdue.

    Federally funded research and development centers

        The committee notes that the Department of Defense's
    federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC) play
    an important role undertaking studies, analyses, research, and
    systems engineering projects to support defense missions. The
    committee believes that the requirement to make use of defense
    FFRDCs will be increased by the initiatives being undertaken by
    the Department to reform the acquisition process, and also by
    the urgent demands for technical and analytic support related
    to current operations. The committee urges the Department to
    maintain a stable and consistent investment in defense FFRDCs,
    including in core programs funded directly by research,
    development, test, and evaluation appropriations.

    Ground/air task oriented radar

        The budget request included $63.9 million in PE 26313M,
    Marine Corps Communications Systems, for Research, Development,
    Test, and Evaluation, for the Ground/Air Task oriented Radar
    (GATOR). The committee understands that this program is being
    restructured, and has been designated as an item of special
    interest by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics, who will retain milestone decision
    authority. The committee further understands that the Marine
    Corps leadership is reviewing the program for affordability and
    for possible joint development of a mobile ground multi-mode
    radar capability with the Army. The committee expects to be
    kept informed as these deliberations progress. In particular,
    the committee expects to be informed of any decision affecting
    fiscal year 2010 program plans or budgets prior to conference
    on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

    Israeli upper tier missile defense

        The budget request included $119.7 million in PE 63913C for
    cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, including
    $37.5 million for joint development of an upper tier
    interceptor to replace the Arrow-2 interceptor, known as the
    Arrow-3. The committee supports the joint U.S.-Israeli
    development of the Arrow-3 interceptor, but is concerned that
    the program has risks that may take significantly longer to
    resolve than the timeline envisioned, and not in time to meet
    Israel's required schedule.
        According to the testimony of Lieutenant General Patrick
    O'Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, the Arrow-3
    development program is ``deemed to have very high schedule and
    technical risk.'' The Missile Defense Agency is currently
    negotiating an Upper Tier Project Agreement that is intended to
    ensure that the Arrow-3 program is managed according to sound
    acquisition and management principles, including a requirement
    for accomplishing technology knowledge points according to a
    schedule.
        According to Lieutenant General O'Reilly, to ``mitigate the
    Arrow-3 development schedule risk, we are ensuring that the
    development of a land-based variant of the proven Aegis SM-3
    missile is available to meet Israel's upper tier
    requirements.'' The committee agrees with this management and
    risk mitigation approach, and commends the Department for
    ensuring there will be a relatively low-risk and near-term
    upper tier option, based on the operationally effective SM-3,
    to meet Israel's upper tier missile defense needs in a timely
    manner. The committee requests that the Missile Defense Agency
    keep the congressional defense committees apprised of
    developments in the Israeli upper tier missile defense program,
    including both the Arrow-3 and land-based SM-3 development
    programs.

    KC-X tanker replacement program

        The committee regards the need to modernize the current
    fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tanker aircraft as a vital
    national security priority and supports the KC-X tanker
    recapitalization program, as well as efforts by the Air Force
    both to maintain the existing fleet and augment capability with
    aerial fee-for-service, if it proves cost-effective under the
    pending pilot program. Given the troubled history of the
    program, the committee expects that the Department of Defense
    will pursue a process of procuring replacement tankers that
    will ensure that the joint warfighter receives the best
    capability at the best price. The committee believes that this
    can only be achieved by an acquisition strategy that does not
    pre-determine the outcome of the competition and a competition
    that is fair and open. In addition, the committee believes
    that, in accordance with the principles of the Weapon Systems
    Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and as a
    means of improving contractor performance, the Department of
    Defense must ensure that the acquisition strategy of the KC-X
    program includes measures that ensure competition, or the
    option of competition, throughout the life cycle of the
    program, where appropriate and cost-effective.

    Laboratory recapitalization and sustainment issues

        The committee is aware that Department of Defense
    laboratories have chronically been underfunded for upgrade and
    modernization requirements that use military construction and
    facility sustainment funds. The unique mission of Department
    laboratories requires an aggressive and proactive investment
    strategy to support emerging technologies and state-of-the art
    systems and equipment. The average rate of investment for
    recapitalization, as well as for sustainment restoration and
    modernization (SRM) funding, has been appreciably below
    industry standards and other governmental laboratories, despite
    special authorities provided by Congress in recent years to use
    Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation funds for
    military construction activities at higher thresholds than
    other types of facilities. In addition, the committee is
    concerned that the military departments do not have processes
    in place to obtain quantitative data to assess the overall
    ability of the laboratory infrastructure to support existing
    missions and emerging requirements.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
    through the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and
    the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
    Environment, to report to the congressional defense committees,
    not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the
    health of the Department's laboratory infrastructure. The
    report should include a list and description of unfunded
    laboratory military construction and major repair projects for
    the Army, Navy, and Air Force research labs, including the Army
    research, development and engineering command laboratories,
    corps of engineers laboratory facilities, and naval warfare
    centers, and an investment plan required to modernize defense
    laboratories to meet current mission and known future mission
    requirements, as well as data on funding for military
    construction projects and SRM at the defense laboratories from
    fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

    Net-Enabled Command Capability

        The committee is deeply disappointed that the Department
    has been unable to come to grips with ongoing dissent within
    the Department regarding sorely needed modernization in the
    area of joint command and control. It is apparent that the
    Department's management and governance construct for the Net-
    Enabled Command Capability (NECC) program has delayed the
    Department's ability to develop and field the next generation
    of joint command and control capabilities.
        Due to the unwillingness of the Services and others to
    agree to a joint command and control modernization that is
    centrally managed, the committee directs the termination of the
    NECC system. The committee directs that any remaining Service
    NECC funds be moved into their respective Global Command and
    Control System (GCCS) programs, while the Defense Information
    Systems Agency (DISA) funding programmed for NECC should be
    aligned to Global Command and Control System-Joint program.
        The committee supports the need for a joint command and
    control architecture and standards to be used in the
    development of the Department's command and control
    modernization effort. The committee further expects the GCCS
    program to be modernized into a Department-wide joint command
    and control program and expects the Department to appropriately
    fund this activity so that it will transform and incorporate
    the most advanced technologies and capabilities possible. The
    committee expects that the Services, DISA, and the Assistant
    Secretary for Network and Information Integration will jointly
    work together to determine the best governance and funding
    structure to achieve these results efficiently and effectively.

    Test and evaluation workforce

        The committee directs the Director of the Test Resource
    Management Center (TRMC) to provide a report to the
    congressional defense committees within 120 days of enactment
    of this Act on the extent to which contractor positions in the
    Major Range and Test Facility Base should be converted to
    Department of Defense civilian employee positions. The report
    should identify any actions the military departments and
    defense agencies plan to take to convert such positions between
    fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015, including any funding and
    manpower adjustments needed to make the conversions. The report
    should also make an assessment of the impact that the
    conversion process will have on acquisition programs that
    require the use of affected test facilities. To assist in the
    development of this report, the committee directs the
    secretaries of the military departments and the heads of the
    appropriate defense agencies to provide TRMC with any
    information required for this report within 90 days of
    enactment of this Act.

    Third Generation Infrared Surveillance

        The budget request included $143.2 million for Third
    Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS). The committee
    supports technology risk reduction and demonstration efforts to
    develop the next generation infrared capability to enable the
    Air Force to launch a successor to the Spaced-based Infrared
    Satellite (SBIRS) when needed. At the same time the committee
    recognizes that the program of record, SBIRS, continues to
    struggle. While the first two highly elliptical orbit sensors
    are on orbit and are performing the first of the geosynchronous
    earth orbit (GEO), SBIRS has slipped yet another year due to
    continuing software issues. The committee urges the Air Force
    to continue to improve the wide field of view focal plane array
    technology, including the digital focal plane arrays, so that
    when the technology is sufficiently mature the Air Force can
    make the transition to a less costly, more capable infrared
    satellite system. The committee notes that the plan for next-
    generation overhead persistent infrared architecture is due to
    Congress in July 2009.
                      TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

                      Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions

    Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in
            connection with the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site,
            Suffolk, Virginia (sec. 311)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to pay not more than $68,623 as the
    final payment to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency
    for costs incurred in overseeing the removal action performed
    by the Department of Defense under the Defense Environmental
    Restoration Program for ordnance and explosive safety hazards
    at the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia.

                     Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues

    Modification of authority for Army industrial facilities to engage in
            cooperative activities with non-Army entities (sec. 321)
        The committee recommends a provision to clarify the
    authority for the Army to enter into cooperative agreements
    with non-Army entities.
    Improvement of inventory management practices (sec. 322)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for
    improving its inventory management systems with the objective
    of reducing costs incurred to acquire and store secondary
    inventory that is excess to requirements.
        The Government Accountability Office has recommended that
    the Department of Defense improve its management of secondary
    inventory by improving demand forecasting procedures and
    providing better information to item managers. The military
    departments have adopted improved spare parts demand
    forecasting and life cycle cost analysis methodologies for
    selected programs. The committee encourages the Department to
    expand these efforts and adopt advanced predictive modeling and
    simulation methodology that incorporates asset demand-
    influencing factors such as time, usage, aging of parts,
    maintenance, and logistics support.
    Temporary suspension of authority for public-private competitions (sec.
            323)
        The committee recommends a provision that would place a
    moratorium on the initiation of public-private competitions
    under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 until the
    Department of Defense (DOD) implements the requirements of
    section 2330a of title 10, United States Code.
        Section 2330a requires DOD to develop an inventory of
    activities performed for the Department by service contractors.
    The required inventory will provide critical information needed
    for DOD to rationalize its supplier base, develop effective
    human capital plans, and identify functions that should be
    considered for public-private competition.
        Section 2330a required that the first inventory be
    submitted to Congress by not later than July 1, 2008. Instead
    of collecting the data required to meet this requirement, the
    Department submitted what it called a ``prototype inventory
    list,'' consisting of limited data available from existing
    sources. Further, the Department developed a ``phased
    implementation'' plan which does not provide for full
    compliance until July 1, 2011--a full 3 years after the
    statutory deadline.
        The committee notes that DOD and other federal agencies
    complied with a requirement imposed by the Federal Activities
    Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270) to inventory
    functions performed by federal employees within 1 year of the
    date of enactment. The committee concludes that the Department
    is capable of producing the inventory required by section 2330a
    within a comparable period of time.
    Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 324)
        The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008
    (Public Law 110-181) extended the Arsenal Support Program
    Initiative (ASPI) for 2 years and is currently set to expire at
    the end of fiscal year 2010. A report to accompany the Duncan
    Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
    (Public Law 110-417) directed a comprehensive depot study to
    assess a wide range of manufacturing and depot maintenance
    activities to include ASPI.
        The committee remains concerned regarding the cost savings
    to the Army and encourages other authorities to be explored
    which will accomplish the same goals as ASPI.
        Accordingly, the committee extends ASPI authority for 1
    fiscal year and awaits the findings of the comprehensive depot
    study.
    Modification of date for submittal to Congress of annual report on
            funding for public and private performance of depot-level
            maintenance and repair workloads (sec. 325)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    date for the report required by section 2466 of title 10,
    United States Code, as requested by the Department of Defense.

                         Subtitle D--Energy Provisions

    Energy security on Department of Defense installations (sec. 331)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for
    identifying and addressing areas in which electricity needed to
    carry out critical missions on Department of Defense
    installations is vulnerable to disruption. The provision would:
    (1) direct the Secretary of Defense to work with federal, State
    and local regulatory authorities to address areas of
    vulnerability; and (2) authorize the Secretary to award
    contracts, grants, or other agreements to reimburse private
    parties for actions taken to address areas of vulnerability.
    Extension and expansion of reporting requirements regarding Department
            of Defense energy efficiency programs (sec. 332)
        The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
    lacks a comprehensive and organized policy regarding energy. It
    appears that each service operates irrespective of each other
    due to lack of Department guidance, resulting in uneven
    accomplishments with respect to energy efficiencies. The
    committee recommends a provision that will also gain visibility
    on installation renewable energy projects, determine if
    existing funding mechanisms are sufficient, enhance
    installation energy security, and provide a cost and
    feasibility response for implementing the recommendations of
    the 2008 Defense Science Board study ``More Fight--Less Fuel''.
    Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 333)
        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.
    Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational Energy
            (sec. 334)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    funding for the Director of Operational Energy Plans and
    Programs authorized in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).

                              Subtitle E--Reports

    Study on Army modularity (sec. 341)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent study on
    the current and planned modularity structures of the Army.
        Modularity refers to the Army's fundamental reconfiguration
    of its force from a large division-based to a brigade-based
    structure. The new modular brigade combat team (BCT) is
    intended to have an increased capability to operate
    independently based upon embedded combat support capabilities
    such as military intelligence, reconnaissance, and logistics.
    Although somewhat smaller in size, the new modular brigades are
    supposed to be just as or more capable than the divisional
    brigades they replace because they will have a more capable mix
    of equipment-such as advanced communications, intelligence, and
    surveillance systems.
        At its inception in 2004, the conversion of Army divisional
    combat brigades to this new modular structure were projected to
    be accomplished in 3 years, without the need for additional
    end-strength, and at a cost of $21 billion. Since then,
    however, the modularity initiative has grown in scope,
    duration, and cost. Through fiscal year 2008, the Army has
    established over 80 percent of its planned modular units,
    however, estimates on how long it will take to equip this force
    as required in authorization documents has slipped from 2011 to
    2019.
        A June 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found
    that the modularity program has cost more and yielded fewer
    benefits than were originally estimated. The Army has had to
    add personnel to support the additional units created within
    the BCTs. Planned increases in personnel end-strength were
    unlikely to be sufficient to fully support the force structure
    of the Army's originally planned growth to 76 brigade combat
    teams (BCT). For this reason and others, Secretary Gates has
    announced that Army active component growth would be limited to
    45 instead of 48 BCTs. The CBO also found that although modular
    BCTs might require less time to prepare to respond to an
    overseas contingency than the divisional brigades they
    replaced, they require roughly the same amount of time to
    transport their equipment overseas. Finally, the CBO noted that
    costs to carry out the initiative have grown beyond the initial
    estimate of $21.0 billion and may total more than $140.0
    billion through 2013.
        In its November 2008 study of Army modularity, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed that the Army
    is making progress in fielding its modular units but does not
    have an objective, results oriented, fully funded plan to equip
    and man this new structure to documented authorization levels.
    Despite assuming increased modular unit capabilities based on
    new or soon to be available technologies, Army projections to
    achieve its aggregate equipping requirements are based partly
    on the indefinite use of some older equipment. The GAO also
    found that the Army does not have a comprehensive plan to
    evaluate the modular force.
        The Army argues that they will have completed conversion to
    the initial modular force by fiscal year 2013 and that plans
    upon which the conversion is based must be flexible to reflect
    the changing requirements and timelines of an Army at war.
    Modular transformation, the Army argues, is a ``process''
    rather than an end-state. The Army must constantly adapt to
    evolving threats and capture these requirement changes in
    structure and equipment. The Army uses the Army Force
    Generation (ARFORGEN) model and equipment substitution to
    manage the prioritization, fill, and cost of equipment and
    personnel to modular units. With respect to evaluation of its
    modular designs, the Army says that initial modeling revealed
    that modular units would be at least as good as the units it
    replaced and that comprehensive and continuous evaluations have
    yielded over 130 design updates since 2004.
        The committee is concerned by these wide differences
    between the CBO, GAO, and Army and their assessments of the
    analytical basis, performance, and cost of the Army's modular
    unit transformation. Measureable, stable, and documented
    requirements and then unit fill for personnel and equipment are
    a fundamental starting point to an assessment of any unit's
    readiness and evaluation of its capability to conduct the
    missions for which it is designed. Modular BCTs have been
    rotating into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. Based
    on this combat experience, the Army notes it has made over 130
    design updates. However, none of these updates appear to
    challenge or change the core structural design of the modular
    combat brigade. For example, the heavy and light modular combat
    brigades each have two maneuver battalions (typically infantry
    or armor) assigned. Yet many BCT commanders in Iraq or
    Afghanistan will use the reconnaissance squadron as a third
    maneuver unit instead of the mission for which it is designed.
    At a hearing on military land power in March this year, the
    Subcommittee on Airland received testimony from a former BCT
    commander in Iraq arguing that the modular heavy and light
    brigades should add a third maneuver battalion.
        The committee notes that unresolved questions about the
    operational capabilities and personnel and equipment
    requirements of the Army's modular unit structure makes it
    difficult to reliably estimate requirements for end-strength
    and equipment modernization and procurement. Accordingly, the
    committee believes a comprehensive study by an independent,
    federally funded research and development center is merited.

                                  Budget Items

                                      Army

    Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System
        The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA) for land forces readiness, but included
    no funds for the Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing
    System (ECWCS). The Generation III ECWCS weighs 25 percent less
    than previous clothing systems, uses 33 percent less space in a
    soldier's pack, and integrates near infrared technologies into
    the garments reducing detection at night. The committee
    recommends an increase of $8.0 million in OMA for Generation
    III ECWCS.
    Funding for strategic planning and implementation of interagency
            training, education, and research in support of rule of law
            operations
        The committee recognizes that in current stability
    operations abroad, training, education, and implementation of
    methods to support adherence to the rule of law within emerging
    governmental systems has been a goal assigned the highest
    priority. Currently, there is no adequate means to facilitate
    training, research, and collaboration across interagency and
    non-governmental lines. Designation of a properly qualified and
    resourced site is quickly needed for the development of
    strategic plans and updated training in collaborative, rule of
    law efforts to develop an understanding of potential new,
    broad-based approaches. Accordingly, the committee authorizes
    $0.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, to support
    strategic planning and interagency training in rule of law
    efforts.

                                      Navy

    Naval aviation depot maintenance
        The budget request included $35.0 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $1.0 billion for aviation
    maintenance. The Navy identified risk and a shortage in its
    unfunded requirements for aviation depot maintenance for fiscal
    year 2010. The Navy has stated this unfulfilled maintenance
    requirement is executable. The committee recommends an increase
    of $195.0 million in OMN for aviation depot maintenance.
    Naval ship depot maintenance
        The budget request included $35.0 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $4.2 billion for ship depot
    maintenance. The Navy identified risk and unfunded requirements
    for ship depot maintenance for fiscal year 2010. The Navy has
    stated this unfunded maintenance requirement is executable. The
    committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in OMN for
    ship depot maintenance.
    Transfer of funding from overseas contingency operations to base budget
        The committee observed that the Navy had to cancel ship
    maintenance availabilities during the last fiscal year due to a
    shortage of Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), funding. The
    committee believes funding needs to be transferred from
    overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding to the base
    budget to avoid underfunding ship maintenance in fiscal year
    2010. Accordingly, the committee recommends a transfer of
    $568.8 million to OMN from the OCO to the base budget.
    United States Joint Forces Command National Program for Small Unit
            Excellence
        The budget request included $8.75 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for the creation of the National
    Program for Small Unit Excellence. The committee is encouraged
    by the United States Joint Forces Command's (JFCOM) intent to
    develop a comprehensive approach to small unit excellence by
    drawing upon academia, lessons learned from Iraq and
    Afghanistan, and the conferences held to date. However, the
    committee is concerned that additional steps must first be
    taken to evaluate small unit training doctrine in order to
    ensure the most efficient and effective training is developed
    by the appropriate agencies. The committee believes training
    standards, established irregular warfare doctrine, and
    integrated requirements are currently lacking. Additionally,
    the committee is not yet convinced the Center's focus is not
    already an established training focus within the individual
    Services, and that the center may be duplicative rather than
    complementary.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0
    million in OMN and $3.0 of Other Procurement, Navy for the
    National Small Unit Center for Excellence. The committee
    authorizes $10.0 million in research, development, test, and
    evaluation for efforts related to the proposed National Program
    for Small Unit Excellence. The committee directs that none of
    these funds be used for the establishment of a center. The
    committee directs that the funds be used by the Commander of
    JFCOM to invest in initiatives that will support the
    development of small unit capabilities in the services, and
    that the priority for funding shall be initiatives that are
    cost-shared with a service or defense agency.
    Gun depot overhauls
        The budget request included $448.7 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy, (OMN) for weapons maintenance, but provided
    no funds for Mk 45 Mod 5,, gun depot overhauls. The committee
    recommends an increase of $12.0 million in OMN for Mk 45 Mod
    5,, gun depot overhauls.
    Naval Strike Air Warfare Center training
        The budget request included $477.3 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for specialized skill training, but
    provided no funds for the Naval Strike Air Warfare Center
    (NSAWC). Additional funding will provide equipment, survey
    data, simulator support, range development, curriculum
    development, and computer technician support to the NSAWC for
    direct training of joint terminal attack controllers and pilots
    in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom. The committee recommends an increase of $850,000 in
    OMN for the NSAWC.

                                  Marine Corps

    Advanced load bearing equipment
        The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but
    provided no funds for the advanced load bearing equipment
    (ALBE). The load bearing system assists marines in carrying
    large amounts of equipment, ammunition, and weapons needed in
    training and combat. Increased operational tempo in Afghanistan
    often causes equipment to wear out faster than anticipated. The
    ALBE upgrades the load bearing system with more rugged pouches,
    packs, and slings. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
    million in OMMC for ALBE.
    Marine Corps shelters
        The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but
    provided no funds for the Family of Shelters and Tents (FST).
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMMC
    for FST.
    Cold Weather Layering System
        The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but
    included no funds for the Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS).
    The CWLS is a unique system, is often consumed by use during a
    single deployment, and is an urgent operational need in
    theater. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
    in OMMC for CWLS.

                                   Air Force

    Mission essential airfield operations equipment

        The budget request included $2.8 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for base operations, but provided
    no funds for the equipping and replacement of mission essential
    airfield operations equipment. The committee recommends a $3.5
    million increase in OMAF to provide mission essential equipment
    and replacement equipment.

    National Security Space Institute

        The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
    the National Security Space Institute (NSSI) in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), line 090. The committee supports
    the National Security Space Institute as the center for space
    professional and educational training for all the military
    services. Currently the NSSI is not able to accommodate all
    those who need to take these classes. The committee is also
    concerned that that the joint focus of the space education
    might be lost as a result of the recent decision to split up
    the NSSI. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force,
    in consultation with the Secretaries of the other military
    services, to report back to the committee on the impacts of the
    division of the NSSI and whether all space training and
    education requirements are being met. The committee will
    continue to review the management of the space cadres in each
    service.

    Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements

        Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office
    based on the services' civilian personnel end strength data as
    of April 2009, projects that the Department of the Air Force's
    civilian personnel costs is overstated for fiscal year 2010 by
    $588.1 million. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
    decrease of $538.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air
    Force for overstatement of civilian personnel pay.

                                  Defense-wide

    Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

        The budget request included $36.7 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and
    Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). This represents a
    decrease from the $39.8 million requested for fiscal year 2009.
        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.
        Since Congress provided the authority in 2003, over 130
    projects have been initiated conserving more than 76,000 acres
    at 53 military installations in 23 states. More can be done to
    protect important military test and training assets and to
    preserve the land around 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 compatible use buffer
    zones.

    Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational Energy

        The committee created the Director of Operational Energy
    Plans and Programs in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
    The committee therefore authorizes $5.0 million of Operation
    and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Director of Operational
    Energy Plans and Programs.

    Defense readiness reporting system

        The budget request included $7.4 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Defense Readiness Reporting
    System (DRRS). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
    million for the acceleration of the development and deployment
    of DRRS. The committee remains aware of the challenges
    associated with the accurate, reliable, timely measurement, and
    reporting of the readiness of military forces. The current
    readiness reporting system, Global Status of Resources and
    Training System (GSORTS), is inadequate to meet the demands of
    the force rotation strategy that supports operations in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and around the world. The Department of Defense
    (DOD), Joint Staff, and the United States Joint Forces Command
    continue to lack the visibility of deployed and non-deployed
    forces' capabilities and readiness required to manage global
    military commitments.
        In June 2002, DOD issued a directive establishing the DRRS,
    a capabilities-based, adaptive, near-term readiness reporting
    system. The directive requires all components to align their
    readiness reporting processes with DRRS. Since then, we
    understand DOD and the services have taken a number of steps
    but that DRRS is not yet fully operational and aligned with the
    services' reporting processes.
        The committee supports the Department's development of DRRS
    as an important management modernization and replacement for
    GSORTS. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    reports that significant shortfalls remain in the
    implementation of DRRS, stability of requirements, adequacy of
    testing, and overall management and oversight of the program.
    The committee remains concerned that the Department has yet to
    successfully plan, organize, resource, execute tests, and full
    deployment for DRRS within the Global Command and Control
    System.
        Additionally, the committee is aware that GAO has not
    reported the technology readiness of DRRS. Accordingly, the
    committee directs the Director of Defense Research and
    Engineering, in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense (Networks & Information Integration) and the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense, Personnel & Readiness, to jointly
    undertake a review of the technological maturity of the
    critical technology elements and systems integration issues
    related to DRRS. A report to the defense committees shall be
    delivered no later than 120 days after enactment of this act.

    Commercial imagery acquisition

        The budget request included classified amounts in Operation
    and Maintenance, Defense-wide, in the National Geospatial
    Intelligence Agency budget to initiate the competitive
    acquisition through the commercial data providers (CDPs) of the
    equivalent capacity of two 1.1-meter electro-optical (EO)
    imaging satellites to augment the capacity currently under
    contract. This decision was made because the Department of
    Defense (DOD) wants to ensure that at least moderate resolution
    EO capability is available to the warfighter from multiple
    satellites with minimum risk. In deliberations within the
    administration on the broad national and defense reconnaissance
    architecture, DOD had proposed building satellites with 1.5-
    meter apertures, on the grounds that these would be adequate to
    meet DOD needs, would be more affordable, and, by buying more
    of them, would be more survivable and sustainable from a space
    protection and industrial base perspective.
        The Secretary of Defense recently testified to the Senate
    that the Department made the decision to acquire more 1.1-meter
    imagery rather than higher quality 1.5-meter imagery due to
    concerns about schedule and technology risk with the ``upper
    tier'' of capability that the Director of National Intelligence
    recently decided to acquire. After careful consideration of the
    schedule and risks involved, the committee concludes that DOD
    can prudently substitute one 1.5-meter commercial-class
    satellite for one of the 1.1-meter satellite equivalents
    proposed in the budget request.
        The committee believes that it is within the capacity of
    the commercial imagery industry to produce one or more 1.5-
    meter satellites before the period of risk identified by the
    Secretary. The committee believes furthermore that, by
    acquiring the capability of a 1.5-meter satellite, DOD will
    substantially reduce the consequences to the Nation in the
    event that the schedule and technical risks identified by the
    Secretary are realized.
        The committee, therefore, directs the Director of the
    National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to competitively
    acquire the equivalent capacity of at least one 1.5-meter
    commercial imagery satellite on a schedule keyed to the risks
    identified by the Secretary. The committee will leave it to DOD
    to decide whether to buy the satellite outright or to acquire
    capacity through the CDPs. The committee recommends, however,
    that DOD operate the acquired satellite or capacity through one
    or more of the CDPs, on mutually agreeable terms. The committee
    encourages the Department to structure these commercial imagery
    acquisitions to minimize cost and technical and schedule risk.
        The committee fully supports the administration's decision
    to build a secure and responsive tasking, processing, and
    dissemination capability, enabling for the first time routine
    use of commercial imagery for time-sensitive operational
    support and intelligence analysis, as opposed to mapping,
    charting, and geodesy.
        The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense
    provide to the congressional intelligence and defense
    committees prior to conference on the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 an estimate of any
    additional funds that may be required to acquire 1.5-meter
    imagery.

    Department of Defense Education Activity Operation & Maintenance
            funding

        The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department
    of Defense Education Activity Operation 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                      30.0
     students.............................................
    Assistance for schools with military students due to                10.0
     rebasing.............................................
    Impact aid for children with severe disabilities......               5.0
    Military community support for autism.................               5.0
                                                           -----------------
        Total.............................................              50.0

    Undistributed bulk fuel savings

        Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office
    shows that the Department of Defense overstated its funding
    requirements for refined oil for fiscal year 2010 by $611.0
    million, based on updated economic assumptions for the cost of
    refined oil as of May 2009. Accordingly, the committee
    recommends a decrease of $596.2 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide, undistributed, for fuel savings.

    Software licenses

        The committee recommends a general reduction of $50.0
    million from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for funds
    intended for payment of new software license fees. Elsewhere in
    this report, the committee highlights a number of concerns
    about the Department's coordination and management of software
    license purchases, and directs a review of the issue.

                                  Army Reserve

    Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve

        The budget request included $106.5 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces system
    readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million
    in OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and abatement.

                              Army National Guard

    Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard

        The budget request included $99.7 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces
    systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an
    increase of $3.6 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion
    protection and abatement.

    Controlled humidity protection

        The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for air operations, but
    provided no funds for controlled humidity protection. The
    Government Accountability Office has found that the readiness
    and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded by
    corrosion. The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars
    annually to address corrosion damage that could be avoided with
    increased prevention and mitigation technology such as
    controlled humidity protection. The committee recommends an
    increase of $2.7 million in OMANG for controlled humidity
    protection.

                              Unobligated Balances

    Unobligated balances decrease in funding

        The committee is aware that the challenges associated with
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan create 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 military departments had $1.2
    billion in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years
    2004 through 2008.
        The committee recalls that 4 years ago the Department began
    to reduce the O&M portion of its annual funding request and
    future-years defense program before submission to Congress
    based, in part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances.
    The Department also underfunds important maintenance and
    activities in its annual request in anticipation of
    supplemental appropriations. Whether made available in annual
    or supplemental appropriations, the Department and 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. Therefore, the committee
    recommends a decrease to the Department's O&M accounts, as
    follows: Operation and Maintenance, Army, $350.0 million,
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $150.0 million, Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force, $150.0 million, and Operation and
    Maintenance, defense wide, $150.0 million.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Army organizational structure and personnel requirements

        The committee has over the years expressed its concern with
    the limited dwell time for members of the United States Armed
    Forces committed to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee is especially
    concerned with the limited dwell time for the soldiers of the
    Army's active component. In hearing testimony earlier this year
    before the Subcommittee on Airland, witnesses raised questions
    about whether or not the Army was appropriately large enough or
    organized for the types of conflicts in which it is currently
    engaged or may become engaged in the future.
        The Secretary of Defense recently recommended capping the
    growth of the active Army at 45 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs),
    rather than the previously planned goal of 48 BCTs as part of
    the end strength growth begun in 2007. The Secretary
    essentially argues that the Army is over-structured and
    undermanned or that there are more units than there are
    soldiers to fill them. Rather than increase end strength beyond
    the 547,400 planned, the Secretary has chosen to limit the
    growth of unit structure. The committee requires additional
    information from the Department of Defense in order to more
    comprehensively assess the manning, readiness, operational
    implications, and risk of this decision.
        The committee therefore directs that the Secretary of the
    Army, not later than March 1, 2010, shall submit to the
    congressional defense committees an unclassified report, with a
    classified annex as appropriate, that provides an analysis,
    comparison, and projected impacts of limiting the Army's active
    component to 45 rather than 48 BCTs through 2012. This analysis
    shall include an assessment of how the decision to keep the
    Army's active component at 45 combat brigades would impact unit
    time-deployed to time-at-home ratios for the Army's BCTs, as
    well as the time-deployed to time-at-home ratios by officer and
    enlisted grade for the 30 military occupational specialties in
    highest demand to support OEF and OIF. In making these
    analyses, the report shall discuss the risks associated with
    these time-deployed to time-at-home ratios and requirements
    projections in the event that demand for U.S. forces does not
    significantly diminish through 2012.
        The committee is also concerned that the demand for non-
    standard units, such as security assistance training teams and
    headquarters staffs, puts additional stress on standard unit
    readiness and high demand military skills. Accordingly, the
    committee directs that the report shall include an analysis and
    projected impacts of personnel requirements for ad hoc units
    and individual augmentees through 2012 to meet requirements to
    support OEF and OIF, including:
           Individual Army augmentees deployed to support
    staff requirements at higher headquarters echelons such as
    Multinational Forces-Iraq, Multinational Corps-Iraq, the
    International Security Assistance Force, U.S. Forces-
    Afghanistan, and other relevant echelons above brigade of U.S.
    forces supporting OEF and OIF.
           Specialized organizations that have been created
    to meet theater-specific requirements in OEF and OIF, such as
    Task Force ODIN, Multinational Security Transition Assistance
    Command, Provincial Reconstruction teams, and other ad hoc
    organizations created for specific theater requirements in OEF
    and OIF. This would also include units tasked with a security
    force assistance mission or other non-standard task-organized
    units such as military transition teams, advisory and
    assistance brigades, and other units uniquely organized,
    equipped, trained, and deployed for OEF and OIF.
           The impact on BCTs of junior and mid-grade
    officer and non-commissioned officers demand to fill ad hoc
    staff or unit requirements in theater.
        Within 30 days of the completion of this report, the
    Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
    committees a report describing steps that the Department of
    Defense has taken and plans to implement that will improve the
    time-deployed to time-at-home ratios for the Army active
    component.

    Continued assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant
            command operational plans

        The report to accompany the Duncan Hunter National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
    directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct
    an assessment of the implementation of the directives contained
    in the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 3133.03C.
    The assessment was to evaluate the contracting support plans
    for combatant command operations plans as reported in the
    Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) as required by
    section 482 of title 10, United States Code.
        However, preliminary indications from GAO suggest that
    combatant command planning related to contracting support for
    contingency operations has been slow to start and applied
    unevenly.
        The committee continues to believe that contingency plans
    must have comprehensive, detailed, and realistic contracting
    support plans that meet the operational requirements of the
    force before, during, and after combat operations.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include
    with each QRRC submitted in 2010 and 2011 an identification of
    the operational plans that require a contracting annex, for
    which plans the contracting annex has been drafted, and for
    which plans the contracting annex has been approved.
        The GAO assessment, as originally required by the Duncan
    Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
    (Public Law 110-417), is due to congressional defense
    committees not later than September 30, 2009. The committee
    extends the deadline to March 30, 2010. The committee expects
    the Department will cooperate with GAO's review of the
    contracting annexes of these plans.

    Cost-benefit analysis of depot maintenance workload associated with AV-
            8B Harrier weapons system

        The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives identifying each alternative the
    Secretary is considering for the performance of AV-8B planned
    maintenance interval events and concurrent aircraft
    modifications. The report shall include a justification for the
    alternative selected or recommended by the Secretary, including
    a cost-benefit analysis and an explanation of how the
    alternative is consistent with the requirements of chapter 146
    of title 10, United States Code (including the requirement for
    the Department of Defense to identify and maintain core
    logistics capabilities).

    Depot-level maintenance and repair

        Depot maintenance is a key part of the total Department of
    Defense (DOD) logistics system that helps to support the
    readiness and sustainability of major weapon systems. Section
    2466 of title 10, United States Code, states that not more than
    50 percent of the funds made available to a military department
    or defense agency for depot-level maintenance and repair may be
    used to contract for performance by the private sector.
        The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
    and Logistics has explained the Department's interpretation and
    application of this requirement as follows:

              ``Although the current section 2460 excludes the
            procurement of major modifications or upgrades of
            weapon systems that are designed to improve program
            performance from the definition of depot maintenance
            and repair, DOD depot maintenance, repair, and
            modification of weapon systems are typically done in an
            integrated manner. Under these circumstances, it is
            difficult to separately account for and track
            individual labor elements, although there can be a
            clear accounting between labor and parts. For this
            reason, in reporting 50/50 compliance since 1998, DOD
            has included the installation of all modification and
            upgrades, while excluding the acquisition of associated
            parts.''

        The committee directs the Department to coordinate with the
    committee before implementing any significant change to the
    interpretation and application of the requirements of section
    2466.

    Pollution Prevention Program

        The committee believes it is important for the Department
    of Defense and the military departments to continue to pursue
    pollution prevention strategies and technologies that will
    further reduce waste streams, protect people and the
    environment, meet regulatory requirements, and, ultimately,
    save money in terms of conservation, compliance, and cleanup.
    The committee notes that the President's budget request
    includes a substantial decrease in pollution prevention funding
    in fiscal year 2010 as compared to the previous few years.
    While some of the costs associated with pollution prevention
    can be absorbed in the Department's environmental compliance
    program, and some of the onus for developing pollution
    prevention strategies can be passed to the acquisition programs
    through green procurement initiatives, it is important to
    maintain a robust pollution prevention program that will
    identify strategies, technologies and techniques, and that
    maintains clear lines of responsibility and accountability for
    program management. The committee urges the Department to
    develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the Department:
    (1) funds pollution prevention projects that are likely to
    result in significant savings or significantly improve the
    Department's environmental performance; and (2) can track
    investments in pollution prevention and the payback from such
    investments, regardless of the source of funding for such
    investments.
                  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 2010, as shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2009                                  2010
                                                               authorization       2010 request      recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army...................................................            532,400            547,400            547,400
    Navy...................................................            326,323            328,800            328,800
    Marine Corps...........................................            194,000            202,100            202,100
    Air Force..............................................            317,050            331,700            331,700
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) authorized an active-duty
    end strength for the Army of 532,400 and for the Marine Corps
    of 194,000. Additional authority was provided in section 403 of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2008 (Public
    Law 110-181) to increase active-duty end strength for fiscal
    years 2009 and 2010 to 547,400 for the Army and 202,000 for the
    Marine Corps.
        The committee has supported the growth in the Army and
    Marine Corps over the past several years, and commends those
    services for achieving their planned growth almost 3 years
    ahead of schedule. With demand for forces unlikely to lessen in
    2010, the higher end strengths are essential, especially in
    view of the growing number of individuals who are unable to
    deploy due to injuries, disease, or for other reasons. The
    committee remains concerned about the level of stress on the
    force that repeated and lengthy deployments are causing. In
    recent years, all of the services have seen their suicide rates
    increase, and the Army in particular has seen a troubling rise
    in the number of suicides this year. Meanwhile, the Secretary
    of Defense announced that the Army will cease its use of stop-
    loss by January 2010. While the committee applauds this change
    in policy, it recognizes that additional personnel may be
    required to continue to ensure the cohesiveness and readiness
    of units preparing to deploy. The active component dwell time
    target of 2 years home for each year deployed is still not
    being met, even with the increased forces. The committee urges
    the Department of Defense to implement personnel policies that
    will improve dwell time and the quality-of-life of military
    members and their families.
        Meanwhile, the Air Force and the Navy have been reducing
    their active-duty end strengths in recent years. Both services
    announced this year a halt to the planned decline of the size
    of their active forces, and the Administration's 2010 budget
    submission reflects this decision. The committee supports the
    higher end strengths of the Air Force and Navy requested in the
    budget that more accurately reflect what those services require
    to accomplish their missions.
        The committee supports the Administration's request and
    recommends active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2010 for
    the Army of 547,400, the Marine Corps of 202,100, the Navy of
    328,800, and the Air Force of 331,700.

    Additional authority for increases of Army active duty end strengths
            for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 (sec. 402)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army active-duty end
    strength by 30,000 over 2010 levels in fiscal years 2011 and
    2012, provided the Secretary requests the necessary funding in
    the fiscal year 2011 and 2012 budget requests.

                           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 2010, as shown
    below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2009                                  2010
                                                               authorization       2010 request      recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Army National Guard of the United States...........            352,600            358,200            358,200
    The Army Reserve.......................................            205,000            205,000            205,000
    The Navy Reserve.......................................             66,700             65,500             65,500
    The Marine Corps Reserve...............................             39,600             39,600             39,600
    The Air National Guard of the United States............            106,756            106,700            106,700
    The Air Force Reserve..................................             67,400             69,500             69,500
    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 2010, as shown
    below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2009                                  2010
                                                               authorization       2010 request      recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Army National Guard of the United States...........             32,060             32,060             32,060
    The Army Reserve.......................................             16,170             16,261             16,261
    The Navy Reserve.......................................             11,099             10,818             10,818
    The Marine Corps Reserve...............................              2,261              2,261              2,261
    The Air National Guard of the United States............             14,360             14,555             14,555
    The Air Force Reserve..................................              2,733              2,896              2,896
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee recommends Active Guard and Reserve end
    strength increases of 91 in the Army Reserve, 195 in the Air
    National Guard, and 163 in the Air Force Reserve over levels
    approved for fiscal year 2009. The committee supports increases
    in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels
    to increase readiness in the reserve components.
        The committee also recommends a decrease of 281 from the
    fiscal year 2009 level in the Navy Reserve, consistent with
    reductions in the overall Navy Reserve end strength. The
    committee recommends end strengths for the Army National Guard
    and the Marine Corps Reserve equal to the fiscal year 2009
    level, consistent with the budget request.

    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 2010, as shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2009                                  2010
                                                               authorization       2010 request      recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Army Reserve.......................................              8,395              8,154              8,395
    The Army National Guard of the United States...........             27,210             26,901             27,210
    The Air Force Reserve..................................             10,003             10,417             10,417
    The Air National Guard of the United States............             22,452             22,313             22,313
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal year 2010 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, 2010,
    as shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2009                                  2010
                                                               authorization       2010 request      recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Army National Guard of the United States...........              1,600              2,500              1,600
    The Air National Guard of the United States............                350                350                350
    The Army Reserve.......................................                595                836                595
    The Air Force Reserve..................................                 90                 90                 90
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 2010, as
    shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2009                                  2010
                                                               authorization       2010 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
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Report on trainee account for the Army National Guard (sec. 416)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional defense
    committees a report assessing the need to establish a trainees,
    transients, holdees, and students account within the Army
    National Guard. The report would be due no later than 180 days
    after the date of enactment of this Act.

                  Subtitle C--Authorization 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 2010. The provision would
    also authorize funds to be contributed to the Medicare-Eligible
    Retiree Health Fund.

                                  Budget Item

                       Military personnel funding changes

        The amount authorized to be appropriated for military
    personnel programs in section 421 of this Act includes the
    following changes from the budget request:

                        [Changes in millions of dollars]

    Increase in military pay raise........................             350.0
    Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program..              59.0
    Travel reimbursement for suspended training...........               5.0
    Mental health assessments.............................               3.0
    Substance abuse study.................................               1.5
    Reduction of unobligated military personnel balances..            -818.5
                                                           -----------------
        Total.............................................            -400.0

                       TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                      Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

    Modification of limitations on general and flag officers on active duty
            (sec. 501)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    sections 525, 526, and 721 of title 10, United States Code, to
    implement section 506 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
    modify the distribution and authorized end strengths of general
    and flag officers on active duty.
    Revisions to annual report requirement on joint officer management
            (sec. 502)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 667 of title 10, United States Code, to align the
    reporting requirement on joint officer management with joint
    programs and policies of the Department of Defense, and delete
    the requirements to report on the joint qualifications of
    critical occupational specialty officers and the analysis of
    assignments of officers after designation as joint qualified
    officers.
    Grade of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
            (sec. 503)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 156(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require that
    an officer appointed to serve as Legal Counsel to the Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be appointed in the regular grade
    of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half).
    Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force (sec. 504)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    chapter 805 of title 10, United States Code, to establish in
    statute the positions of Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains in
    the Air Force. The Chief of Chaplains will be appointed in the
    grade of major general, and the Deputy Chief of Chaplains will
    be appointed in the grade of brigadier general. Both officers
    will be appointed for a term of 3 years.

                    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

    Report on requirements of the National Guard for non-dual status
            technicians (sec. 511)
        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 House of Representatives
    regarding the Department's utilization of National Guard non-
    dual status technicians. The report would be due no later than
    180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                       Subtitle C--Education and Training

    Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs
            (sec. 521)
        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.
    Expansion of criteria for appointment as member of the Board of Regents
            of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
            (sec. 522)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2113a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to
    authorize appointment of individuals with experience in the
    fields of health care, higher education administration, and
    public policy as members of the Board of Regents of the
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
    Detail of commissioned officers as students at schools of psychology
            (sec. 523)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
    Secretary of each military department to detail up to 25
    commissioned officers each year as students at accredited
    schools of psychology for training leading to the degree of
    Doctor of Philosophy in clinical psychology. To be eligible for
    such training, an officer must agree to serve on active duty
    for 2 years or in the reserves for three years for each year of
    training.
        The committee recommends this provision in response to
    testimony of senior military and civilian leaders in the
    Department of Defense that there is a significant shortfall in
    military behavioral health personnel.

               Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education Matters

    Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
            benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and
            Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 531)
        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 $10.0 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. 532)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $5.0 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 the Department of Defense's assistance to
    local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe
    disabilities.
    Two-year extension of authority for assistance to local educational
            agencies with enrollment changes due to base closures, force
            structure changes, or force relocations (sec. 533)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 7703b(b)(4) of title 20, United States Code, to extend
    for 2 years, from September 30, 2010, to September 30, 2012,
    the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide financial
    assistance to local educational agencies with enrollment
    changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or force
    relocations.
    Permanent authority for enrollment in defense dependents' education
            system of dependents of foreign military members assigned to
            Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (sec. 534)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 923a of title 20, United States Code, to make permanent
    the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense in
    section 571 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to enroll on a
    space-required, tuition-free basis a limited number of
    dependents of foreign military members who are assigned to the
    Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe, in the Department
    of Defense dependents' education system in Mons, Belgium.
        The provision would also provide that the Secretary of
    Defense, in determining the methodology for the proper number
    of foreign students, would do so with the advice and assistance
    of the geographic combatant commander with jurisdiction over
    Mons, Belgium.
    Study on options for educational opportunities for dependent children
            of members of the armed forces who do not attend Department of
            Defense dependents schools (sec. 535)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
    Education, to conduct a study on options for educational
    opportunities that are, or may be, available for dependent
    children of members of the armed forces who do not attend
    Department of Defense dependents' schools when the public
    elementary and secondary schools are determined to be in need
    of improvement pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
    (Public Law 110-117). The study would examine such options as
    vouchers, education using the internet, Charter schools, and
    other options considered appropriate by the Secretary of
    Defense and Secretary of Education.
    Sense of Senate on the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity
            for Military Children (sec. 536)
        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate to: commend the 21 States that have
    successfully enacted the Interstate Compact on Educational
    Opportunity for Military Children; encourage all remaining
    States to enact the Interstate Compact; recognize the
    importance of the components of the Interstate Compact, such as
    improved transfer of educational records; recalculation of
    grades to consider the weights of different educational
    institutions; waiver of specific courses required for
    graduation if similar course work has been satisfactorily
    completed in another educational institution; recognition of an
    appointed guardian as a custodial parent while the child's
    parent or parents are deployed; and express support for States
    to develop a State Council to help coordinate the participation
    of local government agencies, local education agencies, and
    military installations in implementing the Interstate Compact.
        The committee notes that the Interstate Compact can help
    ease the burdens placed on military families by permanent
    change of station moves, and that military personnel have
    stated that their childrens' education is a major factor in
    overall force readiness.

           Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters

    Independent review of judge advocate requirements of the Department of
            the Navy (sec. 541)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish
    an independent panel to review the judge advocate requirements
    for the Department of the Navy. The provision would require the
    Secretary of Defense to appoint a panel of five private
    citizens to conduct a study of judge advocate responsibilities,
    assignment and career development policies, and management and
    organizational practices of the Navy and Marine Corps, with the
    objective of determining the required number of judge advocates
    needed to fulfill the Department's legal mission.
        The committee has noted with concern the increasing demands
    being placed upon judge advocates in the Navy and Marine Corps
    to fulfill critically important wartime legal roles with
    minimal or no commensurate increases in judge advocate manning
    or billets. In the Navy, the committee believes that the level
    of risk associated with ``doing more with less'' has reached
    its limit. The committee applauds the Navy's initiative to
    conduct a Center for Naval Analyses study in 2008 to examine
    this issue and believes this study will be highly useful to the
    independent review panel.
        The Marine Corps has not conducted a similar study, and the
    committee expects the independent panel to address Marine Corps
    manpower requirements issues. The committee has questioned the
    Marine Corps' decision not to create additional judge advocate
    billets or increase judge advocate manning as part of its
    overall growth in active-duty end strength of 27,000 since
    2007. The committee is concerned that proposed near-term
    solutions, such as immediate termination of assignments of
    judge advocates to career enhancing, non-legal billets, will
    adversely affect the professional development and promotions of
    mid-level Marine Corps judge advocates, and urges a more
    deliberate response.
        The committee believes that it is essential for the legal
    arm of the Navy-Marine Corps team, with the full support of
    senior line leaders, to work more cooperatively to address the
    legal requirements for judge advocates in the Department of the
    Navy. The committee will look to the independent panel, the
    Secretary of Defense, and Navy leadership to provide positive
    recommendations and planning for implementation in this regard.

                 Subtitle F--Military Family Readiness Matters

    Additional members on the Department of Defense Military Family
            Readiness Council (sec. 551)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1781a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to mandate
    the addition of two members to the Department of Defense
    Military Family Readiness Council. One representative would be
    from the National Guard, and the other representative would be
    from a reserve component other than the National Guard. Both
    representatives would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
        The committee recognizes the important roles played by
    members of the Guard and reserve components and their families
    and believes it is critical that their views be represented on
    the Council.
    Comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance
            use disorders and disposition of substance abuse offenders in
            the armed forces (sec. 552)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the
    programs and activities of the Department of Defense for the
    prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance use disorders
    and the policies of the Department relating to the disposition
    of substance abuse offenders and to submit a report of this
    review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the
    date of enactment of this Act. After completion of this review,
    the provision would require a study by an independent entity on
    substance use disorder programs for members of the armed
    forces. The provision would also require the Secretary of
    Defense to submit a comprehensive plan to improve these
    programs, activities, and policies to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
    later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
    Military community support for children with autism and their families
            (sec. 553)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a policy and
    program to provide broad-based community support to military
    children with autism and their families. The provision would
    also require the Secretary to conduct one or more pilot
    projects to evaluate the effectiveness of various programmatic
    approaches that include research, early intervention, evidence-
    based therapeutic services, education and training for family
    members, coordination with local educational programs,
    vocational training, and family counseling.
        The committee expects this program to be carried out by the
    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and
    Family Policy, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Health Affairs. The intent of this provision is to
    provide a broad base of support services to military families
    who face the challenge of meeting the needs of family members
    with autism. Medical and therapeutic services available under
    TRICARE represent an important part of that support, but
    families' needs are even greater.
        To further this effort to increase military community
    support for children with autism and their families, the
    committee expects the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
    Affairs to ensure that military and civilian health care
    providers have access to current information on evidence-based
    practices for early diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum
    disorders, to enable families to receive diagnoses and begin
    therapy, treatment, and education elements as early as
    possible.
    Reports on effects of deployments on military children and the
            availability of mental health care and counseling services for
            military children (sec. 554)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to undertake a comprehensive assessment of
    the impacts of military deployment on dependent children of
    service members, to include separate assessments on preschool-
    age children, elementary-school age children, and teenage or
    adolescent children. The Secretary would be required to submit
    a report of the findings and recommendations stemming from the
    assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
    and the House of Representatives not later than 1 year after
    the date of enactment of this Act.
        The committee notes that to date, the Department of Defense
    has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of
    deployments on military children, and believes that the
    Department needs such an assessment in order to create
    relevant, effective counseling and resiliency programs for
    military children.
        The committee is also concerned that military families cite
    lack of timely access to health care, and specifically to
    mental health care, for military children as a major family
    readiness issue. Therefore, the provision would also require
    the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive review of the mental
    health care and counseling services available to children of
    service members, to include: the access to, quality, and
    effectiveness of such services in military treatment
    facilities, family assistance centers, under TRICARE, and in
    Department of Defense dependents' schools; whether the status
    of a service member as active duty or reserve affects the
    access of a military child to such services; and whether and to
    what extent waiting lists, geographic distance, and other
    factors may obstruct military childrens' receipt of such
    services. The Secretary would be required to submit a report on
    the findings of the review to the Committees on Armed Services
    of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 1
    year after the date of enactment of this Act, and to utilize
    those findings to develop a comprehensive plan to improve
    access to quality mental health care and counseling services
    for military children and adolescents.
    Report on child custody litigation involving service of members of the
            armed forces (sec. 555)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
    report on judicial cases involving child custody disputes in
    which the service of a deployed or deploying member of the
    armed forces, active or reserve, was an issue in a child
    custody dispute.
        The committee is aware of concerns that have been raised
    about the vulnerability of single parent service members who
    have custody of minor children to litigation by non-custodial
    parents seeking a change in custody in connection with an
    operational deployment. The committee believes that
    comprehensive factual information regarding State courts'
    actual experience with this issue and an assessment of the
    scope and nature of this problem is essential before any
    federal preemption of State legislation would be warranted.
    This is particularly true in view of the resolution by the
    American Bar Association issued in February 2009, strongly
    recommending against federal legislation regulating child
    custody disputes.
        A separate provision contained elsewhere in this Bill would
    express the sense of the Senate that a properly prepared and
    coordinated family care plan is necessary for members of the
    armed forces who have custody of a child pursuant to a court
    order or separation agreement.
    Sense of Senate on preparation and coordination of family care plans
            (sec. 556)
        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that a properly prepared and coordinated
    family care plan is essential for service members who have
    custody of a child pursuant to a court order or separation
    agreement.
        A separate provision contained elsewhere in this Bill would
    require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on
    Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
    on reported cases involving child custody disputes in which the
    service of a member of the armed forces, active or reserve, was
    an issue in the child custody dispute.

                           Subtitle G--Other Matters

    Deadline for report on sexual assault in the armed forces by Defense
            Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (sec.
            571)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 576(e)(1) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) to
    require the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the
    Military Services to submit its report to the Secretary of
    Defense and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force
    not later than December 1, 2009.
        Under section 576 of Public Law 108-375, the Defense Task
    Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service
    Academies was renamed as the Defense Task Force on Sexual
    Assault in the Military Services upon completion of its work on
    June 30, 2005. This renamed task force was required to conduct
    an examination of matters relating to sexual assault in cases
    in which members of the armed forces are either victims or
    commit acts of sexual assault. However, the task force did not
    initiate this examination until August, 2008, more than 3 years
    later.
        While significant advances have been made by the Department
    in responding to the problem of sexual assaults in the armed
    forces, the committee remains concerned about continuing
    reports of lack of uniformity by the military departments in
    implementing Department of Defense sexual assault policies,
    inadequate data collection, and the inability of the Department
    of Defense to develop standardized reports of incidents of
    sexual assault which can be used to measure progress.
        The committee looks forward to receipt of the report of the
    Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services
    and encourages expedited review of the findings and
    recommendations of this task force and implementation of
    appropriate recommendations. Further delays in completing this
    important work must be avoided.
    Clarification of performance policies for military musical units and
            musicians (sec. 572)
        The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
    restrictions on performances in competition with local
    musicians and the authority of military musical units and
    musicians to support official events that are funded, in whole
    or in part, by appropriated or non-appropriated funds. The
    provision would also authorize military musical units and
    musicians to provide musical requirements for official military
    events, including events held off a military installation,
    performances that foster cooperative relationships with other
    nations, and events sponsored by or for a military welfare
    society.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Alaska Territorial Guard
        In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001
    (Public Law 106-259), Congress appropriately recognized service
    by Alaska Territorial Guard members during World War II and
    required that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard be
    credited toward eligibility for veteran benefits. The committee
    is aware that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
    credited some Alaska Territorial Guard members' service toward
    retired pay, only to later inform them that the service credit
    was contrary to law. The committee agrees with the decision of
    the Secretary of the Army to waive recoupment of amounts
    erroneously paid, and urges the Secretary to explore other ways
    to honor and recognize the service of members of the Alaska
    Territorial Guard.
    Cultural and language proficiency
        The committee supports efforts to improve the foreign
    language and cultural proficiency of our servicemen and women.
    Reports from the 9/11 Commission and the Government
    Accountability Office have found that shortages in foreign
    language and cultural capabilities exist across the U.S.
    Government. The committee believes it is critical to the
    missions of the Department's geographic combatant commands and
    intelligence components that U.S. service members and the
    Department's civilian employees understand the cultures in
    which they may operate and are capable of engaging individuals
    in their native language. As the Department works to increase
    these skill sets to meet the requirements of current and
    potential future engagements, the committee urges the
    Department to consider existing language and cultural
    curriculum at universities and colleges throughout the Nation
    as an opportunity to augment existing Department operated
    programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    submit a report 180 days after the date of enactment of this
    Act on any plans to leverage these programs in a manner that
    compliments the Department's organic language and cultural
    training programs.
    Inspector General review of post-trial processes for court-martial
            record preparation and appellate review within the Department
            of the Navy
        The committee believes that action is long overdue to
    analyze and correct longstanding problems with the post-trial
    processes for preparation of records of courts-martial and for
    appellate review of court-martial convictions within the
    Department of the Navy. The United States Court of Appeals for
    the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) in the case of Toohey v. United
    States, 60 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2004), established standards for
    assessing whether convicted service members had been denied due
    process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as a
    result of denial of reasonable appellate processing of their
    cases. Since then, a succession of Navy and Marine Corps cases,
    including, but not limited to, United States v. Jones, 61 M.J.
    80 (C.A.A.F. 2005); United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365
    (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.
    2006); United States v. Dearing, 63 M.J. 478 (C.A.A.F. 2006);
    and, most recently, the unpublished case of United States v.
    Foster have addressed extremely lengthy delays in appellate
    review. In the Foster case, the conviction of a Marine was set
    aside because his conviction for rape ``could not withstand the
    test for legal and factual sufficiency.'' This Marine had been
    confined for more than 9 years awaiting appellate review of his
    case. These cases demonstrate that cognizant legal authorities
    in the Department of the Navy have not taken necessary and
    appropriate steps to ensure that the resources, command
    attention, and necessary supervision have been devoted to the
    task of ensuring that the Navy and Marine Corps post-trial
    military justice system functions properly in all cases.
        The committee recognizes that a series of Navy Judge
    Advocates General have attempted to overcome the systemic
    challenges associated with preparing, authenticating, tracking,
    and forwarding records of trial from numerous commands
    entrusted with court-martial convening authority and ensuring
    that the appellate review process comports with all legal
    standards. The committee is convinced, however, that
    intervention is needed by departmental civilian and military
    leaders to definitively resolve these chronic administrative
    problems and that action should be taken immediately to resolve
    these issues.
        The committee directs the Inspector General of the
    Department of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
    the Navy, to review the systems, policies, and procedures
    currently in use to ensure timely and legally sufficient post-
    trial reviews of courts-martial within the Department of the
    Navy. The review shall discuss and summarize the history of
    problems experienced by the Navy and Marine Corps since 1990 in
    ensuring appropriate appellate review of general and special
    courts-martial and curative measures.
        The principal focus of the review shall be to determine
    whether the resources dedicated to post-trial processes, the
    information and tracking systems in use, the applicable
    procedures and policies, and the monitoring and supervision of
    actions of participants in the military justice system aimed at
    ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of law are
    adequate to accomplish the requirements for due process of law
    under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and applicable case
    law. This review should be provided to the Secretary of the
    Navy no later than January 1, 2010.
        The committee further directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
    consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations and the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps, no later than March 1, 2010, to
    submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives a written report on the findings
    and recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector
    General and actions taken or planned to address these findings
    and recommendations. The Secretary shall include in the report
    his assessment of the adequacy of (1) the Department of the
    Navy's processes and resources dedicated to affording legally
    sufficient post-trial review of all Navy and Marine Corps
    cases, (2) the systems in place to track courts-martial cases,
    and (3) means to ensure accountability and compliance with the
    requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and
    applicable case law.

    Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

        The committee applauds the Department of Defense's request
    for funding of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for
    National Guard and reserve members and their families, as
    required by section 582 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for 2008 (Public Law 110-181), in both the request for
    supplemental funding for fiscal year 2009 and the base budget
    request for fiscal year 2010.
        The committee seeks assurance that the funds, although
    requested in multiple component accounts, support robust joint
    programs that provide reintegration and support services to
    members and their families regardless of military affiliation.
    The committee also seeks assurance that required activities are
    occurring in all phases of the deployment cycle: pre-
    deployment, deployment, demobilization, and post-deployment-
    reconstitution.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
    the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives not later than October 1, 2009 on the initial
    implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in
    fiscal year 2009 and plans for further implementation in fiscal
    year 2010.
              TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                         Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

    Fiscal year 2010 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 3.4 percent,
    0.5 percent above the pay raise recommended in the budget
    request, to become effective January 1, 2010.
    Comptroller General of the United States comparative assessment of
            military and private-sector pay and benefits (sec. 602)
        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study
    comparing military pay and benefits with comparable private-
    sector pay and benefits. The provision would also direct the
    Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense
    committees on the study by no later than April 1, 2010.
        The committee remains committed to ensuring that the pay
    and benefits of military members provide appropriate
    compensation for military service recognizing the demands on
    military personnel in wartime and the sacrifices they and their
    families make. One metric for assessing the sufficiency of pay
    and benefits is pay comparability between military members and
    similarly situated private-sector employees, accounting for
    age, education, and experience. As the military services
    compete with the private sector for the most talented personnel
    in the workforce with unique skills and qualifications,
    military pay and benefits must be at levels necessary to
    attract and retain outstanding individuals for military
    service. Over the past 9 years, Congress has significantly
    enhanced the pay and benefits of military members, and the
    committee looks to the Comptroller General to provide a pay
    comparability analysis in light of these enhancements.
    Increase in maximum monthly amount of supplemental subsistence
            allowance for low-income members with dependents (sec. 603)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 402a of title 37, United States Code, to increase the
    maximum monthly amount of the supplemental subsistence
    allowance from $500 to $1,100 per month. The provision would
    also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
    congressional defense committees by September 1, 2010, a plan,
    in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to ensure
    members of the armed forces and their dependents need not rely
    on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under
    chapter 51 of title 7, United States Code, for nutritional
    assistance.
        The committee remains concerned about reports that a number
    of service members and their dependents still receive
    assistance under SNAP to meet their basic nutritional needs.
    The supplemental subsistence allowance was designed to
    alleviate the need for service members and their households to
    rely on SNAP. The committee is troubled that the Department and
    the services do not track members receiving assistance under
    SNAP, even as the number of members receiving the supplemental
    subsistence allowance remains low. The committee hopes that the
    plan submitted under this section will provide a path for
    eliminating all service members and their households from
    eligibility for assistance under SNAP.
    Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program for
            certain periods before implementation of program (sec. 604)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the service secretaries, under regulations prescribed by the
    Secretary of Defense, to provide any member or former member of
    the Armed Forces up to $200 for each day of administrative
    absence that such member would have earned between January 19,
    2007 and the date of their respective service's implementation
    of the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program,
    had the program been implemented during that time. The
    authority would expire 1 year from the date of enactment.

               Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

    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 bonus for persons with prior service; and
    income replacement payments for certain reserve component
    members.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Special compensation for members of the uniformed services with combat-
            related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance
            in everyday living (sec. 617)
        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section 439 to title 37, United States Code, to authorize
    special compensation for members of the uniformed services with
    combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses who have been
    certified by a licensed physician to be in need of assistance
    from another person to perform the personal functions required
    in everyday living. The amount of the special compensation
    would not exceed the amount of aid and attendance authorized by
    section 1114(r) of title 38, United States Code.
        The committee remains concerned about spouses and other
    family members who continue to shoulder an extraordinary burden
    in caring for catastrophically injured service members, many of
    whom will survive their injuries but will require a lifetime of
    special care. Many spouses and family caregivers give up their
    jobs and careers to care for service members under these
    circumstances. The special monthly compensation that would be
    authorized by this section is intended to compensate designated
    family caregivers for the dedicated time and assistance they
    provide to catastrophically injured service members. Further,
    the committee recognizes that caregivers who leave employment
    to care for a wounded or ill service member may as a result
    forgo health care coverage, and encourages the secretaries of
    the military departments to utilize existing legal authority
    under the Secretarial Designee program to provide urgent
    medical and dental care for caregivers during any period in
    which the service member is receiving special compensation
    authorized by this section.
    Temporary authority for monthly special pay for members of the armed
            forces subject to continuing active duty or service under stop-
            loss authorities (sec. 618)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the service secretaries to pay, until June 30, 2011, stop-loss
    special pay in an amount not to exceed $500 per month for
    service members on active-duty whose enlistment or period of
    obligated service is extended, or whose retirement is
    suspended, pursuant to sections 123 or 12305 of title 10,
    United States Code, or any other authority that permits the
    involuntary extension of an enlistment period or period of
    obligated service, or the suspension of retirement eligibility.

                Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

    Travel and transportation allowances for designated individuals of
            wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed services for
            duration of inpatient treatment (sec. 631)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 411h of title 37, United States Code, to authorize
    travel and transportation allowances for up to three designated
    individuals to be provided, at government expense, up to three
    roundtrips in any 60-day period to visit certain wounded, ill,
    or injured service members for the duration of their inpatient
    treatment. The provision would also clarify the definition of
    ``seriously injured'' to include serious mental disorders.
    Travel and transportation allowances for non-medical attendants of
            seriously wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed
            services (sec. 632)
        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section 411h-1 to title 37, United States Code, to authorize
    travel and transportation allowances for designated non-medical
    attendants of very seriously wounded, ill, or injured service
    members.
    Travel and transportation allowances for members of the Reserve
            components of the armed forces on leave for suspension of
            training (sec. 633)
        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section 411k to title 37, United States Code, to authorize
    travel and transportation allowances for reserve component
    service members on active duty for more than 30 days to travel
    from a temporary duty station to their permanent duty station
    and back again during times when training is suspended at the
    temporary duty station for a period of 5 days or more under
    circumstances where training of reserve component members is
    suspended.
        The committee believes that this authority is necessary to
    provide flexibility to service leaders responsible for
    mobilization training of reservists when circumstances call for
    suspension of training for the benefit of all military
    personnel involved.

    Reimbursement of travel expenses of members of the armed forces on
            active duty and their dependents for travel for specialty care
            under exceptional circumstances (sec. 634)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
    Secretary of Defense to provide, in exceptional circumstances,
    reimbursement for the travel expenses of active-duty
    beneficiaries and their dependents otherwise ineligible for
    reimbursement.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

    Authority to continue provision of incentives after termination of
            temporary Army authority to provide additional recruitment
            incentives (sec. 651)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    subsection (i) of section 681 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to
    authorize the continuation of payment of a recruitment
    incentive for 3 years from the date the recruitment incentive
    is first provided under the temporary Army authority to provide
    additional recruitment incentives.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Patriot Express

        The committee commends Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)
    for its continued commitment to the Patriot Express charter
    flight program. Patriot Express provides a predictable and cost
    effective travel option for official travel to the United
    States from overseas locations, and also supports and raises
    the morale of service members and their dependents by providing
    space available seats for non-official travel at nominal cost.
    The committee believes that the program should continue to be
    run on a cost-neutral basis at the programmatic level, and
    encourages TRANSCOM to continue to explore ways to improve the
    program, including by adding routes, that can further improve
    the service and the morale of service members and their
    dependents while ensuring overall programmatic cost-neutrality.

    Travel for active-duty personnel receiving treatment at Department of
            Veteran Affairs facilities

        The committee remains committed to ensuring that active-
    duty service members receive the very best health care
    available, including receiving care at medical facilities under
    the control of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The
    committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to ensure
    that active-duty service members receiving treatment at VA
    medical facilities are provided adequate access to care,
    including necessary transportation, when treatment at a VA
    facility is required or in the best interests of the service
    member. The committee believes the Department of Defense is
    responsible for ensuring injured service members unable to
    transport themselves receive transportation for medical
    appointments even when they are receiving care at a VA medical
    facility.
                       TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                          Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

    TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the Retired Reserve,
            and family members, who are qualified for a non-regular
            retirement but are not yet age 60 (sec. 701)
        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section 1076e to chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to
    extend eligibility for TRICARE Standard to members of the
    Retired Reserve, who are qualified for non-regular retirement
    but who are not yet age 60 and their dependents. Eligibility
    would terminate when the member becomes eligible for TRICARE
    coverage as a retiree at age 60. Members would be responsible
    for paying a premium equal to the total cost of coverage as
    determined by the Secretary of Defense based on actual program
    costs.
    Expansion of eligibility of survivors under the TRICARE Dental Program
            (sec. 702)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1076a(k)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to expand
    the eligibility of surviving children under the TRICARE Dental
    Program. Current law allows survivors to keep this dental
    coverage for a period of 3 years after the service member's
    death. The provision would increase the eligibility for
    surviving dependent children from 3 years to the longer of the
    following periods: (1) 3 years; (2) until they reach age 21; or
    (3) until age 23 if the dependent is a full-time student at age
    21 and is or was dependent on the member for at least half of
    their support. The provision would make the dental benefit
    provided to surviving children consistent with the medical
    benefit for which they are already eligible.
    Constructive eligibility for TRICARE benefits of certain persons
            otherwise ineligible under retroactive determination of
            entitlement to Medicare Part A hospital insurance benefits
            (sec. 703)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, to exempt
    TRICARE beneficiaries under the age of 65 who become disabled
    from the requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B for the
    retroactive months of entitlement to Medicare Part A in order
    to maintain TRICARE coverage.
        Eligible beneficiaries would still be required to enroll in
    Medicare Part B in order to maintain TRICARE coverage for
    future months, but would be considered to have coverage under
    the TRICARE program for the months retroactive to their
    entitlement to Medicare Part A. TRICARE would remain the first
    payer for any claims filed during these retroactive months.
        Under current law, if a disabled beneficiary under the age
    of 65 receives a determination from the Social Security
    Administration (SSA) that they are retroactively eligible for
    Medicare Part A, the beneficiary is also awarded eligibility
    for Medicare Part B in the month of the SSA's determination,
    unless they opt out. The beneficiary is then given the option
    to retroactively enroll and pay the applicable premiums for
    Medicare Part B back to the Medicare Part A effective date in
    order to obtain an effective Part B eligibility as of the
    retroactive date. Failure of the eligible TRICARE beneficiary
    to enroll in and pay the premiums for Medicare Part B
    retroactively to the Medicare Part A effective date results in
    loss of TRICARE eligibility as of the Medicare Part A effective
    date, leaving the beneficiary liable for any health care costs
    paid by the Department of Defense for care received during the
    retroactive months.
        The committee is concerned that inadequate communication
    with disabled service members has lead to circumstances in
    which some have lost health care coverage under TRICARE as a
    result of declining coverage under Medicare Part B. The
    committee hopes that this provision, coupled with improved
    communication efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
    Services, the Social Security Administration, and TRICARE will
    mitigate the risk of any beneficiary opting out of Medicare
    Part B without a full appreciation of the consequences of such
    action.
    Reform and improvement of the TRICARE program (sec. 704)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department of Defense to initiate a process of reform and
    improvement of the TRICARE health care system.
        The committee is aware that the cost of the Defense Health
    Program will be a focus of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
    and believes that such focus is appropriate. However, of
    greater concern is testimony received from key military and
    civilian leaders which indicates that satisfaction with TRICARE
    is declining. Too much attention has been paid to increasing
    out-of-pocket payments by retirees, and not enough to repairing
    persistent operational problems that prevent beneficiaries from
    getting the care that they need, such as the lack of
    availability of TRICARE providers and cumbersome requirements
    for preauthorization and referral to specialty care. Moreover,
    the fundamental goal of TRICARE to maximize use of military
    hospitals and clinics is not being achieved, as more and more
    care is being purchased in the private sector. Problems with
    access to care in both military facilities and from civilian
    providers needlessly compound the difficulties that military
    families face during extended periods of deployment.
        The committee believes that Department of Defense
    beneficiaries should receive care that achieves the highest
    possible levels of quality and access, and that the
    administration of these benefits should be on a path of
    continuous improvement.
        The intent of this provision is to ensure that the
    Department's focus is not on cost alone, but also achieves the
    goals of quality and access so critical to military personnel
    and their families.
        In addition, the committee directs the Department to
    examine the costs and levels of coverage available to active-
    duty and reserve members and their families under the TRICARE
    Dental Program, and to consult with beneficiary organizations
    on needed improvements to the plan. The Secretary of Defense
    shall submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of
    the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
    April 1, 2010 on any prospective changes to coverage under the
    dental plan, and in particular, coverage for orthodontics.
    Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation of
            requirements on the relationship between the TRICARE program
            and employer-sponsored group health plans (sec. 705)
        The committee recommends a provision that requires the
    Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on
    Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
    not later than March 31, 2010, on the implementation of the
    requirements of section 1097c of title 10, United States Code,
    relating to the relationship between the TRICARE program and
    employer-sponsored group health plans.
        Section 1097c of title 10, United States Code, prohibits
    employers or other entities from offering financial or other
    incentives to retired TRICARE beneficiaries to discourage
    enrollment in employer-sponsored group health plans. This
    provision is intended to assess the effectiveness of this
    prohibition in reducing TRICARE costs.

                     Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits

    Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces deployed in
            connection with a contingency operation (sec. 711)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to issue guidance for the provision of a
    person-to-person mental health assessment for each service
    member deployed in connection with a contingency operation
    during the 60-day period before deployment, between 90 and 180
    days after deployment, and not later than 6 months, 12 months,
    and 24 months after return from deployment. A mental health
    assessment would not be required by this provision for service
    members who are not subjected or exposed to operational risk
    factors during deployment.
    Enhancement of transitional dental care for members of the reserve
            components on active duty for more than 30 days in support of a
            contingency operation (sec. 712)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1145(a) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the
    transitional health care benefit for reservists who separate
    after more than 30 days of active duty in support of a
    contingency operation, giving them the same priority for dental
    care in a military treatment facility as an active-duty member.
        While dental care is currently authorized under the
    transitional benefit, the priority for reservists is that of a
    dependent. In the case of dental care, dependents have access
    to military dental care only on a space available basis. The
    provision would address the concern that many who have served
    in a contingency operation for a year or more have received
    little or no dental treatment, and ensure that the Department
    of Defense provides any needed dental care that was not
    provided during deployment prior to their separation.

                     Subtitle C--Health Care Administration

    Comprehensive policy on pain management by the military health care
            system (sec. 721)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive
    policy on pain management.
        The committee recognizes that chronic pain, whether as a
    result of war-related injury or other physical and neurological
    condition, can significantly impact the quality-of-life of
    service members and other military health system beneficiaries.
    Broader access to high quality, evidence-based pain management
    is needed, based on a comprehensive policy which incorporates
    standards of care, research, outcome measures, technology, and
    patient and health care provider education.
        The committee expects the Secretary to consult with the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the development of the policy
    required by this section and to build on the work of the
    Surgeon General of the Army's initiative on pain management.
    Plan to increase the behavioral health capabilities of the Department
            of Defense (sec. 722)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to
    significantly increase the number of military and civilian
    behavioral health personnel of the Department of Defense by
    September 30, 2013. The provision would also require the
    Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees not
    later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
    report setting forth an assessment of the feasibility and
    advisability of establishing one or more military specialties
    for officers or enlisted members of the armed forces as
    counselors with behavioral health expertise.
        The committee recommends this provision in response to
    testimony of senior military and civilian leaders in the
    Department of Defense that there is a significant shortfall in
    behavioral health personnel available to meet the mental health
    care needs of service members and their families. The
    significant increase in the number of military and civilian
    behavioral health personnel should be based on a realistic
    assessment of the actual requirements for such personnel.

    Department of Defense study on management of medications for physically
            and psychologically wounded members of the armed forces (sec.
            723)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the management of
    medications for physically and psychologically wounded service
    members, and to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
    the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the
    study by April 1, 2010.

                      Subtitle D--Wounded Warrior Matters

    Report on cognitive rehabilitation for members of the armed forces with
            traumatic brain injury (sec. 731)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
    report setting forth the evidence to be required from a long-
    term, integrated study on treatment strategies for cognitive
    rehabilitation for service members who have sustained traumatic
    brain injuries (TBI) in order to permit the Department of
    Defense to determine how receipt of cognitive rehabilitation
    for TBI of a service member could be reimbursed as a health
    care benefit.
        The committee notes that the Brain Injury Association of
    America has recognized the benefits of cognitive rehabilitation
    therapy for brain injuries, and that there is a growing body of
    scientific evidence to support its efficacy. Additionally,
    cognitive behavioral therapy is provided by the Department of
    Veterans Affairs. Because of the potentially large and
    continuing demand for services for moderate to severe TBI for
    wounded warriors, research on the evidence necessary for the
    Department of Defense to determine whether cognitive
    rehabilitation should be covered under the TRICARE benefit is
    justified and necessary.

    Department of Defense task force on the care, management, and
            transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured members of
            the armed forces (sec. 732)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to establish a task force to assess the
    effectiveness of the policies and programs developed and
    implemented by the Department of Defense and each of the
    military departments to assist and support the care,
    management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and
    injured service members.
        The task force would submit a report to the Secretary of
    Defense on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, to
    include identification of ways in which the Department and the
    services may more effectively address matters relating to the
    care, management, and transition of wounded warriors, and
    support for their families. Elements of the report would
    include review and assessment of: case management;
    effectiveness of the Interagency Program Office in achieving
    fully interoperable electronic health records; staffing of
    wounded warrior transition units; support and assistance to
    navigate the disability evaluation system; effectiveness of the
    Senior Oversight Committee; effectiveness of various centers of
    excellence; support for family caregivers; availability of
    vocational training to aid in transition to civilian life;
    availability of services for traumatic brain injury and post
    traumatic stress disorder; and overall coordination between the
    Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in these efforts.
        The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit the
    task force report, together with an evaluation of the report,
    to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
    of Representatives within 90 days after receiving it.
        Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
    Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of the military
    departments, to develop a plan to implement the recommendations
    of the task force and to submit the plan to the Committees on
    Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
    not later than 6 months after receipt of the task force report.
        The committee urges the task force to examine the unique
    characteristics of the United States Special Operations
    Command's Care Coalition as well as similar programs to
    identify best practices that can be shared throughout the
    Department, and to examine the extent to which the Department
    of Defense, in collaboration with the Department of Veterans
    Affairs, has established public and private partnerships to
    assist in the training of medical case management personnel
    needed to support returning wounded, ill, and injured service
    members, as noted in Senate Report 110-335 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Comptroller General study on Department of Defense efforts to minimize
            and track military service hearing loss

        The committee notes with concern that according to the
    National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, hearing
    loss is the single most common individual disability among the
    veteran population, and tinnitus is the third most common.
    While the nature of military service can make exposure to
    excessive noise unavoidable, hearing loss that may result from
    such exposure is preventable.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
    conduct a study on Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to
    minimize and track hearing loss that occurs, or may occur, as a
    result of military service. The study shall include an
    assessment of:
              (1) DOD efforts to protect service members against
            disabling hearing loss, including efforts to identify
            service members' exposure levels; provide service
            members with hearing loss protection devices and
            provide the training and oversight of their use; and
            monitor for potential hearing loss;
              (2) DOD efforts to analyze its hearing-related injury
            and illness data to detect whether, and where, better
            prevention is needed;
              (3) the role of the DOD Hearing Conservation Program
            in these efforts;
              (4) the status of DOD's compliance with section 721
            of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
            for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), which
            required the Secretary of Defense to establish a center
            of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation,
            treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss and
            auditory system injury; and
          (5) the nature and extent of information sharing between
    DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs to help inform DOD's
    hearing loss prevention efforts.
        The Comptroller General shall submit a report on the
    findings of the study to the Committees on Armed Services of
    the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
    September 30, 2010.

    Continued Department of Defense and military department support for
            suicide prevention

        At its Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on March 18, 2009,
    the committee received testimony from senior military leaders
    from each of the services on efforts to prevent military
    suicides. The committee commends the leadership of the
    Department of Defense (DOD) and the military departments for
    their efforts to increase awareness of the risks of suicide by
    military members. Despite these efforts, however, rates of
    military suicide do not appear to be decreasing. The number of
    soldiers who have committed suicide through May 2009 surpasses
    the Army's numbers at this same point last year.
        The committee understands that it will take time to see
    results from these programs, but maintains that DOD and the
    services must intensify their efforts, especially those aimed
    at reducing the stigma associated with seeking mental health
    care. Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a
    provision that would require DOD to substantially increase the
    number of behavioral health personnel available to treat mental
    health conditions using both existing and new authority for
    accession and retention of mental health personnel. The
    Department must continue to consider and explore new ideas and
    approaches to prevent military suicides. In doing so, the
    committee encourages DOD and the services to continue their
    work with national and other federal partners in order to
    mitigate this national public health problem.
        Congress has been supportive of national suicide prevention
    efforts for many years, establishing the national Suicide
    Prevention Resource Center, providing federal funding for youth
    suicide prevention programs and early intervention, and
    establishing the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. A
    witness from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
    testified to the Subcommittee on Personnel that the Lifeline is
    being utilized by veterans and service members alike.
        The committee urges DOD and the services to continue to
    work with these congressionally funded suicide prevention
    initiatives to assist in their efforts to prevent suicide and
    suicidal behavior in the military. The committee also
    encourages continued, and if appropriate, increased,
    collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in suicide
    prevention activities, such as the National Institute of Mental
    Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS, and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Help for wounded, ill, and injured service members

        More than a year ago, Congress enacted changes in law to
    improve care and support for America's wounded, ill, and
    injured service members. The Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
    (Public Law 110-181)) provided broad new authorities for
    treatment of and research in traumatic brain injury and post
    traumatic stress disorder, support for families, and
    improvements to the decades-old disability evaluation system.
    The legislation sought to ensure that the Department of Defense
    (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) worked
    collaboratively to support wounded service members in their
    transition to civilian life.
        The committee commends the President and the Secretary of
    Defense for including funding for wounded warrior programs in
    the base budget request for fiscal year 2010 and believes that
    while much progress has been achieved since enactment of the
    Wounded Warrior Act, more needs to be done.
        The committee has received testimony from extraordinary
    American heroes who have suffered wounds such as multiple
    amputations and severe traumatic brain injury, and from their
    spouses. We have learned that multiple programs created to
    manage health care and benefits for the wounded often lead to
    frustration for those they are intended to help, and to
    diffusion of responsibility for results. It is clear that for
    the seriously ill and injured, the continuum of care remains
    difficult to navigate, the disability evaluation system remains
    an intimidating and at times adversarial process, and treatment
    options for traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress
    disorder, and other psychological health conditions remain
    limited.
        Elsewhere in this bill the committee recommends the
    establishment of a Department of Defense task force to assess
    the effectiveness of DOD, VA, and service policies and programs
    now in place to assist and support the wounded. The committee
    has also recommended legislation requested by the President to
    provide supplemental income to service members to assist
    caregivers of seriously injured and ill service members, and to
    enhance transportation for those supporting wounded warriors,
    as well as provisions to increase the number of military and
    civilian behavioral health providers.
        The committee expects the DOD/VA Strategic Oversight
    Committee to immediately address other issues identified by
    wounded service members and their families:
              (1) Establish performance and accountability
            standards for warrior transition units;
              (2) Streamline the assignment of case managers so
            that there is clear accountability and a single point
            of contact for the complex needs of the seriously ill
            and injured;
              (3) Provide temporary internship programs for wounded
            warriors similar to the Operation Warfighter Program in
            non-federal entities to assist in learning new skills
            for future civilian employment;
              (4) Ensure equitable access to veterans benefits for
            seriously injured service members who remain on active
            duty;
              (5) Expand or combine screening for traumatic brain
            injury and post traumatic stress disorder prior to
            deployment;
              (6) Ensure that VA medical facilities have access to
            electronic medical and demographic data for service
            members who transition to the VA for care;
              (7) Modernize the antiquated disability evaluation
            system;
              (8) Increase combat-related medical research and
            rapidly apply its findings to life-saving diagnosis,
            treatment, and rehabilitation;
              (9) Rapidly implement the programs and research
            mandated for the Vision Center of Excellence;
              (10) Examine and make recommendations on means to
            facilitate in-vitro fertilization services for severely
            wounded service members, including how such services
            may fall under Department of Defense regulations
            implementing section 1631 of the National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
            181); and
              (11) Examine the feasibility of ensuring bi-
            directional sharing between DOD and the VA of clinical
            information regarding mental health screenings.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report no
    later than September 30, 2009 on the status of completion of
    these actions, and to identify any area in which additional
    legislation would be required in order to effect these or
    additional improvements in the care, management, and transition
    of wounded, ill, and injured service members. The committee
    further directs the Secretary to report by September 30, 2009,
    on the capabilities for electronic exchange of medical data,
    identifying each DOD and VA facility that has such capability
    as of that date and the types of data that are electronically
    shared.

    Report on case management services for TRICARE beneficiaries with
            severe mental health conditions

        The committee is aware that case managers can play an
    important role in the coordination of complex medical and
    dental care for TRICARE beneficiaries. Case management is a
    feature in public mental health systems, typically involving
    coordination of client services by a professional case manager
    to ensure continuity of care and accountability for service
    provision. The committee recognizes that case management may
    improve the effectiveness of mental health care in terms of:
    reduced cost of care; fewer crisis and hospital admissions;
    reduced length of hospital stay; improved mental health
    symptoms; better continuity of care from hospitalization to
    community services; improved ability of patients to function in
    the community; and increased patient and family satisfaction
    with care. The committee notes that for behavioral health
    patients, case management is in many cases not a covered
    TRICARE benefit.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
    the efficacy and cost of case management services for TRICARE
    behavioral health clients with serious mental health problems,
    and to examine such variables as cost of care, crisis and
    hospital admissions, length of stay for hospitalizations,
    change in mental health symptoms and functioning, use of
    community behavioral health services, community service drop-
    out rate, and patient and family satisfaction with care. The
    committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a report
    on this assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the
    Senate and the House of Representatives not later than April 1,
    2010.
      TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
                                    MATTERS

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

    Contract authority for advanced development of prototype units (sec.
            801)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Department of Defense (DOD) to include a contract line item
    or an option to extend a contract for advanced research for a
    limited period of time, or for the production of a limited
    number of prototype units. This authority, which was requested
    by DOD, would provide a temporary ``bridge'' between the time
    that a program is no longer eligible to receive science and
    technology funding and the time that a new contract can be
    awarded for advanced component development, or production, on
    the basis of full and open competition.
    Justification and approval of sole-source contracts (sec. 802)
        The committee recommends a provision that prohibits the
    Department of Defense (DOD) from awarding a sole-source
    contract for an amount exceeding $20.0 million, unless the
    contracting officer has determined in writing that the use of a
    sole-source contract is in the best interest of DOD and the
    written justification on which such determination is based has
    been approved by an appropriate reviewing official.

                 Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management

    Reporting requirements for programs that qualify as both major
            automated information system programs and major defense
            acquisition programs (sec. 811)
        The committee recommends a provision that would give the
    Department of Defense flexibility to address programs that
    qualify as both major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs)
    under chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, and as major
    automated information system (MAIS) programs under chapter 144A
    of title 10, United States Code.
        Under the provision recommended by the committee, the
    Secretary of Defense could designate such a program to be
    treated only as a MDAP or only as a MAIS program. As a general
    rule, programs that require the development of customized
    hardware would be designated as MDAPs, while programs that do
    not require the development of such hardware would be
    designated as MAIS programs.
    Funding of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
            (sec. 812)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    funding mechanism established for the Defense Acquisition
    Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) in section 1705 of title 10,
    United States Code, to: (1) require that credits to the DAWDF
    be based on amounts expended for contract services from amounts
    available for operation and maintenance funds; (2) authorize
    the transfer of certain unobligated balances to the DAWDF, to
    the extent provided in appropriations Acts; (3) reduce the
    amount of required credits to the DAWDF by the amount of any
    direct appropriations or unobligated balances transferred to
    the DAWDF; (4) make the remittance of amounts to the DAWDF
    subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose;
    and (5) adjust the amounts required to be credited to the DAWDF
    to reflect the funding requirements of the hiring plan
    announced by the Secretary of Defense.
    Enhancement of expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition
            workforce positions (sec. 813)
        The committee recommends a provision that would: (1)
    clarify the expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition
    workforce positions enacted in section 833 of the Duncan Hunter
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
    Law 110-417), as requested by the Department of Defense; and
    (2) extend the expedited hiring authority through 2015, to help
    meet the goal announced by the Secretary of Defense to increase
    the size of the acquisition workforce by 20,000 government
    acquisition professionals by 2015.
    Treatment of non-defense agency procurements under joint programs with
            the Department of Defense under limitations on non-defense
            agency procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense
            (sec. 814)
        The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
    that a contract entered by a non-defense agency for the
    performance of a joint program conducted to meet the needs of
    the Department of Defense (DOD) and the non-defense agency
    shall not be considered a procurement of property or services
    for the Department of Defense through a non-defense agency, for
    the purposes of section 801(b) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 101-181),
    which limits the authority for such procurements. Section
    801(b) of Public Law 101-181 is intended to address DOD use of
    contracts entered by other agencies to place orders for
    products or services needed by DOD. It is not intended to
    address cases in which DOD and another agency engage in joint
    programs to achieve purposes common to both agencies.
    Comptroller General of the United States report on training of
            acquisition and audit personnel of the Department of Defense
            (sec. 815)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Comptroller General to report to Congress on the effectiveness
    of Department of Defense training for acquisition and audit
    personnel.

                         Subtitle C--Contractor Matters

    Authority for government support contractors to have access to
            technical data belonging to prime contractors (sec. 821)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide access to technical
    data delivered under a DOD contract to a support contractor, to
    enable the support contractor to furnish independent and
    impartial advice or technical assistance to DOD in support of
    DOD's management and oversight of the contract. The provision
    requires the support contractor to make a series of
    commitments, including exposure to criminal, civil,
    administrative, and contractual penalties, to ensure that such
    access is not abused.

    Extension and enhancement of authorities on the Commission on Wartime
            Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 822)

        The committee recommends a provision that would provide a
    1-year extension for the Commission on Wartime Contracting in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, established pursuant to section 841 of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
    (Public Law 110-181), in order to achieve expanded review and
    investigation into wartime contracting consistent with the
    Commission's charter.
        The Commission shall continue to receive administrative
    support from the Washington Headquarters Service of the
    Department of Defense and may continue to receive support from
    other federal agencies to facilitate its work. The Department
    of Defense is directed to provide support to the Commission, on
    a non-reimbursable basis, for its investigatory work conducted
    in combat theaters including travel and lodging.

    Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec.
            823)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to issue regulations providing that the
    interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath of
    hostilities is an inherently governmental function that cannot
    be transferred to private sector contractors. The regulations
    would become effective 1 year after the date of the enactment
    of this Act, to provide the Department of Defense time to
    comply.
        The interrogation of detainees entails the exercise of
    substantial discretion in applying government authority and has
    frequently had a significant impact on the life and liberty of
    the individuals questioned. The committee concludes that the
    conduct of such interrogations is an inherently governmental
    function that should be performed exclusively by military or
    civilian employees of the Department.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

    Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Central
            Asia, Pakistan, and the South Caucasus (sec. 831)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for the
    acquisition of products and services that are produced in
    Central Asia, Pakistan, and the South Caucasus. The provision
    would require that to exercise the authority the Secretary must
    determine that: (1) the product or service is to be used by
    military forces, police, or other security personnel of
    Afghanistan; or (2) the preference is in the U.S. national
    interest because it is necessary to improve the local market
    and transportation infrastructure or encourage the states of
    Central Asia, Pakistan, or the South Caucasus to cooperate in
    expanding supply routes to Afghanistan, and will not adversely
    affect U.S. military operations or the U.S. industrial base.

    Small arms production industrial base matters (sec. 832)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to review the manufacturing capability and
    capacity of the small arms industrial base and make a
    determination whether or not to add, modify, or eliminate
    covered small arms makers or weapons as identified in section
    2473 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also
    require the Secretary to provide to the congressional defense
    committees by March 31, 2010 a report on the Department's
    findings and recommendations.
        The committee notes that small arms makers and weapons
    covered by section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, were
    based upon a 1994 Army Science Board plan entitled
    ``Preservation of Critical Elements of the Small Arms
    Industrial Base.'' The industrial conditions and capabilities
    related to the manufacture and parts supply for military small
    arms have strengthened since 1994, meriting a review by the
    Secretary of Defense.

    Extension of SBIR and STTR programs of the Department of Defense (sec.
            833)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authority of the Department of Defense to execute the Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology
    Transfer (STTR), and other associated programs until September
    30, 2023. The committee notes that the SBIR and STTR programs
    have successfully invested in a number of innovative small
    businesses and funded research and technologies that have
    contributed significantly to the development and deployment of
    new military systems and capabilities.
        The committee believes that a long-term extension of these
    programs will provide program stability and enable participants
    in both the government and the small business community to
    better plan budgets and programs and enhance overall program
    effectiveness and efficiency.

    Expansion and permanent authority for small business innovation
            research commercialization program (sec. 834)

        The committee recommends a provision that would make the
    Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR)
    Commercialization Pilot Program permanent and expand its
    activities to include the Small Business Technology Transfer
    program. The committee notes that this program was originally
    established by section 252 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
    has successfully accelerated the transition of a number of SBIR
    technologies into programs of record and deployed systems.

    Measures to ensure the safety of facilities, infrastructure, and
            equipment for military operations (sec. 835)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department of Defense (DOD) to establish appropriate safety
    standards for incorporation into contracts for the
    construction, installation, repair, maintenance, and operation
    of expeditionary facilities for use by military or civilian
    personnel of the Department in current and future military
    operations overseas.
        Over the last 5 years a number of service members have died
    as a result of faulty electrical wiring in facilities in Iraq.
    In January 2008, this problem came to the public's attention
    when a staff sergeant was electrocuted in the shower. Since
    that time, the committee has learned of extensive problems with
    electrical wiring in contractor-provided facilities in Iraq.
    Some of these problems are the result of DOD's failure to
    conform to a single standard in wiring buildings; some are the
    result of poor workmanship; and others are the result of the
    use of flawed pre-war electrical systems.
        The Army is working to address these problems by developing
    a common standard for wiring in U.S. facilities in Iraq;
    bringing on a new team of inspectors, master electricians, and
    fire safety specialists to help assess the scope of the problem
    with existing wiring; and directing the contractor to correct
    the deficiencies identified.
        The committee believes that many of the electrical hazards
    that the U.S. military has experienced in Iraq could have been
    avoided if the Department had addressed this issue more
    systematically from the outset.

    Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item
            breakout list (sec. 836)

        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), which requires the
    Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the
    congressional defense committees listing essential items,
    assemblies, and components of military systems and identifying
    where they are produced. The committee has been unable to
    identify a purpose for this reporting requirement.

    Defense Science Board report on rare earth materials in the defense
            supply chain (sec. 837)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Defense Science Board to report to Congress on the usage of
    rare earth materials in the supply chain of the Department of
    Defense. The report would address the extent to which weapon
    systems may become dependent on rare earth materials supplied
    by sources that could be interrupted.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Contractor reimbursement for environmental remediation costs

        The committee is aware that certain Department of Defense
    (DOD) contractors are reimbursed for the remediation of
    environmental damage resulting from Cold-War era programs
    through indirect cost accounts (such as overhead accounts). The
    contractors contend that this funding approach results in
    substantially higher indirect cost rates for some contractors
    than for others, undermining the ability of contractors with
    substantial clean-up obligations to compete for future
    contracts.
        The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to review this issue and
    report to the congressional defense committees by no later than
    180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on whether
    the current reimbursement approach is in the best interest of
    DOD, or whether the Department would be better served by direct
    funding of allowable environmental remediation costs.

    Knowledge management and decision support systems

        Section 851 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Department
    of Defense (DOD) to develop a human capital plan for the
    acquisition workforce. Section 852 of that Act established the
    Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to provide funding
    needed to implement this plan.
        The committee has received testimony on many of the
    challenges that DOD faces in restoring the acquisition
    workforce to the levels that will be required to conduct
    effective implementation and oversight of DOD acquisition
    programs. Just as it is said that the services cannot hire a
    seasoned non-commissioned officer off the street, DOD will be
    similarly challenged to either hire an experienced workforce or
    grow entry level personnel into journeymen acquisition
    professionals.
        That challenge places a premium on doing business as
    intelligently as we can and relying on available technologies
    to enable personnel to operate as efficiently and effectively
    as possible, and to train new personnel in the operations of
    the DOD acquisition system.
        Knowledge management is a discipline of management science
    that comprises a range of practices used in an organization to
    identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of
    insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences
    comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded
    in organizational processes or practice. Knowledge management
    improvements typically focus on organizational objectives such
    as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the
    sharing of lessons learned, and continuous improvement of the
    organization. Knowledge management efforts can help individuals
    and groups to: (1) share valuable organizational insights; (2)
    reduce redundant work; (3) reduce training time for new
    employees; and (4) retain intellectual capital as employees
    turnover in an organization.
        The committee is aware that there are commercial providers
    who can support such organizational challenges as DOD is facing
    in rebuilding the acquisition workforce. The committee does not
    see such systems as replacing workforce personnel, but as a
    potential complement to and enhancement of DOD's implementation
    of its human capital plan.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to report to the congressional defense committees with the
    submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget request on how such
    knowledge management and decision support systems could
    contribute to implementing DOD's human capital plan and
    improving the effectiveness of the acquisition workforce.

    Licensing fees for enterprise resource planning software

        The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    is currently acquiring enterprise resource planning (ERP)
    software and other software programs for numerous business
    applications. DOD's operation and maintenance accounts reflect
    the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing
    fees for the use of such software programs. The committee is
    concerned that the Department may be acquiring the rights to
    the use of this software on a piecemeal basis, paying for the
    same software over and over again.
        In other similar circumstances, DOD and its components have
    negotiated enterprise-wide agreements to ensure that the
    Department leverages its purchasing power to reduce costs and
    achieve better results for the taxpayers. A similar approach
    may be appropriate in the case of licensing fees for ERP
    software and other software programs for business applications.
        The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review this issue in
    consultation with the Director of the Business Transformation
    Agency and to report the findings and results of the review,
    including any steps that the Department plans to take to
    negotiate enterprise-wide agreements, by no later than March 1,
    2010.

    Performance by private security contractors of certain functions in an
            area of combat operations

        In April 30, 2009, testimony before the Armed Services
    Committee, the Executive Director of the Center for Strategic
    and Budgetary Assessments explained the problems that may be
    caused by the use of contractors to perform security functions
    in a combat environment as follows:

              ``There's . . . a principle in the business world
            that you don't outsource your core capabilities. . . .
            What's concerned me most is the outsourcing to some of
            these security firms of core military capabilities,
            which is the providing of security, the conducting of
            security operations. . . . [Contractor personnel]
            weren't under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
            They move around the battlefield. You're obligated to
            share intelligence with them on where the enemy might
            be. If they run into trouble, should you take your
            rapid response force and dedicate [it] to their
            support, when some of your uniformed people could be
            getting in trouble?
              ``They don't operate under the same standards of
            discipline that soldiers do. Obviously, there have been
            a number of very unpleasant incidents that are
            associated with contractors sort of operating in poor
            discipline. If the goal is to save money, it's not
            clear, over the long term that we do save money. . . .
            In a sense . . . the U.S. government was competing
            against itself for the services of these people . . .
            engaging in bidding wars with Blackwater, up to
            $150,000 to get a Special Forces NCO [noncommissioned
            officer] to reenlist. . . . It's not like their motives
            are the same as the U.S. military's.
              ``[F]inally, a lot of the people who seem to be
            recruited for these sorts of positions . . . are people
            that were rejected by the military. . . . Or
            foreigners. And these are not draftees that . . . once
            the job's over, they go back home, whether it's a
            fellow from Chile or Ukraine or somewhere else. These
            people, in a sense, are mercenaries, and they're
            looking for the next war. And, again, it's not clear to
            me that that's the sort of capability that we want to
            have after a war is over . . . looking for something
            else. So it was done . . . out of the stress of the
            moment, the necessity of the moment, but I really have
            grave questions about whether this is an approach you
            want to take when it comes to core military
            capabilities and functions.''

        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
    these issues and report to the Armed Services Committees of the
    Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days after
    the date of the enactment of this Act on the steps the
    Department has taken and plans to take to address these issues.

    Requirements management for weapon system acquisitions before milestone
            B

        Section 201 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
    2009 requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to make trade-
    offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives at the
    time that requirements are first established for DOD
    acquisition programs. Section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 requires the
    Department to establish Configuration Steering Boards to
    prevent unnecessary and costly changes to program requirements
    for Major Defense Acquisition Programs.
        The committee is aware that there may be a gap between the
    time when program requirements are first established and the
    time when those program requirements are formally incorporated
    into a Major Defense Acquisition Program. For this reason, the
    committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take appropriate
    steps to monitor and manage changes to requirements during this
    period to ensure that changes are not made without appropriate
    consideration of cost impact. The committee further directs the
    Under Secretary to report to the Committees on Armed Services
    of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the steps
    taken or to be taken in this regard not later than 180 days
    after the date of the enactment of this Act.
          TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                  Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

    Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and Assistant Secretaries of
            Defense (sec. 901)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    five Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense (DUSDs), each of whom
    would serve as the first assistant to an Under Secretary of
    Defense, and each of whom would be subject to confirmation by
    the Senate. These would be the only DUSDs. The provision would
    also authorize six new Assistant Secretaries of Defense,
    subject to Senate confirmation, to fill positions currently
    filled by other DUSDs.
        At present, there are 28 DUSDs in the Department of
    Defense. Only four DUSDs are Senate confirmed, and only two
    serve as first assistants to their respective Under
    Secretaries. The remaining DUSDs serve in Tier 2 or Tier 3 of
    the Senior Executive Service. The Department's organizational
    charts even show multiple layers of DUSDs reporting to each
    other. The committee does not believe that the Department is
    well served by the proliferation of DUSD positions or by
    inconsistency in the reporting relationships, pay, precedence,
    and succession among personnel occupying such positions.

    Repeal of certain limitations on personnel and consolidation of reports
            on major Department of Defense headquarters activities (sec.
            902)

        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal caps
    on the number of personnel employed in headquarters activities
    of the military departments and defense agencies, as requested
    by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Department has
    determined that these caps have prevented it from managing its
    workforce based on workload requirements and considerations of
    cost-effectiveness and have resulted in the use of contractor
    personnel to perform functions that would be more appropriately
    performed by DOD employees.

    Sense of Senate on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
            Cooperation (sec. 903)

        This committee recommends a provision that would express
    the sense of Senate that the Western Hemispheric Institute for
    Security Cooperation (WHINSEC): (1) offers professional
    military bilingual instruction that promotes democracy,
    subordination to civilian authority, and respect for human
    rights; (2) builds partner capacity which enhances regional and
    global security while encouraging respect for human rights and
    promoting democratic principles among eligible military
    personnel, law enforcement officials, and civilians of nations
    in the western hemisphere; (3) provides a valuable education
    and training facility whose curriculum is not duplicated in any
    of the military departments; and (4) is an essential tool to
    educate future Latin American leaders and improve relationships
    with partner nations that are working with the United States to
    promote democracy, prosperity, and stability in the western
    hemisphere.

                           Subtitle B--Space Matters

    Provision of space situational awareness services and information to
            non-United States Government entities (sec. 911)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    section 2274 of title 10, United States Code, to make the
    program known as the commercial and foreign entities (CFE)
    program a permanent program. The CFE program was originally
    started as a pilot program to allow the Department of Defense
    (DOD), working through the Air Force, to provide non-United
    States Government entities, including commercial entities,
    State and local government, and foreign governments and
    entities, space situational awareness data so that damage to
    satellites in space could be avoided. This program, which also
    allows participants to supply data for their satellites to DOD,
    has proved to be very useful to all aspects of the space
    community.
        The recent collision of an Iridium communications satellite
    and a non-functioning Russian satellite has once again brought
    home the consequences of such collisions. The thousands of
    debris generated by this collision together with the debris
    generated when China shot down an old weather satellite, and
    the debris already in orbit, has increased the risk of damage
    to satellites and to manned space flight. Increasing space
    situational awareness is a high priority program for DOD and
    the Air Force. The committee commends the Air Force for
    providing additional attention and money in the fiscal year
    2010 budget to improve space situational awareness.

    Plan for management and funding of National Polar-Orbiting Operational
            Environmental satellite system program (sec. 912)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Administrator of
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
    jointly develop a plan for the management and funding of the
    National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite
    system (NPOESS). The plan would include the NPOESS
    requirements, the management structure, and the funding profile
    for each participating agency.
        The provision would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense
    from spending more than 50 percent of the Air Force funds
    available for the NPOESS program until the plan has been
    submitted.
        The provision would also set forth a sense of the Senate
    that the NPOESS program should be maintained. This includes all
    the sensors and satellites included as part of the program, and
    as included on each satellite, following the Nunn-McCurdy
    breach and recertification in June 2006. In addition, all
    agreed to orbits for satellites C1-4 should be maintained as
    planned as well as the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP).
        It is also the sense of the Senate that the NPP should be
    managed and treated as an operational satellite; that the
    milestone decision authority for the Department of Defense
    (DOD) should be delegated to the DOD Executive Agent (EA) for
    space; that the EA for space should be the DOD member of the
    NPOESS Tri-Agency Executive Committee (EXCOM); that the Program
    Executive Office (PEO) should report directly to and take
    direction exclusively from the EXCOM; that the Administrator of
    NASA and the Secretary of the Air Force should take support
    from the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Space and Missile
    Systems Center, respectively; that the budget for NPOESS should
    not be less than the estimate of the DOD Cost Analysis
    Improvement Group (CAIG); that NPOESS should continue to be
    managed by a single manager; that NPOES should be managed as a
    long-term operational program; and that all requirements should
    be agreed to by the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce and the
    NASA Administrator and that the program should be executed with
    no modifications to those agreed-upon requirements that would
    increase the cost of schedule.
        The committee is deeply concerned about the current status
    of the NPOESS program, a technically complex expensive program
    that is behind schedule and over budget, with a complicated
    management structure and funding split between two agencies,
    DOD and the Department of Commerce. The EXCOM recognized these
    many difficulties and chartered an independent review team
    (IRT) to look at the program. As expected, the IRT found NPOESS
    to be a disjointed, barely functioning program with little
    chance of meeting its goals.
        The committee agrees with many of the findings of the June
    2009 IRT report. Key among the findings is that ``the current
    NPOESS program has an extraordinarily low probability of
    success'', that ``NPOESS is being managed with cost as the most
    important parameter and not Mission Success'' and that the
    current EXCOM process is ``ineffective and must be fixed.''
        The committee also notes that the IRT believes that the
    NPOESS program will need additional funding in fiscal year 2010
    and over the future-years defense program (FYDP). The committee
    agrees with this finding as well and recommends additional
    funding for NPOESS in the Air Force elsewhere in this report,
    which the committee expects the Department of Commerce to
    match.
        In December 2008, the three parties to the NPOESS program
    signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that set out their
    respective roles and responsibilities to implement the
    President's directive for the NPOESS program. This MOA modifies
    an earlier MOA and was put in place to address the problems
    that led to the June 2006 Nunn-McCurdy breach. It is not at all
    clear that any of the three parties have followed the MOA, even
    though it took 18 months to negotiate. It would appear that the
    various disagreements that have been ongoing in this program
    have continued unabated. At best the MOA may have been a speed
    bump.
        The IRT observed the discord in the program and noted that
    because the priorities of the parties are misaligned ``the
    differences are straining interagency relationships and are
    impacting how people do their jobs, even down to the lowest
    levels of the IPO [Integrated Program Office].'' The IRT
    concluded that ``this program will not survive if this
    particular problem is not addressed immediately.''
        Unfortunately, NPOESS is a critically important national
    priority for national security, space weather, weather
    forecasting, climate research, and emergency response. Given
    the age of the satellites that the five NPOESS program
    satellites will replace and the limited options available to
    the parties, there is no alternative but to proceed with the
    program.
        The committee believes that the NPOESS program is in such
    chaos that the President needs to assist the parties with the
    resolution of their differences. Once this happens, the
    committee is adamant that the parties stick with the resolution
    of their disagreements and execute the program, without
    changing requirements, without constantly seeking changes to
    the sensors, without trying to add sensors, or interfering with
    the agreed upon management structure. In other words-agree upon
    the program and stick with it.
        One additional problem not addressed in the IRT is the role
    of the European Space Agency. The Department of Commerce was
    obligated to enter into an agreement with the European Space
    Agency to provide for the mid-morning orbit. So far no such
    agreement has been arranged. If an agreement is not
    forthcoming, the parties must build into the management plan a
    contingency for the mid-morning orbit.

                        Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters

    Inclusion of Defense Intelligence Agency in authority to use proceeds
            from counterintelligence operations (sec. 921)

        The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
    Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) the same authority accorded
    the Military Departments to use proceeds from
    counterintelligence operations to offset necessary and
    reasonable expenses incurred in such operations under Section
    423 of title 10, United States Code. When the Secretary of
    Defense directed the establishment of the Defense
    Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC) within
    the DIA, he authorized the DCHC to conduct offensive
    counterintelligence operations. Since existing statute limits
    the authority to use proceeds from counterintelligence
    operations to the Military Departments, the DCHC would have to
    return such proceeds to the Treasury. The committee therefore
    recommends extending this authority to DIA in light of its new
    mission.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

    United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 931)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to establish a United States Military
    Cancer Institute in the Uniformed Services University of the
    Health Sciences. The Institute would be authorized to establish
    a data clearinghouse on the incidence of cancer among members
    and former members of the armed forces, and to conduct research
    that contributes to early detection or treatment of cancer
    among military personnel. The committee recognizes that the
    United States Military Cancer Institute is currently operated
    and funded by the Department of Defense. In the committee's
    view, this institution should be authorized in statute in order
    to ensure its continued viability and service to military
    members and their families.

    Instruction of private sector employees in cyber security courses of
            the Defense Cyber Investigations Training Academy (sec. 932)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to permit eligible private-sector
    employees to receive instruction at the Defense Cyber Crime
    Investigations Training Academy, operating under the direction
    of the Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3), on a reimbursable
    basis.
        The DC3 Training Academy provides computer investigation
    training to forensic examiners, investigators, systems
    administrators, or any other Department of Defense (DOD)
    members who ensure Defense information systems are secure. DOD
    conducts a Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/
    Information Assurance Program with DIB partners to improve the
    security of DOD information resident in private networks. For
    this effort to be successful, DOD needs to make training
    available to industrial partners.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Commercial communications anti-jamming study

        The committee notes that substantial portions of military
    communications utilize commercial communication satellites,
    which have no anti-jam capability. There is generally no
    requirement among regular commercial users for this capability;
    as a result, commercial satellite providers have not included
    this capability in their systems. While there have been only a
    few incidents of intentional jamming of commercial satellites,
    the committee is nevertheless concerned about this potential
    vulnerability, particularly as the military's dependence on
    commercial satellites continues to grow even as new military
    communications satellites with anti-jam capability become
    available. The committee also notes that there has been an
    increase in the availability of jammers that could jam the
    commercial satellites. Commercial communication satellites take
    2 to 3 years to design, manufacture, and launch. Because anti-
    jam capabilities must be included in the design of a commercial
    satellite from the outset, this is not a capability that can be
    added after a satellite is in orbit.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
    consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to review the
    benefits and feasibility, including cost, schedule and
    technical risk, of adding anti-jam capabilities to commercial
    communication satellites and to submit a report that would set
    forth the results of the review to the congressional defense
    committees. The review should also include an assessment of the
    government investment required to support a viable business
    case for commercial providers to provided protected
    communication links for long-term lease by the Department of
    Defense as well as other customers; a cost analysis of
    commercial lease costs with and without protected
    communications, including any appropriate incentive structures;
    and an assessment of when the first commercial satellite with
    anti-jam capabilities could be launched. This review should
    also include an assessment of the jamming threats to commercial
    satellites that are used for military communications that such
    anti-jam capability would address. The report should be
    submitted no later than March 1, 2010.

    Deep Space Climate Observatory

        The committee is aware of a satellite that the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) built in 2000 but
    was never launched. The satellite, the Deep Space Climate
    Observatory (DSCOVR), was put into storage in 2001. The
    satellite would measure solar wind data, important to the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air
    Force, and other agencies including the Department of Homeland
    Security. The satellite was stored with two of the three
    sensors that would be needed for solar wind measurements. NOAA
    is also looking at the possibility of adding additional earth
    observation sensors. There is a critical need for the
    geomagnetic storm information that the DSCOVR could provide as
    the current satellite that provides this information was built
    in 1997, and has long ago exceeded its design life. The
    geomagnetic storm information is particularly useful to provide
    sufficient warning to utility companies and satellite operators
    to execute timely procedures to protect their assets. A sudden
    magnetic storm in 1989 caused the collapse of the electrical
    distribution grid over the entire province of Quebec, Canada.
        DSCOVR was removed from storage at the end of last year,
    and went through a series of tests to determine its status and
    condition. NOAA and NASA have recently determined that although
    there were some concerns the condition was generally good. NOAA
    and NASA believe that DSCOVR, with some upgrading and
    modification, would be suitable to fly.
        The Air Force is very interested in the space weather
    information and is part of an interagency team looking at the
    possibility of refurbishing DSCOVR and launching it to an orbit
    referred to as L1, about one million miles from Earth on a line
    with the Sun. If the team determines that the satellite can be
    refurbished and launched, they will make a recommendation to
    the President. Notionally, NOAA and NASA would pay for
    refurbishing the satellite, the Air Force would pay for the
    launch, and all agencies would receive the data.
        The committee supports this effort to ensure that there is
    no gap in the critical national need for space weather
    information and directs the Air Force to inform the
    congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Senate Committee on
    Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the House of
    Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, and the
    House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce of
    the outcome of the study along with the cost of the launch as
    soon as the study is completed.

    Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance task force

        Secretary Gates established the Intelligence, Surveillance,
    and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force to meet critical
    intelligence requirements of deployed forces that the military
    departments and the Office of the Secretary of Defense had
    failed to address. The initial unmet requirements that led the
    Secretary to establish the Task Force had been known and
    validated for some time, but remained unaddressed because
    existing programs of record could not be accelerated. The Task
    Force was created to find alternative solutions, outside of the
    established programs of record and acquisition processes, and
    succeeded in doing so. Secretary Gates and his predecessor have
    had to take such extraordinary actions previously, to address
    the improvised explosive device (IED) threat through the Joint
    IED Defeat Organization and through the massive Mine-Resistant
    Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle program. As with those
    programs, the ISR Task Force has reallocated billions of
    dollars.
        Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    Admiral Mullen, recently testified that the ISR Task Force
    could be phased out. The committee is skeptical that the need
    for the ISR Task Force has run its course and that it should be
    disbanded entirely and immediately. Indeed, the Department of
    Defense (DOD) is entering a critical phase of the war effort in
    Afghanistan, where the ISR needs are different from, and more
    challenging than, those of Iraq. Moreover, thus far, the Task
    Force has focused on rapidly deploying large quantities of off-
    the-shelf systems and capabilities; there is now a need for
    more sophisticated capabilities that will require the Task
    Force, backed by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs, to organize and field. A prominent example is multi-
    sensor, cross-platform networking, tipping, and cueing, as well
    as networked communications for collection management and data
    dissemination.
        The Task Force is also the focal point for data-driven
    analyses, sponsored by the Joint Staff and the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (OSD), that have been instrumental in
    determining what ISR equipment and procedures are working in
    theater and which are not. The Defense Science Board Task Force
    Report on Operations Research Applications for Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance lauded the value and role of
    this analysis. These studies would not have been produced
    without top-level sponsorship.
        The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense and
    the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs clarify their plans for the
    Task Force and provide a clear recommendation to the
    congressional defense committees prior to conference on the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
        The committee requests further that the Secretary assess
    whether certain rules and authorities under which the Task
    Force operates are appropriate for the next phase of the
    conflict in Afghanistan. Under current procedures, the Task
    Force is required to find a service willing to volunteer to
    sponsor an initiative to respond to a theater requirement as a
    condition for recommending funding for a project. The problem
    has been that, too often, the services have not volunteered to
    solve these problems. The Secretary should determine whether
    the Task Force should be authorized and given the authority to
    propose a solution to a need that could be assigned to an
    appropriate organization for execution.
        Finally, the committee notes that the Task Force, with
    Joint Staff and OSD support, is examining the ISR needs of
    forces engaged in the irregular warfare missions of population
    protection and foreign internal defense that will dominate
    operations in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned that
    previous analyses focused on the ``find, fix, finish''
    methodology pioneered by special forces in direct action
    operations in Iraq and elsewhere. The success of these
    operations, and their measureable outcomes, contributed to
    widespread adoption of the tactics and equipment used by
    special forces. It may be that the same methods and resources
    are applicable to the operational requirements in Afghanistan,
    but it is important to purposefully find out.
                          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 $4.0 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.
    Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department of Defense
            (sec. 1002)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish
    statutory objectives for the Department of Defense to achieve
    by a certain date financial statements that are validated as
    ready for audit. The provision would require the Department of
    Defense to develop and maintain a Financial Improvement and
    Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan that describes specific actions to
    be taken to correct financial management deficiencies and meet
    audit readiness objectives. The FIAR plan would be required to
    tie such actions to process and control improvements and
    business systems modernization efforts described in the
    business enterprise architecture and transition plan required
    by section 2222 of title 10, United States Code.

                    Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

    Temporary reduction in minimum number of aircraft carriers in active
            service (sec. 1011)
        The committee recommends a provision that would temporarily
    waive the requirement that the Navy maintain 11 active aircraft
    carriers in inventory. This provision would only apply to the
    time between the planned retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN-
    65) and the delivery of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The
    committee has reluctantly concluded that the expense of
    extending the Enterprise beyond her planned retirement date to
    cover this gap is not worth the $1.0 billion to $2.0 billion
    the Navy would have to divert from other important programs to
    get one extra deployment from that ship.
        The committee is taking no position at this time on the
    recommendation of the Secretary of Defense that the long-term
    carrier force structure should be 10 rather than 11.
    Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels of the strike
            forces of the Unites States Navy (sec. 1012)
        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
        Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by section
    1015 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), would require that
    all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious
    assault ships larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship
    displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the
    Secretary of Defense determines that the inclusion of an
    integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the
    national interest.
        The committee believes that the Navy is already having too
    much difficulty in achieving the goal of a 313-ship fleet
    without adding a substantial increment to the acquisition price
    of a significant portion of the fleet. Moreover, current
    acquisition law and the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of
    2009 (Public Law 111-23) emphasize the need to start
    acquisition programs on a sure footing as a central mechanism
    by which the Department of Defense (DOD) can get control of
    cost growth and schedule slippage on major defense acquisition
    programs. Therefore, Congress should be loathe to dictate a
    particular outcome of a requirements process before the
    Department has conducted the normal requirements review.
        The committee expects that the Navy will continue to
    evaluate the integrated nuclear power alternative for any new
    class of major surface combatants, but would prefer that any
    Navy requirements analysis not be skewed toward a particular
    outcome.
    Sense of Senate on the maintenance of a 313-ship Navy (sec. 1013)
        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate regarding achieving and maintaining the
    goal of having a 313-ship fleet.
        The committee believes that the Navy can implement certain
    actions that would help achieve and maintain that goal,
    including:
              (1) when procuring new classes of ships, avoiding the
            temptation to move too quickly into production before
            the technologies and designs are mature enough;
              (2) doing a much better job of achieving the full
            planned service lives of ships and perhaps extending
            other vessels beyond their expected service lives to
            keep their unique capabilities in the fleet while the
            Navy takes the time necessary to develop and field
            next-generation capability under a low risk program;
              (3) reducing and controlling the total costs of
            ownership, by emphasizing common hull designs, open
            architecture combat systems, and other common ship
            systems in order to achieve efficiency in acquiring and
            supporting various classes of ships; and
              (4) managing the acquisition process better to
            increase use of fixed price-type contracts, maximize
            competition (or the option of competition) throughout
            the life cycle of its ships, enter into multiyear
            contracts when warranted, and employ an incremental
            approach to developing new technologies.
    Designation of USS Constitution as America's ship of state (sec. 1014)
        The committee recommends a provision that would designate
    the USS Constitution as America's ``Ship of State,'' because of
    this vessel's representation of our important naval history and
    maritime traditions.

                      Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

    Summary

        The budget request for drug interdiction and counterdrug
    activities of the Department of Defense totaled approximately
    $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2010: $537.6 million for
    international support; $212.5 million for domestic support;
    $169.8 million for intelligence, technology, and other
    activities; and $139.2 million for demand reduction programs.
    The committee recommends the following fiscal year 2010 budget
    for the Department's counterdrug activities.

      DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG
                          CONTROL POLICY FUNCTION AREAS
              [In millions of dollars; may not add due to rounding]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2010 Counterdrug Request.................           $1,059.0
        Intelligence: Domestic Law Enforcement...........               35.5
        Intelligence: Interdiction.......................               56.6
        Intelligence: International......................              101.6
        Interdiction.....................................              335.9
        International....................................              205.9
        Investigative....................................               45.2
        Prevention.......................................              130.7
        Research and Development: Interdiction...........               19.8
        Research and Development: International..........                4.0
        State and Local Assistance:......................              115.5
        Treatment........................................                8.5
    Increases:
        High Priority National Guard Counterdrug Programs               30.0
        Mobile Sensor Barrier............................                5.0
    Decreases:
        United States European (EUCOM) Command                           8.0
         Counternarcotics Support (Project Code (PC)
         9205)...........................................
        EUCOM Headquarters Support (PC2346)..............                0.8
        EUCOM Interagency Fusion Centers (PC2365)........                1.0
        Relocatable Over-the Horizon-Radar (PC3217)......                5.0
        U.S. Special Operations Command Support to                       0.2
         Combatant Commanders (PC6505)...................
        EUCOM Counternarcotics Reserve Support (PC9215)..                1.2
    Fiscal Year 2010 Counterdrug Funding Authorized......            1,077.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    High priority 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 in $30.0 million for the
    National Guard Bureau's highest priority counterdrug
    activities.

    Mobile sensor barrier

        The committee is aware of the growing use of Self Propelled
    Semi-Submersibles (SPSS) by drug trafficking organizations
    operating out of South and Central America. According to United
    States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), SPSS are responsible for at
    least one-third of all cocaine movement in the transit zone.
    SOUTHCOM and the United States Coast Guard consider SPSS a
    serious threat to U.S. and regional security. As such, the
    committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the
    Department to develop, test, and demonstrate a system of
    autonomous surface vehicles to detect, monitor, and support
    interdiction of SPSS. SOUTHCOM has assigned the SPSS a high
    priority in its most recent Integrated Priority List submission
    to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    United States European Command counterdrug activities

        The committee notes that in previous fiscal years the
    Department has provided robust counterdrug-related funding to
    United States European Command (EUCOM) on the basis of the
    burgeoning illegal narcotics trafficking trade emanating from
    West Africa. However, as of the stand up of United States
    Africa Command (AFRICOM) in October 2008 (i.e. fiscal year
    2009), AFRICOM is provided funding within the budget request
    for counterdrug activities in West Africa and across the
    continent. As such, the committee recommends a series of five
    decreases within the counterdrug budget request totaling $11.2
    million. Specific project code reductions are reflected above
    and in Title XIV. Moving forward, the committee directs the
    Department to adjust the funding levels for counterdrug related
    funding dedicated to EUCOM downward significantly to reflect
    the change in the Unified Command Plan, which moved the African
    continent into the area of responsibility for AFRICOM, and to
    reflect the greater capacity of our European partners to combat
    illegal narcotics trafficking.

    Relocatable over-the-horizon radar

        The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 for the
    Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar. The committee is aware of
    the important role this aerial detection asset plays in the
    western hemisphere and believes this asset is critical to
    situational awareness on the eastern and southern coasts of the
    United States; however, the committee believes the deployment
    of this asset is more appropriately funded by the military
    services operations and maintenance budget activities.

    Fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justification documents

        According to the budget justification materials, $537.6
    million is dedicated to international support, but the budget
    justification books for fiscal year 2010 provide little or no
    specific information as to the level of assistance to be
    provided to partner nations. In preparing congressional budget
    justification books for fiscal year 2011, the committee directs
    the Department to provide information relating to partner
    nations receiving assistance under section 1004 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1991
    (Public Law 101-510), as amended, and section 1033 of the NDAA
    for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as amended. At a minimum, the
    committee believes this should include: recipient partner
    nation and recipient within the partner nation's government;
    type and amount of support provided; expected duration; and
    U.S. agency executing support.

    Extension and modification of authority to provide additional support
            for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments
            (sec. 1021)

        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 (FY) 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as amended by
    section 1021 of the NDAA for FY 2004 (Public Law 108-136),
    section 1022 of the John Warner NDAA for FY 2007 (Public Law
    109-364), section 1022 of the NDAA for FY 2008 (Public Law 110-
    181), section 1024 of the Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009
    (Public Law 110-417); would increase the funding limitation
    under section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended, from $75.0
    million to $100.0 million for fiscal year 2010; and would make
    technical changes to the reporting requirements to include
    requiring the Secretary of Defense to report to the
    congressional defense committees on an annual basis.
        The committee is aware of the Department's request to
    expand the list of countries that could qualify for assistance
    under section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended, to include
    Indonesia, Philippines, Nicaragua, Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra
    Leone. However, given the Department's failure to utilize
    section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended, vis-a-vis the
    additional four countries provided under the Duncan Hunter NDAA
    for FY 2009 (Public Law 110-417), the committee has decided not
    to expand the list of eligible countries. The committee,
    however, shares the Department's concerns about the burgeoning
    illegal narcotics trade in West Africa and urges the Department
    to expand its authorized activities with Guinea-Bissau and
    Senegal.
        For the first time, the committee has recommended a
    significant increase in the authorized maximum amount the
    Department can expend under this authority without expanding
    the list of eligible countries. The committee has opted to take
    this action in part as a response to the Department's repeated
    attempts to leverage other authorities (e.g., section 1206 of
    the NDAA for FY 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as amended) that are
    designated for counterterrorism purposes or stability
    operations in which the United States is a participant. The
    committee believes that some of the projects put forward by the
    Department under section 1206 of Public Law 109-163 over the
    past 2 fiscal years (e.g., Operation Enduring Freedom--
    Caribbean and Central America and the Mexico counterterrorism
    capabilities) would have been more appropriately funded under
    section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended.
        Further, the committee reminds the Department that joint
    task forces of the Department that provide support to law
    enforcement agencies conducting counterdrug activities may
    provide similar support to law enforcement agencies conducting
    counterterrorism activities on the condition that any support
    provided under this section is consistent with all applicable
    laws and regulations; that the support may only be provided in
    the geographic area of responsibility of the joint task force;
    and that a verifiable nexus exists between the individuals
    involved in the illegal narcotics trade and individuals
    involved in terrorist-related activities. This authority was
    provided under section 1022 of Public Law 108-136 as amended.
        The committee is aware of commanders' concerns about
    current constraints to the types of support authorized to be
    provided under this authority (e.g. certain types of lethal
    assistance). As such, the committee directs the Under Secretary
    of Defense-Policy to report to the committee 180 days after
    enactment of this Act on what constraints commanders executing
    funding under this authority are confronting and whether
    changes to this authority should be considered.

    One-year extension of authority for joint task forces support to law
            enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
            (sec. 1022)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authority provided in section 1022 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136),
    which expires at the end of fiscal year 2009, through fiscal
    year 2010. The authority granted under this provision provides
    that a joint task force of the Department of Defense, which is
    providing support to law enforcement agencies conducting
    counterdrug activities (e.g., Joint Interagency Task Force--
    South, Joint Interagency Task Force--West, and Joint Task
    Force--North), may also provide these law enforcement agencies
    with support for their counterterrorism activities.
        This provision also includes an amendment which would
    require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional
    defense committees, no later than December 31st of each year, a
    report evaluating the effect on counterdrug and
    counterterrorism activities and objectives of using counterdrug
    funds of a joint task force to provide counterterrorism
    support, a description of the type of support and recipient(s)
    of support provided, and a list of current joint task forces
    conducting counterdrug operations.

    One-year extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and
            counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1023)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    1 fiscal year the continuation of the authorities provided in
    section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 (Public Law
    108-375), as amended by the John Warner NDAA for FY 2007
    (Public Law 109-364), which allows the Department of Defense to
    support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and
    activities by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; the
    United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia; and the National
    Liberation Army. Each of these organizations is designated as
    foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. Department of State
    under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
    1965 (Public Law 89-236).
        This provision would also extend the limitation on the
    number of U.S. military and federally funded civilian
    contractor personnel in the Republic of Colombia through fiscal
    year 2010. Section 1021 of Public Law 108-375, as amended,
    limits the number of military personnel in Colombia to 800
    people and the number of federally funded civilian contractors
    to 600 people.
        Given the success of Operation Willing Spirit, which
    successfully rescued three American hostages in July 2008, the
    ongoing negotiations with the Republic of Colombia regarding
    U.S. military access to Palanquero, Apiay, and Baranquilla air
    bases, and the scheduled loss of access to Manta Air Base in
    Ecuador, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    perform an assessment of the numerical limitations included in
    section 1021 of Public Law 108-375, as amended, and report to
    the congressional defense committees 180 days after enactment
    of this Act on whether these numeric limitations should be
    changed, upward or downward, or repealed.

                        Subtitle D--Military Commissions

    Military commissions (sec. 1031)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that
    military commissions meet standards of fairness established by
    the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
        In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common
    Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the trial of
    detainees for violations of the law of war, unless the trial is
    conducted ``by a regularly constituted court affording all the
    judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
    civilized peoples.''
        The Court concluded that ``[t]he regular military courts in
    our system are the courts-martial established by congressional
    statutes'' and that ``procedures governing trials by military
    commission historically have been the same as those governing
    courts-martial.'' Consequently, a military commission ``can be
    `regularly constituted' by the standards of our military
    justice system only if some practical need explains deviations
    from court-martial practice.''
        Similarly, the Court found that the Common Article 3
    provision for ``judicial guarantees which are recognized as
    indispensable by civilized peoples'' requires, at a minimum,
    that any deviation from the procedures governing courts-martial
    be justified by ``evident practical need''. According to the
    Court, ``The uniformity principle is not an inflexible one; it
    does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated
    for use by courts-martial. But any departure must be tailored
    to the exigency that necessitates it.''
        The provision recommended by the committee is designed to
    meet this test by bringing procedures for military commissions
    in line with procedures governing trials by courts-martial,
    except in cases where deviations are justified by practical
    needs.
        The committee notes that the definition of the term
    ``unprivileged enemy belligerent'' in the provision makes no
    specific reference to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
    forces. The committee acknowledges that the United States and
    its coalition partners are and have been engaged in hostilities
    pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Public
    Law 107-40. The definition used by the committee encompasses
    these hostilities, as well as future hostilities, while
    providing for jurisdictional determinations to be made case-by-
    case, on the basis of the actions of each individual.
        The committee is aware of concerns that the defense teams
    in some military commission cases may have been under-resourced
    to conduct investigations, obtain expert witnesses, and perform
    other necessary tasks. Many of these concerns are set forth in
    a June 9, 2009, memorandum from the Chief Defense Counsel for
    military commissions to the Attorney General of the United
    States and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
    The committee expects the Department of Defense to review and
    address these concerns, as appropriate.

                      Subtitle E--Medical Facility Matters

    Medical Facility Matters (sec. 1041-1047)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the
    Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to execute an
    executive agreement for the joint use by the Department of
    Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs of a new Navy
    ambulatory care center, parking structure, and supporting
    structures and facilities in North Chicago, Illinois, and Great
    Lakes, Illinois, as well as medical personal property and
    equipment relating to the center, structures, and facilities.
    The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    transfer, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of Veterans
    Affairs' jurisdiction over the center, structures, facilities,
    and property and equipment covered by the agreement not earlier
    than 5 years after execution of the agreement or upon
    completion of benchmarks established by the Secretary of
    Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to the
    joint use of the facility. The provision would also authorize
    the transfer of functions, including civilian employee
    positions of the Department of Defense to the Department of
    Veterans Affairs. The transfer of civilian employee positions
    would not result in a reduction in an employee's pay, and would
    continue collective bargaining rights under title 5, United
    States Code, for a 2-year period. The transfer would not result
    in any non-bargaining unit employees becoming members of the
    bargaining unit. The center, structures, and facilities
    transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be
    designated as the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care
    Center.
        The committee is aware that on April 22, 2009, testimony
    presented by the Veterans Administration (VA) to the Senate
    Committee on Veterans Affairs was in opposition to proposed
    legislation that would make matters relating to direct patient
    care and the clinical competence of clinical health care
    providers subject to collective bargaining, the same matters
    proposed for 2 years under section 1604 of this bill. In that
    testimony, concern was expressed that such an expansion of
    collective bargaining rights would be an ``anathema to patient
    centered medicine'' and would ``adversely impact VA's ability
    to deliver quality patient care.'' The committee will observe
    with active interest the implementation of section 1604 to see
    if, in fact, VA's concerns were well founded. In any case, the
    committee will not tolerate anything less than the highest
    quality of care for those treated at this federal health
    center.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the
    planning and implementation of the electronic medical record
    system or systems to be used at this federal health center as
    part of the assessment of the implementation of the joint
    Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs fully
    interoperable electronic health records required by section
    1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2008 (Public Law 109-364).

      Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Requirements, Authorities, and Limitations

    Congressional earmarks relating to the Department of Defense (sec.
            1051)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
    committees a report on the procedures used to award funding for
    congressionally directed spending items that have been included
    in National Defense Authorization Acts for 3 or more
    consecutive years. The provision would also direct the
    Department of Defense Inspector General to conduct an audit to
    determine whether recipients of congressionally directed
    spending items are in compliance with laws pertaining to use of
    federal funds to influence congressional action.

    National strategic five-year plan for improving the nuclear forensic
            and attribution capabilities of the United States (sec. 1052)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    President to develop a strategic plan for improving over a 5
    year period the nuclear forensic and attribution capability of
    the United States and the methods, capabilities, and capacity
    for nuclear materials forensics and attribution. The Department
    of Homeland Security is the agency currently tasked with
    responsibility to coordinate the actions of the federal
    agencies. The plan would be conducted with the participation of
    the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, Energy and
    State, the Attorney General, the Director of National
    Intelligence, and other such officials as the President
    considers appropriate.
        The committee shares the larger congressional concern that
    the U.S. ability to attribute accurately the origins of the
    material and manufacturers of a nuclear or radiological device,
    including a dirty bomb, is adequate but is neither as robust as
    it should be nor sustainable over the long-term. While each of
    the named agencies has a role in the attribution chain, there
    is currently no fully coordinated and resourced forensics and
    attribution plan to guide government-wide strategy and
    investment. This is of particular concern to the committee as
    the research and development capabilities of the Department of
    Energy laboratories underpin all of the activities of each of
    the responsible agencies.
        The plan would be provided to Congress and would be due 180
    days after enactment of this Act.

    One-year extension of authority to offer and make rewards for
            assistance in combating terrorism through government personnel
            of allied forces (sec. 1053)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    1 year the authority provided in section 127b(c)(3)(C) of title
    10, United States Code, to offer and make rewards through
    government personnel of allied forces to persons who provide
    information or nonlethal assistance that is beneficial to
    operations against international terrorism conducted by U.S.
    Armed Forces or allied forces operating in combination with
    U.S. Armed Forces, or is beneficial to force protection.

    Business process reengineering (sec. 1054)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
    appropriate chief management officer of the Department of
    Defense (DOD) to determine whether or not appropriate business
    process reengineering efforts have been undertaken before DOD
    approves a new business system modernization program.

    Responsibility for preparation of biennial Global Positioning System
            report (sec. 1055)

        The committee recommends a provision that would shift
    responsibility for preparing the biennial Global Positioning
    System (GPS) report from the Secretary of Defense to the
    Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Defense would retain
    responsibility for certain aspects of the report, which at a
    minimum would include that portion of the report dealing with
    the current status of the GPS system.

    Additional subpoena authority for the Inspector General of the
            Department of Defense (sec. 1056)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to
    subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses necessary to
    carry out an audit or investigation. The DOD Inspector General
    would be required to notify the Attorney General in advance of
    the issuance of any subpoena, and would not be permitted to
    issue a subpoena if the Attorney General objects.
        The DOD Inspector General recently notified the committee
    that he was unable to complete an investigation requested by
    the committee because former senior DOD officials who engaged
    in the activities to be reviewed refused the Inspector
    General's requests for an interview. The committee concludes
    that the DOD Inspector General needs the authority to compel
    testimony in appropriate cases.

    Reports on bandwidth requirements for major defense acquisition
            programs and major system acquisition programs (sec. 1057)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1047(d) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
    require a report on the bandwidth determinations made each year
    by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National
    Intelligence for each major defense acquisition program and
    each major systems acquisitions program respectively.

    Multiyear contracts under pilot program on commercial fee-for-service
            air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1058)

        The committee recommends a provision that would provide an
    exemption to the 5-year limitation on multiyear contracts and
    make other minor changes to enable the Air Force to implement a
    fee-for-service air refueling support pilot program.
        Section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) directed the Secretary of
    the Air Force to conduct a pilot program to assess the
    feasibility and advisability of utilizing commercial fee-for-
    service air refueling tanker aircraft for Air Force operations.
        The Air Force has been working with the private sector to
    implement this pilot program. The Air Force has informed the
    committee that results from their formal request for
    information process indicate that a multiyear contract that
    exceeds the current 5-year limit would be necessary to promote
    adequate competition and reduce program costs. The Air Force
    needs to have authority to make commitments for the 8-year
    pilot program in order to issue a request for proposal. The Air
    Force also needs to be able to offer carriers insurance
    coverage similar to that provided to civil reserve air fleet
    (CRAF) program partners. This provision would provide the Air
    Force with those authorities.

                              Subtitle G--Reports

    National intelligence estimate on nuclear aspirations of non-state
            entities and nuclear weapons and related programs in non-
            nuclear-weapons states and countries not parties to the Nuclear
            Non-Proliferation Treaty (sec. 1071)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to prepare a national
    intelligence estimate (NIE) on nuclear weapons and related
    programs of non-nuclear weapons state parties to the Treaty on
    the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the weapons
    aspirations of such non-state actors as the DNI considers
    appropriate to include in the estimate. The NIE would be due on
    September 1, 2010. If the DNI determines that it is not
    possible to complete the NIE by such date then the DNI shall
    provided notification not later than August 1 2010, that the
    NIE will be late and the date that the NIE will be submitted.
    The completed NIE would be submitted to the congressional
    defense committees and the Intelligence Committees of the
    Senate and the House of Representatives.
        While the committee recognizes that the intelligence
    community prepares numerous reports that bear on certain
    aspects of the material that would be contained in the NIE,
    there is benefit to having a comprehensive report on this
    subject.

    Comptroller General of the United States assessment of military
            whistleblower protections (sec. 1072)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Government Accountability Office to review the implementation
    by the Department of Defense of military whistleblower
    protections afforded to members of the armed services.

                           Subtitle H--Other Matters

    Transfer of Navy aircraft N40VT (sec. 1081)

        The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
    Secretary of the Navy to transfer a Navy helicopter to a
    private corporation, the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation, at no
    cost to the Government. This provision would require that the
    transfer be: (1) at no cost to the Government; (2) subject to
    such terms and conditions as the Secretary may deem appropriate
    to protect the interests of the Government; and (3) conditioned
    upon receiving adequate consideration in the use of any
    technologies proven during testing of new technology on the
    aircraft.
        The Navy has been developing a concept to employ different
    propulsion approaches for helicopters. This program is known as
    the vectored thrust ducted propeller (VTDP) program. The
    testing on this concept has completed exploring the flight
    envelope for which the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) will
    certify the aircraft. The whole point of the development
    program, however, is to demonstrate whether the VTDP concept
    can expend the flying envelope for helicopters beyond their
    normal limits.
        The Navy has determined that: (1) the Navy has no further
    use for the aircraft to be transferred; (2) while the Navy owns
    the aircraft, they cannot permit the aircraft to fly outside
    the limits of the NAVAIR certification; (3) the Navy would
    incur substantial additional expense to expand the
    certification of this single aircraft; (4) the Navy and others
    within the Department of Defense would like to have the results
    of the testing; and (5) transferring ownership to the Piasecki
    Aircraft Corporation is the least expensive means of obtaining
    those results.

    Conveyance of Big Crow aircraft (sec. 1082)

        The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
    Secretary of the Air Force to transfer two Big Crow aircraft to
    an appropriate private entity, if it is determined to be in the
    best interests of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
    to do so. The committee notes that the Big Crow aircraft have
    been used for a number of test and evaluation and operational
    missions related to electronic warfare and other areas for a
    variety of joint customers. The committee understands that the
    Air Force must fund large sustainment and refurbishment costs
    for the aircraft, but believes that the capabilities provided
    by the systems are of high value to the Department of Defense.
    The committee believes that it may be possible to give the
    Department of Defense access to these critical test assets by
    transferring them to a private sector entity, who would then be
    responsible for their maintenance and operation in order to
    keep them in service to potential defense customers. The
    committee believes that this transfer should only occur if
    there is no liability and limited cost incurred by the
    Department of Defense in the transaction.

                           Items of Special Interest

    National cyber security initiative

        The budget request included large but classified amounts
    for the national cyber security initiative, mostly in the
    national intelligence program budget, but also in the
    Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and
    elsewhere in the Federal Government. The new administration
    recently completed a significant policy review of the
    initiative, which began in the last years of the previous
    administration.
        The new review appears to have made considerable progress
    in at least framing many of the important issues that must be
    addressed. However, it is impossible for the public to come to
    this conclusion because all the fundamental aspects of the
    program, and the issues associated with it, remain classified.
    The administration realizes that it is imperative to engage in
    a public dialogue about the legal and policy issues affecting
    privacy and civil liberties, but has not indicated how or when
    it plans to achieve this objective. Likewise, the
    administration recognizes that it is essential to develop and
    publicly present a national strategy and doctrine for cyber
    security and operations for deterring aggression, establishing
    norms of behavior, and the like, that depends upon a level of
    public analysis and discourse about activities,
    vulnerabilities, and capabilities in cyberspace that is not
    possible today.
        There is another important problem with the cyber
    initiative, which the administration review did not address,
    that also cannot be rectified without substantial progress in
    declassifying basic information about the program. For a number
    of years, the government has invested large sums developing
    cyber security capabilities through the intelligence agencies.
    These capabilities are being developed inside the government on
    a classified basis, with very little commercial industry
    participation or even awareness. Some defense contractors are
    working on the technology, but under government engineering and
    technical direction.
        The committee is concerned that this government solution,
    even if it is superior technically now to what the private
    sector could provide, will before long be surpassed by
    commercial technology and systems and will become an expensive
    albatross. In addition, if the government believes what it says
    about the cyber threat, and believes that its technical
    solutions are substantially better than what is commercially
    available, it is incumbent on the government to make as much of
    that technology available to the private sector as possible,
    especially the owners and operators of critical infrastructure.
    Furthermore, privacy and civil liberties concerns will diminish
    the more the commercial information technology industry is
    involved in designing, engineering, and implementing cyber
    security solutions.
        The committee concludes, after extensive review, that
    commercial companies do have highly relevant technology for
    intrusion prevention at high speeds and volumes, and for
    recognizing anomalous activities and managing a rapid response
    across a large, complex network. Some of these industry sectors
    are not even aware that their capabilities are relevant to
    cyber security because the government has provided no insight
    into the capabilities it requires, or the architecture and
    concept of operations it has designed for the cyber security
    initiative.
        The committee urges the President to declassify the cyber
    security initiative to the level where industry can understand
    how it may contribute to solutions, and to invite U.S. industry
    to propose comprehensive solutions to the government's cyber
    security needs.
        The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to task the Defense
    Science Board (DSB) to assess the capability of U.S. industry
    to design and build capabilities to defend government networks
    and critical infrastructure consistent with the government's
    classified architecture and concept of operations. The
    committee directs that the DSB report be forwarded to Congress
    by April 1, 2010.

    Ship decommissioning

        Section 231 of title 10, United Stets Code, requires the
    Secretary of Defense to submit an annual long-range plan for
    the construction of naval vessels, and to certify that the
    current budget and the future-years defense program (FYDP)
    funds that plan.
        The Senate report accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110-77) of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
    included direction that the Secretary include an addendum
    providing the hull numbers and planned disposition of ships
    that were to be dismantled, sunk, or decommissioned during the
    FYDP and the resultant gaps in capability upon the
    decommissioning of each ship.
        The committee finds these reports very helpful, but
    believes that they could be even more useful if there were
    better fidelity in projections of long-term force structure in
    this report. Specifically, one can infer from notional delivery
    schedules when a ship in the shipbuilding plan will deliver.
    What is much less clear for data beyond the FYDP is what
    assumptions are being made for decommissionings of ships.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to include in each annual report submitted in accordance with
    section 231 of title 10, United States Code, specific ship-by-
    ship decommissionings that are projected over the full-time
    period of the plan. That information shall be in addition to
    the more specific data on decommissionings within the period of
    the FYDP mentioned above.

    Strategic communications and public diplomacy

        The committee continues to monitor closely the Department
    of Defense's (DOD) funding for counter support for terrorism
    and counter-radicalization strategic communication programs and
    other public diplomacy programs. Since the September 11, 2001,
    terrorist attacks, the U.S. Government, according to the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO), has spent at least
    $10.0 billion on communication efforts designed to advance the
    strategic interests of the United States. DOD does not have a
    separate budget covering its strategic communication
    activities, but the GAO reports that DOD ``spends hundreds of
    millions of dollars each year'' to support its information
    operations outreach activities.
        The committee is aware of initiatives undertaken and funded
    by the joint improvised explosive device defeat organization
    and geographical combatant commands for strategic
    communications programs directed at counter-support for
    terrorism and counter-radicalization. Many ongoing programs are
    in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but military
    information support teams (MISTs) from United States Special
    Operations Command are also deploying to United States
    embassies in countries of particular interest around the globe
    to bolster the efforts of the Department of State and the U.S.
    Agency for International Development. These efforts are in
    addition to many of other small public diplomacy programs.
    Strategic communications and public diplomacy programs are
    important activities and the committee supports them, but the
    committee is not able to determine whether these efforts are
    integrated within DOD or with the broader U.S. Government, nor
    is the committee able to oversee adequately the funding for the
    multitude of programs.
        While Congress awaits delivery of the report on strategic
    communication and public diplomacy activities of the Federal
    Government required under section 1055 of the Duncan Hunter
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
    Law 110-417), the committee directs the Under Secretary of
    Defense--Policy and Under Secretary of Defense--Comptroller to
    develop budget documentation materials for fiscal year 2011
    that clearly articulate and document DOD's objectives and
    funding levels for strategic communications and public
    diplomacy.
                      TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

    Repeal of National Security Personnel System; Department of Defense
            personnel authorities (sec. 1101)
        The committee recommends a provision that would freeze the
    expansion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and
    terminate NSPS unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that
    termination would not be in the best interest of the Department
    of Defense and provides a specific schedule for making changes
    to improve the fairness, credibility, and transparency of the
    system. In the event that NSPS is terminated, the provision
    would provide a 1-year period for the transition of NSPS
    employees back into the General Schedule system. In addition,
    the provision would authorize the Secretary to develop fair,
    credible, and transparent methods for hiring and assigning
    personnel, and for appraising employee performance.
        The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    needs continuing flexibility to efficiently hire qualified new
    employees and to manage its workforce in a manner that promotes
    superior performance. However, the committee has received many
    complaints from DOD employees during the 5 years during which
    the Department has sought to implement NSPS, to the detriment
    of needed human capital planning and workforce management
    initiatives. The committee acknowledges the review of NSPS
    initiated by the Deputy Secretary of Defense under the auspices
    of the Defense Business Board and remains open to consideration
    of its forthcoming findings and recommendations.
    Extension and modification of experimental personnel management program
            for scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1102)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    experimental personnel management program at the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the services, and a
    number of defense agencies for an additional 3 years. The
    provision would also equalize the compensation that employees
    under the program could receive above their base pay to the
    levels established for the Department's Highly Qualified
    Experts program. The committee notes that DARPA has used this
    authority successfully to hire the specialized, world-class,
    technical talent they need to perform their unique defense
    mission.
    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 and 2010 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.

    Availability of funds for compensation of certain civilian employees of
            the Department of Defense (sec. 1104)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Department of Defense (DOD) to use funds available for the
    purchase of contract services to instead provide compensation
    for civilian employees to meet the same requirement.
        The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to hire up to
    30,000 new civil servants over the next 5 years, to replace
    contractor employees and restore needed expertise and authority
    to the DOD workforce. In the past, the Department has been
    impeded in efforts to achieve a rational balance between
    civilian employees and contractor employees by funding
    decisions that preclude trade-offs between the two workforces.
    The committee believes that the Secretary should have the
    funding flexibility needed to make such trade-offs.

    Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (sec. 1105)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to establish a program of leadership
    recruitment and development for civilian employees of the
    Department of Defense, to be known as the Department of Defense
    Civilian Leadership Program (DCLP).
        The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to increase
    the size of the acquisition workforce by 20,000 government
    acquisition professionals by 2015 to address the Department's
    long-standing problems in the acquisition of products and
    services. Acquisition experts have informed the committee that
    the Department's needs extend beyond contracting officials to
    system engineers, development planners, software engineers,
    cost estimators, developmental testers, and other highly
    skilled professionals. They have emphasized that the quality of
    the new employees is at least as important as the quantity. The
    committee believes that the DCLP will provide the Department
    with an important new tool to recruit individuals with the
    academic merit, work experience, and demonstrated leadership
    skills necessary to build the most effective acquisition
    workforce possible.

    Review of defense laboratories for participation in defense laboratory
            personnel demonstration projects (sec. 1106)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to undertake a review of defense
    laboratories that are not currently operating under the
    successful laboratory personnel demonstration system,
    originally authorized by Congress in the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337).
    The committee notes that the personnel system flexibilities
    within this program support laboratory directors' efforts to
    hire and retain top quality in order to support the execution
    of their designated research and technology development
    missions.
        The committee notes that there are still a number of
    laboratories that have not been allowed to participate in the
    program and recommends that the Department quickly review the
    costs and benefits to allowing them to operate using the
    greater flexibilities inherent in the lab personnel
    demonstration program. The committee expects that in the
    interests of allowing the laboratories to optimally execute
    their designated missions, the laboratories will be delegated
    the maximum flexibility possible to shape their technical
    workforces.

                            Item of Special Interest

    Utilization of hiring authorities for civilian health care
            professionals

        The committee notes that Congress provided enhanced and
    expedited personnel hiring authorities for civilian health care
    professionals to the Department of Defense in section 1636 of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
    (Public Law 110-181), as well as in section 1107 of the Duncan
    Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
    (Public Law 110-417). These direct hire provisions authorized
    the Secretary of Defense to exercise any authority for the
    appointment and pay of health care personnel under chapter 74
    of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of recruitment,
    employment, and retention of civilian health care
    professionals; and to recruit and appoint certain health care
    professionals directly to designated positions, respectively.
        The committee continues to hear complaints from the
    Department and from the services about the onerous nature of
    the civilian hiring process and that highly qualified
    professionals are lost to other agencies or to the private
    sector as a result. The hiring authorities provided to the
    Department by Congress were meant to alleviate those
    difficulties in order to enable the Department and the services
    to recruit and retain much needed health care support.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after
    enactment of this bill on the implementation and utilization of
    these hiring authorities to date, and whether the Department
    needs any additional legislative authorities in order to obtain
    necessary civilian health care professionals.
                 TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                      Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

    Increase in unit cost threshold for purchases using certain funds under
            the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (sec. 1201)
        The committee recommends a provision that would change the
    unit cost threshold for items whose purchase is subject to the
    limitation of subparagraph (e)(1)(A) of section 166a of title
    10, United States Code, from $15,000 to the unit cost threshold
    in effect under section 2245a of this title, currently
    $250,000.
    Authority to provide administrative services and support to coalition
            liaison officers of certain foreign nations assigned to Joint
            Forces Command (sec. 1202)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to allow the
    Secretary of Defense to provide administrative services and
    support, and to pay travel and subsistence expenses, for
    certain coalition liaison officers assigned temporarily to U.S.
    Joint Forces Command, as is currently authorized for certain
    coalition liaison officers to the headquarters of a combatant
    command in connection with the planning for, or conduct of, a
    coalition operation.
    Modification of authorities relating to program to build the capacity
            of foreign military forces (sec. 1203)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide
    that no more than $75.0 million of the $350.0 million
    authorized annually for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for a
    program under section 1206 of the John Warner National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120
    Stat. 2418), as amended, may be used to build the capacity of
    foreign military forces to participate in or support military
    and stability operations in which the United States Armed
    Forces are a participant.
        The committee notes the request by the Department for new
    authorities to: (1) build the capacity of a foreign country's
    national military forces preparing to support a coalition
    operation conducted as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or
    Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, or by the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International
    Security Assistance Force (ISAF); and (2) build the capacity of
    NATO and partner special operations forces to support NATO or
    coalition special operations conducted as part of OIF or OEF in
    Afghanistan, or by the NATO ISAF. The committee believes that
    both these activities can be conducted within the existing
    authority of section 1206 of Public Law 109-364, as amended.
        The authority provided in section 1206 of Public Law 109-
    364, as amended, has been developed through a process of close
    consultation between the Department of Defense and Congress,
    resulting in both a number of legislative changes and informal
    policy guidance intended to ensure that the program is
    conducted consistent with the legislative intent. For example,
    the committee has made clear its desire that section 1206 funds
    not be used to build the capacity of foreign military forces of
    countries for which designated funds for training and equipping
    security forces have been established, such as in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The committee would be open to considering
    proposals to use the authority under this section to help build
    the capacity of NATO and other coalition partners whose ability
    to contribute to ongoing military or stability operations in
    Iraq and Afghanistan would otherwise be limited.
        The committee has repeatedly stated that the authority of
    section 1206 of Public Law 109-364, as amended, is intended to
    address emerging needs and should not duplicate or become a
    substitute for security assistance under Foreign Military
    Financing (FMF) authorities. To this end, the committee has
    emphasized the need for 1206 programs to develop plans to
    transition to FMF funding if longer-term assistance is
    required. The Department's stated desire to conduct sustained
    capacity building to prepare special operations to deploy for
    coalition operations suggests that it intends to establish
    multi-year programs with respect to certain recipient
    countries. To reduce the potential impact of such multi-year
    programs on the section 1206 program as a whole, the committee
    would establish the $75.0 million funding limit provided in
    this section.
        The committee reiterates its view that the authority of
    section 1206 of Public Law 109-364, as amended, is temporary
    and encourages the Administration to review the existing
    security assistance authorities of the Department of Defense
    and Department of State to reconcile, de-conflict, and improve
    the effectiveness of these authorities.
    Modification of notification and reporting requirements for use of
            authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism
            (sec. 1204)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish
    two distinct notification requirements under section 1208 of
    the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
    Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as amended by the
    Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009 (Public Law 110-417). In the
    event the Department is providing assistance under this
    authority to irregular forces, groups, or individuals
    supporting or facilitating military operations by U.S. special
    operations forces to combat terrorism, the Secretary of Defense
    shall notify the congressional defense committees at least 72
    hours prior to the use of such authority, and in the event the
    Department is providing assistance under this authority to
    foreign forces supporting or facilitating military operations
    by U.S. special operations forces to combat terrorism, the
    Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense
    committees no later than 48 hours following the use of such
    authority. This provision would also require the Department to
    notify the congressional defense committees again should there
    be any change in the scope or funding level of the operation.
        The committee has reviewed the most recent notifications
    and the annual report submitted by the Department and believes
    the level of information provided by the Department is
    inadequate, particularly on issues of the type of support
    provided to U.S. special operations forces; type of support
    provided to the recipient; intended duration of the support
    (i.e. duration of the program); amount obligated under the
    authority to provide support; and an after-action assessment of
    the operational support. Therefore, this provision also amends
    the notification and reporting requirements established in
    section 1208 (c) and (f) respectively of the Ronald Reagan NDAA
    for FY 2005 (Public Law 108-375) to reflect these unaddressed
    matters.
        The committee is concerned that U.S. Special Operations
    Command (SOCOM) may be leveraging this authority for long-term
    engagement with partner nations, rather than exclusively for
    support of or facilitating of military operations by U.S.
    special operations forces to combat terrorism, particularly in
    countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee
    recommends that SOCOM review the current programs to ensure
    that they are being executed in a manner consistent with the
    original intent.
    Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition
            nations for support provided to United States military
            operations (sec. 1205)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    fiscal year 2010 the authority provided in section 1233 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
    Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393) for the Secretary of Defense to
    reimburse key cooperating nations for logistical and military
    support provided by that nation to, or in connection with, U.S.
    military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or
    Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). This provision would also
    modify section 1233 of Public law 110-181 to allow funds under
    section 1233 of Public Law 110-181 for fiscal year 2010 to be
    used to assist key cooperating nations supporting U.S. military
    operations in OIF and OEF by providing specialized training and
    supplies, or loaning specialized equipment. The total amount of
    reimbursements and other support authorized for fiscal year
    2010 would not exceed $1.6 billion. The provision would also
    extend until September 30, 2011, 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 Pakistan for support it
    provided.
        The committee understands from the Department of Defense
    that the Pakistan Government has agreed to establish within the
    Pakistan Ministry of Finance an account, to be funded with
    $25.0 million from the next reimbursement to Pakistan under
    Coalition Support Funds, to cover the costs of helicopter spare
    parts. Under this arrangement, the United States would deposit
    this amount directly into Pakistan's U.S.-administered Foreign
    Military Sales (FMS) trust fund, and the procurement of
    helicopter spare parts would be financed using those funds
    under the FMS program. The committee welcomes this arrangement
    as a positive step in improving transparency for how Pakistan
    uses reimbursements provided from Coalition Support Funds.
    One-year extension and expansion of Commanders' Emergency Response
            Program (sec. 1206)
        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 in their areas of responsibility that provide
    immediate benefit to the local people. The provision would
    authorize the Secretary of Defense to use up to $1.4 billion in
    Operation and Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2010 for CERP.
    The provision would also provide that the Secretary may
    transfer up to $100.0 million of CERP funds to the Department
    of State to support the Afghanistan National Solidarity Program
    if the Secretary determines that doing so would enhance
    counterinsurgency or stability operations in Afghanistan.
        The committee notes that the budget request included $1.5
    billion for CERP for fiscal year 2010, consisting of $300.0
    million for CERP in Iraq and $1.2 billion for CERP in
    Afghanistan. The committee welcomes the reduction in CERP
    expenditures for Iraq which is consistent with the drawdown of
    U.S. forces and the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq by
    no later than the end of August 2010. The committee has
    concerns related to the rapid growth of CERP funding in
    Afghanistan and would reduce CERP funding for Afghanistan by
    $100.0 million to $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2010. This
    reduced funding level for CERP in Afghanistan would still
    exceed the level of CERP spending by U.S. forces in Iraq at the
    height of the surge in 2007-2008, when the U.S. troop level in
    Iraq exceeded 160,000 soldiers, more than twice the 68,000 U.S.
    soldiers expected to be deployed in Afghanistan by late summer
    2009. Also, concerns have been raised about the capacity of
    Afghanistan, with its lack of infrastructure and low literacy
    rates, to absorb such a large influx of CERP funds. In
    addition, the committee has concerns about the Department of
    Defense's capacity to manage and oversee large amounts of CERP
    funds in Afghanistan. A report by the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) earlier this year found a lack of training for
    personnel responsible for executing CERP, and a shortage in the
    number of personnel needed to effectively execute CERP. As a
    result, oversight of CERP projects in Afghanistan has been
    conducted inconsistently or not at all. The committee strongly
    supports the GAO recommendations that the Secretary direct the
    Commander of U.S. Central Command to: 1) conduct an evaluation
    of workforce requirements for CERP in Afghanistan and ensure
    adequate staffing for its administration; and 2) establish
    training requirements for personnel executing CERP.
        The committee notes the valuable contribution that the
    National Solidarity Program (NSP) is making to reconstruction
    and local governance in Afghanistan. The NSP funds thousands of
    small development projects in nearly every corner of
    Afghanistan, providing modest grants of money directly to
    locally-elected community development councils which plan and
    oversee projects that meet local needs. As of the first quarter
    of 2009, the NSP has established over 21,500 development
    councils in villages and localities in every province. The
    program provides grants averaging $27,000 with a cap of $60,000
    per community, and has disbursed approximately $600.0 million
    in international contributions, primarily from World Bank
    grants and the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. In
    addition, communities must take ownership of the projects by
    contributing at least 10 percent of the total project costs in
    either labor, materials, or funds. The Afghan Ministry of Rural
    Rehabilitation and Development, which manages the program, has
    plans to expand the NSP to all districts in the country,
    including less secure areas in Regional Command South where the
    U.S. troop presence is increasing. The committee believes that
    increased funding for the NSP would support key
    counterinsurgency objectives of in areas at risk of insurgent
    influence and strengthening ties between local political
    entities and the Afghan Government.
    One-year extension of authority for security and stabilization
            assistance (sec. 1207)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    1 year the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer
    up to $100.0 million in services or funds to the Department of
    State to support Department of State programs of security and
    stabilization assistance under section 1207 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
    163), as amended by section 1210 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
        The committee believes that one valuable aspect of the
    section 1207 authority is the increased coordination between
    the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State
    (DOS) in the formulation and implementation of reconstruction,
    security, and stabilization assistance projects under this
    authority. At the same time, the committee reaffirms its view
    that section 1207 is a temporary authority. Should a section
    1207-type authority be established within the DOS, the
    committee would urge that it be adequately resourced within the
    DOS budget and that authority be designed to institutionalize
    the expanded coordination between the DOD and DOS achieved
    under section 1207.

    Authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense personnel between the
            United States and foreign countries (sec. 1208)

        The committee recommends a provision which would permit the
    Department of Defense (DOD) to accept, on a non-reciprocal
    basis, defense personnel of the defense ministry of an ally or
    friendly foreign government. This provision would not permit
    the DOD to pay the salary, per diem, cost of living, travel
    costs, cost of language or other training, and other costs for
    the personnel of such government. This authority will expire at
    the end of 2011.
        The committee understands that the Department has been
    approached by allies and friendly foreign nations that would
    like to assign defense personnel, civilian and military, to
    counterpart organizations in the Department, but has only had a
    limited capability to do so when the United States cannot
    provide reciprocal personnel.
        The Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the
    congressional defense committees annually, not later than March
    1, the costs of this program to the United States; the agencies
    and positions that are involved in the program; and an
    assessment of the benefits to the Department.

    Defense cooperation between the United States and Iraq (sec. 1209)

        The committee recommends a provision that would encourage
    the Secretary of Defense to increase the number of positions in
    professional military education courses at command and general
    staff colleges, war colleges, and the service academies
    available annually to personnel of the security forces of the
    Government of Iraq. The committee notes that the long-term
    security of Iraq is in the interest of the United States and
    that military education can foster enduring relationships with
    the security forces of the Government of Iraq.

    Report on alternatives to use of acquisition and cross-servicing
            agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection
            and survivability (sec. 1210)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to assess and report on alternatives to
    the temporary authority 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, which allows
    for the use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements for
    the purposes of lending or leasing certain military equipment
    to military forces participating in combined operations with
    the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, or as part of
    peacekeeping operations under the United Nations Charter or
    another international agreement.
        The committee notes that the temporary authority provided
    by section 1202 of Public Law 109-364, as amended, expires
    September 30, 2011. The committee reiterates its concern that
    acquisition and cross-servicing agreements are not intended for
    the loan or lease of significant military equipment and
    emphasizes the need to find alternatives to this authority
    prior to its expiration.

                              Subtitle B--Reports

    Report on United States engagement with Iran (sec. 1221)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    President, no later than January 31, 2010, to deliver a report
    to Congress on U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic of
    Iran. The report would describe the status of U.S. efforts to
    engage with the Government of Iran, including an assessment of
    the progress of negotiations; the seriousness with which the
    Government of Iran is engaging in negotiations; and an
    assessment of the extent to which the Government of Iran has
    complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and
    cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The
    report would also include an assessment of the extent to which
    Iran continues past practices or has expressed a willingness to
    change its behavior, with regard to the following areas:
    diplomatic engagement; support for terrorism and extremism;
    nuclear weapons-related and other nuclear activities; and
    missile development activities. The report would also require
    an assessment of the Government of Iran's involvement in the
    illegal narcotics networks in Afghanistan. And, finally, the
    report would also require the President to identify all
    sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and provide an
    assessment of the effectiveness of these sanctions.
        The committee hopes the Government of Iran will seize the
    opportunity offered by President Barack Obama to engage in
    direct diplomacy with the United States to discuss areas of
    mutual interest and to engage in a good faith effort to resolve
    all outstanding issues related to its support for terrorism and
    extremism, and illicit nuclear and missile development
    activities.

                           Subtitle C--Other Matters

    Sense of Congress on establishment of measures of progress to evaluate
            United States strategic objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan
            (sec. 1231)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    Sense of the Congress that the Administration should review any
    previously established measures of progress for Afghanistan as
    required by section 1230(d) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and
    modify, add, or further establish applicable measures of
    progress for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as part of the
    report on Afghanistan required by section 1230 of Public Law
    110-181 and the report on Pakistan required by section 1232 of
    Public Law 110-181, consistent with the Administration's new
    strategy for the region as announced on March 27, 2009, and
    thereafter.

                           Items of Special Interest

    China's use of nonmilitary warfare concepts

        The Department of Defense's Annual Report to Congress on
    the Military Power of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has
    included a brief description of the PRC concept of the ``three
    warfares'', generally identified as psychological warfare,
    media warfare, and legal warfare. These concepts, also referred
    to as ``nonmilitary warfare concepts'', have also been the
    subject of hearings before the United States-China Economic and
    Security Review Commission and were discussed in some detail in
    the Commission's 2008 report to Congress. The March 2009
    harassment of the USNS Impeccable by Chinese ships in the South
    China Sea stands as a recent example of how the PRC may be
    using the concept of ``legal warfare'', for instance, to
    influence regional events. The committee urges the Secretary of
    Defense to examine the implications of the ``three warfares''
    on United States military affairs in the region and requests
    the Secretary to provide additional detail on each of them,
    including examples and trends, in the 2010 report to Congress.

    Recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia

        The committee is concerned about the recent surge in piracy
    off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden and believes
    that piracy must be an urgent part of our national security
    dialogue. The April 2009 pirate attack on the U.S.-flag ship
    Maersk Alabama, and the ensuing rescue operation of Captain
    Richard Philips orchestrated by our Nation's military,
    particularly the United States Navy and Navy SEALS, underscores
    the value of the armed forces in confronting piracy. While it
    is widely agreed that the naval forces of the world have a
    critical role to play in deterring and combating pirates, the
    problem is more complex and requires a holistic approach
    combining military efforts with industry efforts, diplomatic
    outreach, and robust prosecutions.
        Today, policymakers are searching for solutions to combat
    piracy and, more broadly, to address the situation in Somalia--
    a failed state that lacks a functioning government capable of
    enforcing its laws, or policing and securing its territory,
    including its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone. The
    committee believes that it is imperative that the international
    community come together to confront and solve this growing
    problem of piracy. Ultimately, the most durable, long-term
    solution will be achieved ashore, not on the high seas. While a
    more permanent solution involves engaging broadly on Somalia's
    myriad issues ashore, near-term coordinated international
    action is necessary to protect ships, cargos, and, most
    importantly, seafarers from the proliferation of piracy in the
    region.
        Currently, the primary mechanism for U.S. military
    involvement is Combined Task Force-151, which consists of naval
    forces of the U.S. and several of our allies while cooperating
    and coordinating with the navies of a broad array of other
    nations, including Pakistan, Russia, India, and China. We
    cannot, however, expect the armed forces to secure completely a
    vast maritime expanse roughly equivalent to the distance of the
    U.S. coastline from Maine to Florida. The global commercial
    shipping industry, to include the shipping companies and their
    insurers, must also take necessary steps to protect their ships
    and crews.
        The committee believes that the U.S. military must remain
    proactively involved in the issue, but that the industry must
    develop effective piracy countermeasures, including the
    employment of private armed shipboard security teams capable of
    responding to and preventing pirate attacks. Although this
    alone will not lead to a permanent solution to the problem it
    is a necessary step that must be taken while we pursue such a
    solution.
                    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
    $424.2 million, an increase of $20.0 million above 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 2010 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 2010 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for
    each CTR program element.
        The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for
    new Cooperative Threat Reduction initiatives for states outside
    of the former Soviet Union, $7.0 million for strategic
    offensive arms elimination and $3.0 million for additional
    expenses associated with the Russian and other chemical weapons
    destruction activities.
        The committee continues to believe that one of the highest
    priorities of the CTR program is destroying Russian chemical
    weapons munitions at the destruction facility in Shchuch'ye,
    Russia. The CTR program has entered into an arrangement with
    the Russian Government that assigns responsibility to Russia to
    complete the U.S. funded destruction facility and begin
    operations. Timely startup and safe operation of the facility
    is essential and continues to be a matter of concern to the
    committee. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary to
    notify the congressional defense committees immediately if
    there is any delay or other problem in the startup of either
    the Russian funded destruction facility or the U.S. funded
    destruction facility. The committee notes that the formal
    dedication ceremony for the Shchuch'ye facility was conducted
    in May.
        The additional $3.0 million for chemical weapons
    destruction shall be available for sustainment of the community
    outreach efforts and to provide technical or other assistance
    to assist with the Shchuch'ye facility startup, or other
    chemical weapons destruction activity.
        The committee notes that there are other countries with
    stockpiles of bulk chemical agent and chemical munitions
    outside of the former Soviet Union for which the Department of
    Defense (DOD) could provide destruction assistance. The
    committee urges DOD to explore assisting other countries with
    chemical weapons destruction requirements.
    Authority to enter into agreements to receive contributions for
            Biological Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
    of State, to receive contributions from any person the
    Secretary of Defense deems appropriate for purposes of the
    biological threat reduction program (BTRP) at the Department of
    Defense. The BTRP is a program carried out under the
    Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. Any funds accepted
    would be retained by the Secretary of Defense in a separate
    account in the Treasury, but would be available for obligation
    and expenditure without further appropriation. If the funds
    contributed have not been obligated or expended within 3 years
    from the date received they shall be returned to the original
    donor. This authority would expire on December 31, 2015.
        The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to
    notify the congressional defense committees within 30 days
    after receiving any contributions. The notification shall
    include the person who made the contribution and the value and
    purpose of the contribution. The Secretary of Defense may not
    obligate the funds accepted until 15 days after the notice is
    submitted. In addition, the provision would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
    committees an annual report for each fiscal year in which funds
    are accepted describing the contributions received in that
    fiscal year. This annual report would be due no later than
    October 31 of each year and would describe the contributions
    for the previous fiscal year.
        The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy has
    successfully utilized similar authority for several of the
    Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. The committee
    urges the Secretary of Defense to utilize this authority to the
    maximum extent practical to allow other countries,
    organizations, and individuals to contribute to the important
    BTRP programs. If the Secretary of Defense determines that the
    authority is useful, the committee would welcome suggestions
    for any additional CTR programs that could utilize this type of
    authority.
    Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds for
            bilateral and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament
            activities (sec. 1304)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to obligate not more than 10 percent
    of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Cooperative
    Threat Reduction (CTR) program for any bilateral or
    multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation or
    disarmament, notwithstanding any other provision of law. The
    Secretary may exercise this authority after notifying the
    appropriate congressional committees 15 days in advance of the
    intent to exercise this authority and if the President
    certifies the action is necessary to support the national
    security objectives of the United States.
        The committee believes that additional flexibility is
    needed to ensure there are adequate funds available to address
    urgent immediate requirements for which funds might not
    otherwise be available or are inadequate. Similar authority has
    been provided to the Secretary of Energy elsewhere in this
    bill.
                        TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                         Subtitle A--Military Programs

                     Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

    Extension of previously authorized disposal of cobalt from National
            Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411)
        The committee recognizes the volatility of the cobalt
    market and the current economic downturn, which has reduced
    demand for cobalt material. The committee authorizes that
    cobalt sales authority to be extended 2 years through fiscal
    year 2011.
    Authorization for actions to correct the industrial resource shortfall
            for high-purity beryllium metal in amounts not in excess of
            $80,000,000 (sec. 1412)
        Subsection 303(a)(6)(c) of the Defense Production Act of
    1950 (Public Law 81-774) requires a specific authorization from
    Congress for any action or actions taken to correct an
    industrial resources shortfall, that would cause the aggregate
    outstanding amount of all such actions to exceed $50.0 million.
    The budget request has $19.5 million which the Department
    estimates will complete the project; however, this amount of
    funding will place them over the current $50.0 million limit by
    statute.
        The committee is aware of the Department's concern that
    unanticipated cost growth may occur. Accordingly, the committee
    authorizes an increase not in excess of $80.0 million.

                    Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home

    Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
                                     1421)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $134.0 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2010 from the
    Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund. Of the amount
    requested, $62.0 million would be used for the operation and
    maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and $72.0
    million would remain available for construction and renovation
    of physical plants.
        The committee notes that in accordance with section 418 of
    title 24, United States Code, the Inspector General of the
    Department of Defense will inspect the Retirement Home's
    Washington D.C. location this year. Because committee staff
    continues to hear concerns expressed about issues with staffing
    and health care services at the Retirement Home, the committee
    looks forward to the Inspector General's report and its
    continued oversight of the operations of the Retirement Home.

                                  Budget Items

    T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship

        The fiscal year 2010 budget request included $940.1 million
    within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for building
    two T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships.
        These next two vessels are intended to support the Maritime
    Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F), concept. At this time
    last year, the future-years defense program (FYDP) included
    several ships in the plan to support the MPF(F) concept.
    However, the FYDP did not include any T-AKE vessels after 2009.
        The other MPF(F) vessels that were in that FYDP last year
    have been delayed in this budget, on the basis that the
    Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) needs to review this concept
    before implementing it.
        The committee notes that the Navy's acquisition strategy
    for these two T-AKE vessels includes exercising options on
    existing contracts that would remain in force until after
    fiscal year 2010. In other words, the contract options would be
    available to exercise, at the Navy's discretion, until fiscal
    year 2011 for one ship and fiscal year 2012 for the other ship.
        In the face of the pending QDR review, it would make sense
    to hedge our bets on moving forward as rapidly as this on one
    part of the program, when the Department has delayed other
    parts of the program pending that review.
        The committee believes that continued production of only
    one of these vessels is sufficient to hedge against a positive
    outcome for the MPF(F) concept in the QDR, while avoiding a
    production break in the shipyard. The Navy could use available
    funds to contract for some advanced procurement to protect
    shipbuilding schedules, but need not award the full contract
    for the second ship to do that.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $400.0
    million to reflect delaying exercising the option for the
    second of the two ships at least until fiscal year 2011, after
    the Department completes the QDR reviews of the MPF(F) concept.

    Defense Coalition Support Fund

        The budget request included $22.0 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Coalition
    Support Fund. The legislative authority for this fund, which
    would require an amendment to title 22, United States Code,
    does not currently exist. The committee recommends a decrease
    of $22.0 million in OMDW for the Defense Coalition Support
    Fund.

    Defense Health Program Operation & Maintenance funding

        The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense
    Health Program Operation 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 continuation pending MEDICARE eligibility.....               4.0
    Reimbursement for exceptional travel..................              10.0
    TRICARE eligibility for Retired Reservists under the                10.0
     age of 60............................................
    Expansion of survivor eligibility for the TRICARE                    2.0
     dental program.......................................
                                                           -----------------
        Total.............................................              26.0

    Medical products sustainment

        The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 67100HP for
    medical products and capabilities enhancement activities. The
    committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for this
    account. The committee believes that this activity needs to be
    better justified, with specific sustainment activities related
    to specific medical products or technologies identified to
    justify requested funds.

    Breast Cancer Center of Excellence

        The budget request included $113.3 million in PE 63115HP
    for medical technology development. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $5.3 million for the Breast Cancer Center of
    Excellence. The committee believes there are higher medical
    research priorities for the Department of Defense, including
    addressing critical infectious disease, combat casualty care,
    and warfighter psychological health issues. The committee
    further notes that the National Institutes of Health's National
    Cancer Institute has requested a fiscal year 2010 budget of
    over $5.0 billion. The committee believes that the Department
    of Defense should leverage those funds to address any
    identified military cancer research priorities.

    Department of Defense Inspector General

        The budget request included $272.4 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
    Inspector General (OIG). The committee is concerned that
    funding levels for independent audit and investigative
    functions should keep pace with the demand for these services.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of $16.0
    million in OMDW for the OIG, of which $15.0 million is for
    operation and maintenance and $1.0 million is for procurement.
        The 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 notes the dramatic
    growth in the number and cost of Department contracts for
    operations, procurement, research, and construction within the
    United States and around the world. The increase recommended by
    the committee should enable the OIG to conduct oversight
    related military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, contract
    management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify
    potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
                   TITLE XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

    Purpose (sec. 1501)
        This section states the purpose of this title which is to
    authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency
    operations.
    Army procurement (sec. 1502)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Army
    procurement.
    Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Navy
    and Marine Corps procurement.
    Air Force procurement (sec. 1504)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Air
    Force procurement.
    Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1505)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
    Defense-wide activities procurement.
    Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1506)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
    research, development, test, and evaluation expenses.
    Operation and maintenance (sec. 1507)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
    operation and maintenance expenses.
    Military personnel (sec. 1508)
        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
    military personnel expenses.

    Working capital funds (sec. 1509)

        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for defense
    working capital funds.

    Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)

        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for the
    Defense Health Program.

    Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1511)

        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for drug
    interdiction and counterdrug activities, defense-wide.

    Defense Inspector General (sec. 1512)

        This section would authorize additional appropriations for
    overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for the
    Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.

    Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513)

        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.

    Funding tables (sec. 1514)

        This section would provide that the amounts authorized for
    overseas contingency operations in this title are to be
    available for the projects, programs, or activities in the
    dollar amounts indicated by funding tables in Division D of
    this Act.

    Special transfer authority (sec. 1515)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of overseas contingency
    operations funding authorizations in this title among the
    accounts in this title. The committee also recommends a
    provision that would authorize the transfer of up to $1.5
    billion of overseas contingency operations funding
    authorizations in this title to the Mine Resistant Ambush
    Protected Vehicle Fund. 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.

    Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security Forces
            Fund (sec. 1516)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    that the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the
    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund in fiscal year 2010 will
    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).

    Availability of funds in Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1517)

        The committee recommends a provision that would specify the
    uses of funds transferred by the Secretary of State to the
    Secretary of Defense during fiscal year 2010 for the Pakistan
    Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) to provide assistance to the
    security forces of Pakistan to build the counterinsurgency
    capability of the Pakistan military forces and the Pakistan
    Frontier Corps. The provision would require prior to the
    expenditure of PCF funds that the Secretary of Defense provide
    an assessment as to whether the Government of Pakistan is
    committed to confronting the threat posed by Al Qaeda, the
    Taliban, and other militant extremists based on a determination
    by the Government of Pakistan that these extremist groups pose
    a threat to Pakistan's national interest and confronting this
    threat is critical to Pakistan's own national interest. The
    provision would also authorize the transfer of funds from the
    PCF account to other accounts of the Department of Defense,
    provide for prior notice to Congress before the transfer of
    these funds, and require quarterly reports on the specific uses
    of these funds.

    Budget Items

    Single channel ground to air radio systems family

        The budget request for overseas contingency operations
    includes $128.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for
    the procurement of single channel ground to air radio systems
    (SINCGARS). The committee understands that the Army bases this
    request on anticipated battle losses for which there appears to
    be no record or documentation of actual loss over time upon
    which to base a projection. Further, if funded fully, the
    budget request would procure radios at a level beyond the
    Army's validated acquisition objective. It also remains unclear
    to the committee how the Army is accounting for the more than
    64,000 SINCGARS-like radios the Army procured in fiscal year
    2005 against its acquisition objective.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.0
    million in OPA for SINCGARS radios due to unjustified program
    growth. The funding that remains in the budget request should
    be used to cover the installation cost of systems already
    procured and sustainment of existing systems. The committee
    also directs the Army to request funds for SINCGARS sustainment
    transitions in the appropriate Operation and Maintenance, Army
    budget activity in fiscal year 2012 and beyond.

    Force XXI battle command brigade and below

        The budget request for overseas contingency operations
    includes $242.9 million in other procurement, Army (OPA), for
    Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The Army's
    Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities list included a request
    for an additional $179.0 million in FBCB2 funding. FBCB2, used
    in conjunction with the Blue Force Tracking System, has proven
    its value in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by
    increasing the ability of commanders to control the conduct of
    small unit operations while at the same time reducing the risk
    of fratricide. The committee recommends an increase of $179.0
    million in OPA for FBCB2.

    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

        The budget request for overseas contingency operations
    (OCO) includes $1,535.0 million for the Joint Improvised
    Explosive Device Defeat Fund. In title I of this act, the
    committee recommended a transfer of $564.9 million to title XV
    of this Act, including $203.1 million for the joint improvised
    explosive device defeat organization's (JIEDDO) attack the
    network line of operation; $199.1 million for JIEDDO's defeat
    the device operation; $41.1 million for JIEDDO's train the
    force operation; and $121.6 million for JIEDDO's staff and
    infrastructure line of operation. These adjustments are
    reflected in the appropriate tables.
        Despite the Department's decision to institutionalize
    JIEDDO, the committee believes that JIEDDO's funding should
    remain in the OCO portion of the budget request because JIEDDO
    was organized in response to threats confronted by U.S. forces
    in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee continues to be
    concerned that the Department cannot adequately oversee
    JIEDDO's budget, manpower, and activities in a manner that
    ensures the most efficient and effective delivery of equipment
    and capabilities to U.S. forces. The committee urges that the
    Department consider reexamining JIEDDO's oversight structure to
    determine whether a principal staff assistant could devote time
    and attention to JIEDDO's activities commensurate with the size
    of its activities.
        The committee recognizes that improvised explosive devices
    (IED) will likely remain the weapon of choice for extremists
    operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee commends
    JIEDDO for its ongoing efforts to counter the threat posed by
    IEDs to U.S. forces, and supports the Department's request to
    maintain JIEDDO's robust funding levels.
        JIEDDO has executed over $300.0 million for the
    construction of training lanes and other IED-specific training
    devices over the past few fiscal years. While the committee
    believes JIEDDO has an important role to play in coordinating
    the dissemination of information about tactics, techniques, and
    procedures being used by extremists and developing
    recommendations on how to counter IED threats and train U.S.
    forces, the committee believes the military departments have
    primary responsibility for training of their respective forces.
    Therefore, the committee directs JIEDDO to fund neither
    additional training lanes nor support and sustainment thereof
    after fiscal year 2010. The committee feels strongly that
    funding the sustainment and upgrade of training lanes is the
    sole responsibility of the appropriate military department,
    defense agency, or combatant command.
        The committee supports the direction provided to JIEDDO by
    the appropriations committees relating to the future of the
    counter-improvised explosive device operations integration
    center (COIC). The committee believes COIC contributes to the
    Department provision of reach-back capabilities for
    conventional forces, and the committee commends JIEDDO's focus
    on these efforts. The committee is, however, concerned that the
    COIC may be duplicative and/or insufficiently coordinated with
    other similar organizations within the military departments,
    defense agencies, and intelligence community. The committee
    understands that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in
    coordination with United States Central Command, and the Joint
    Staff, is undertaking an assessment of the relative
    contributions of various entities that provide reach-back
    support, and looks forward to the results of this analysis.
        The committee notes that the Department has taken
    inconsistent positions on the disposition of ad hoc, but
    critical, entities created to respond to the urgent needs of
    combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As noted elsewhere in
    this report, the Secretary of Defense has stated in testimony
    before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on
    Defense, that the intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR) task force should be phased out, while at
    the same time, the Department has decided to institutionalize
    JIEDDO. Just as the committee is concerned about the possible
    hasty demise of the ISR task force, so too the committee is
    concerned about the premature decision to make JIEDDO
    permanent. The committee urges the Department to clarify the
    criteria it is using to determine which institutions should
    become permanent and which should not, and to demonstrate how
    these criteria are being consistently applied across
    organizations.

    MQ-9 Reaper modifications

        The committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in
    line 66, Air Force Aircraft Procurement, for MQ-9
    modifications. The budget request included funds for
    procurement and integration of a long-range camera that the Air
    Force has decided not to buy.

    Commanders' Emergency Response Program

        The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
    for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, consisting of $300.0 million for CERP in Iraq
    and $1.2 billion for CERP in Afghanistan. The committee's
    concerns regarding the level of CERP funding for Afghanistan,
    which has grown rapidly in recent years, are discussed in title
    XII. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
    million in OMA, OCO, for CERP.

    Human terrain teams

        The budget request included $1.4 billion for security
    programs in Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas
    Contingency Operations (OCO), including funds for Human Terrain
    Teams (HTT). The committee supports the HTT program but expects
    that the reduction in troop levels in Iraq will result in a
    reduction in the requirement for additional HTTs. The committee
    recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in OMA OCO from the
    request.

    Information Dominance Center

        The budget request included $1.4 billion for security
    programs in Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas
    Contingency Operations (OCO), including funds for the
    Information Dominance Center (IDC) within the Intelligence and
    Security Command. The IDC has performed pioneering work in data
    mining, analytic collaboration, information sharing technology,
    and concepts of operation before and after the events of
    September 11, 2001, including direct support for deployed
    forces. The committee believes, however, that the IDC
    activities can be pared back as other organizations and
    activities now provide similar support and capabilities. The
    committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million in OMA OCO to
    the request.

    Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund

        The budget request included $700.0 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
    for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF). Following the
    submission of the budget request, the Secretary of Defense and
    the Secretary of State reached an agreement that for fiscal
    year 2010 funds for the PCF would be transferred from funds
    appropriated to the Department of State. Therefore, the
    committee recommends a decrease of $700.0 million in OMA, OCO,
    for the PCF.
                DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

    Summary
        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 tables in Division B of the bill 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 2010 budget requested $22.95 billion for
    military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
    $13.1 billion was requested for military construction, $1.96
    billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
    and $7.9 billion for base closure activities, including $7.5
    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 $22.92 billion. The total amount authorized for
    appropriations reflects the committee's continuing commitment
    to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and
    infrastructure. The committee recommends an increase of $1.08
    billion for additional construction projects, and a reduction
    of $1.06 billion in unjustified or lower priority projects, for
    a net increase of $22.0 million to the amount requested for
    military construction and family housing. Additionally, the
    committee recommends the rescission of $112.5 million in prior
    year funding no longer required.
    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 2010.
    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, 2012, or the
    date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
    construction for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later.
    Effective date (sec. 2003)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide
    that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX
    of this Act take effect on October 1, 2009, or the date of
    enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
    Funding tables (sec. 2004)
        The committee recommends a provision that directs that the
    funding authorized for appropriations in sections 2104, 2204,
    2304, 2404, 2411, 2502, and 2606 shall be available, in
    accordance with requirements of sections 4001 for projects,
    programs, and activities, and in the amounts, specified in the
    funding table in sections 4501, 4502, 4503, and 4504.
                                TITLE XXI--ARMY

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $3.66 billion for military construction and $796.65 million
    for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2010.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $3.47 billion for military construction and $796.65 million for
    family housing for fiscal year 2010.
        In December 2007, the Army announced its specific force
    structure and stationing strategy to accommodate active end
    strength growth of 65,000 personnel. As part of that strategy
    the Army indicated that it would increase its number of brigade
    combat teams (BCTs) by six, from 42 to 48. In fiscal year 2009
    the Army was authorized and had appropriated more than $1.1
    billion in military construction funding and $333.0 million in
    Army Family Housing for BCTs 46, 47, and 48 at Forts Stewart,
    Carson, and Bliss. In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the
    Army has decided to limit future growth to 45 BCTs. The
    committee, rather than rescind the fiscal year 2009 funding for
    the three BCTs which will not be activated, expects that the
    Army will come forth expeditiously with alternative plans and
    project reprogramming requests where necessary to meet its
    other long standing barracks, vehicle maintenance, troop dining
    facility, and company operations facility shortfalls. However,
    the committee also notes that the fiscal year 2010 request
    included funding for other BCT construction and range
    facilities which are in excess of the new requirements. Funding
    for those projects have been reduced or eliminated.
    Additionally, $53.0 million in fiscal year 2009 funding for
    Army Family Housing at Fort Carson, Colorado is rescinded. The
    Army has indicated to the committee that because of the
    elimination of one BCT, Fort Carson has adequate housing for
    the number of soldiers and their families assigned. At Fort
    Bliss, Texas the committee notes that the Army proposes to
    continue construction of facilities for an Infantry Brigade
    Combat Team (IBCT) which will not now be activated. The
    Committee is also aware that the Army awarded contracts at Fort
    Stewart, Georgia and Fort Carson, Colorado even after the
    Secretary of Defense announced plans to reduce the number of
    Army BCTs. The continued construction of those facilities,
    along with the marginal justification for occupancy by existing
    units for the project at Fort Bliss, would appear to be
    presumptuous given that some of these decisions are well in
    advance of Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) decisions.
        The committee also eliminated without prejudice $20.0
    million funding requested for site preparation for the National
    Museum of the U.S. Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The status
    of fundraising for the museum will not permit construction to
    begin immediately after the site preparation is completed. Each
    military construction project must result in a complete and
    usable facility and the current construction plan and timeline
    will build segments of the museum, but not a complete facility.
        In fiscal year 2009 the committee fully authorized, but
    incrementally funded a Command and Battle Facility at
    Wiesbaden, Germany intended for the 7th Army Headquarters. The
    Army did not fund the second increment in its fiscal year 2010
    request. It also did not fund a number of other companion
    facilities which had been planned. This puts into question the
    entire Wiesbaden relocation plan. The committee understands the
    decision on relocation has been deferred pending the QDR. While
    the full authorization remains, the committee rescinds the
    fiscal year 2009 authorization for appropriations of $59.5
    million.
        Finally, the committee eliminated funding for the Warrior
    Transition Complex at Landstuhl, Germany pending a decision on
    the final location of a hospital replacement facility for the
    Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.

    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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the specific projects
    authorized at each location.

    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec.
            2105)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization for two Army fiscal year 2006 military
    construction projects at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii,
    until October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    2011, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the
    Department of Defense.

                            Item of Special Interest

    Cooperative security location in Manta, Ecuador

        The committee continues to monitor closely the Ecuadorian
    Government's decision not to renew the lease of the United
    States Government at Manta Air Base, which is used by the
    United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) for intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance operations against illegal
    narcotics trafficking in the Eastern Pacific. In 1999, the
    United States signed a 10-year agreement with then Ecuadorean
    President Jamil Mahuad. The Government of Ecuador fulfilled its
    agreement allowing the United States to conduct counter-
    narcotics operations out of Manta through 2009.
        The committee notes that the Manta Air Base provided a
    unique set of capabilities that are difficult to replace in a
    single location and that SOUTHCOM is looking at several options
    to mitigate the loss of Manta. However, the loss of Manta will
    impact the operational reach of detection and monitoring
    missions in the Eastern Pacific region, and while some
    operations can be conducted from other locations in the region
    to mitigate some of the loss of Manta, operating from different
    locations increases transit times and operational costs.
        The committee understands that SOUTHCOM is currently
    preparing a mitigation plan for the loss of Manta Air Base.
    With this in mind, the committee directs the Commander of
    SOUTHCOM to provide a report to the committee 60-days after
    enactment of this Act which would include SOUTHCOM's mitigation
    plan, as well as explain how the Command specifically intends
    to mitigate this loss to its detecting and monitoring
    operations in the Eastern Pacific; what, if any, replacement
    options within the region are being explored; and the potential
    for future negotiations with the Government in Ecuador.
                                TITLE XXII--NAVY

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $3.76 billion for military construction and $515.11 million
    for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
    year 2010.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $3.53 billion for military construction and $515.11 million for
    family housing for fiscal year 2010.
        The committee notes with particular interest that the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request contains the first increment of
    funding for the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. An
    item of special interest later in this title reflects the
    committee's view on this critical program.
        The committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded
    the Ship Repair Pier Replacement Facility at Norfolk, Virginia
    as well as the Apra Harbor Wharves Improvement project on Guam.
    These are large projects, projected for late fiscal year 2010
    award, and will take several years to complete construction.
        The committee reduced funding for the Military Working Dog
    facility on Guam, which appears to be overstated. It should be
    noted that United States Special Operations Command is building
    a number of similar sized facilities in this budget request at
    an average cost of slightly more than $3.0 million each.
    Finally, the committee eliminated funding for the Andersen Air
    Force Base North Ramp Utilities for the reasons cited in the
    items of special interest 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 2010. 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 and planning and design of family housing
    units for the Navy for fiscal year 2010. 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 2010 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 2010 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 bill is the
    binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
    location.

    Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
            year 2006 project (sec. 2205)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2006 (Division B of Public Law 109-163) to increase
    the project authorization for a waterfront security enclave at
    Bangor, Washington, by $67.0 million, as well as extend the
    authorization until October 1, 2012. This increase and
    extension were requested by the Department of Defense.

                                  Budget Item

    Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa

        The budget request includes $41.6 million in military
    construction funds for four separate projects at Camp Lemonier
    in Djibouti. The projects include $21.7 million for an
    ammunition supply point, $8.1 million for security fencing
    around the perimeter of the base, $7.2 million to pave several
    internal base roads, and $4.8 million to construct a fire
    station. The committee recommends funding all four of these
    military construction projects.
        The committee notes that the facilities of the Combined
    Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) at Camp Lemonier,
    Djibouti, have been largely funded to date by supplemental
    appropriations for expeditionary infrastructure. CJTF-HOA
    staffing has likewise been expeditionary in nature, with
    personnel and officers serving rotations of 1 year or less.
    Prior to United States Africa Command's (AFRICOM) status as a
    fully operational combatant command, the committee expressed
    concern over the lack of guidance on the future presence of
    U.S. military forces on the African continent. Since that time,
    however, AFRICOM officials have referred to CJTF-HOA as an
    enduring forward operating site providing a persistent, rather
    than an episodic, presence for building regional security
    capacity. The committee recognizes the importance of CJTF-HOA,
    particularly given the continuing counter-piracy mission off
    the coast of Somalia, and the importance of regional persistent
    engagement opportunities, but the committee requires further
    clarification on the future of CJTF-HOA on the continent. As
    such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
    to the congressional defense committees, 180 days after
    enactment of this Act on specific responsibilities of CJTF-HOA
    within AFRICOM and the relationship between AFRICOM, CJTF-HOA,
    the Offices of Security Cooperation (OSC) in the Task Force's
    area of operations, and OSCs on the continent but outside the
    CJTF-HOA's Operations Area. The committee further expresses
    concern as to whether AFRICOM resources will be able to sustain
    the current level of operations in future years.

                           Items 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 reaffirmed its support of an agreement with
    the Government of Japan concerning the implementation of the
    relocation of 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to
    Guam by 2014 in a manner that maintains unit integrity. 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 is aware that the
    success of this agreement depends on many factors including
    tangible progress towards completion of the Futenma Replacement
    Facility, 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, as well as the upgrade to
    infrastructure and utilities on Guam.
        Regarding the Futenma Replacement Facility, the committee
    notes that ``tangible progress'' is currently considered by the
    Department of Defense (DOD) to be a signature by the Governor
    of Okinawa on a landfill permit required to commence
    construction. This action is currently planned to take place in
    mid to late 2010 and would allow the U.S. Government to gain
    flexibility to make adjustments in the timeline and
    determination of units to be moved to Camp Schwabb, Okinawa.
        The environmental impact statement (EIS) currently underway
    is a statutory requirement that must be completed prior to
    commencement of construction in order to allow military
    planners to mitigate any significant negative impact to the
    environment on the Island. The Record of Decision for the EIS
    is scheduled to be completed in 2010. The EIS will also serve
    as the opportunity to develop firm requirements to ensure
    adequate individual training of Marines on Guam and collective
    training in the region. Several concerns were brought to the
    attention of this committee during testimony in recent months.
    To date, projects to support these training requirements have
    not been identified or planned.
        Investments 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 committee notes
    that no funding is included in the President's budget for
    fiscal year 2010 to address Guam's port and utility
    infrastructure requirements, despite the fact that $378.0
    million has been requested to start construction of a new ramp
    at Anderson Air Base, to upgrade military piers at Apra Harbor,
    and to relocate a military working dog facility.
        In addition, Congress has repeatedly requested from the DOD
    a master plan that details the facilities to be constructed and
    validates the estimates of funding required to complete the
    move to Guam. To date, the Department has not provided any
    details of a masterplan or an investment strategy. This
    omission is of critical concern to the committee absent the
    submission of a future-years defense plan (FYDP) to accompany
    the budget request for fiscal year 2010. An FYDP would go a
    long way toward illustrating to the committee that the total
    U.S. investment required for the initiative can be supported in
    future budget requests. The FYDP is currently being assessed as
    part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and is likely to be
    affected by major program changes in a potentially constrained
    fiscal environment.
        The committee also notes that the authorization of the
    construction requested for the ramp and utilities at Anderson
    Air Force Base will not result in a complete and useable
    facility as required by section 2801 of title 10, United States
    Code. This could preclude its use for the requirement
    identified in the justification data that accompanies the
    budget unless further construction is also authorized and
    appropriated in future years. This partial construction has the
    risk of becoming a ``bridge to nowhere'' without a firm
    indication of future funding to complete the requirement.
        In consideration of these facts, the committee recommends
    that authorizations for the partial construction of certain
    projects unique to the movement of Marines to Guam be deferred
    until the DOD provides Congress with: (1) a master plan
    detailing construction efforts and the total costs; (2) a FYDP
    that provides Congress with an understanding of the impact of
    this initiative on future defense budgets; 3) a final
    environmental impact statement with a firm mitigation plan to
    minimize the negative impact to the local community; 4) a firm
    plan to address Marine training requirements; and 5)
    confirmation of tangible progress towards completion of the
    Futenma Relocation Facility.

    Secretary of the Navy report on an outlying landing field

        The committee notes the requirement for the Department of
    the Navy to establish an outlying landing field (OLF) to
    support the stationing and operation of carrier-based fixed-
    wing aircraft on the east coast of the United States within a
    suitable range of both Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, and
    Naval Station Norfolk/Chambers Field, Virginia. The OLF will
    also support training requirements of transient carrier-based
    aircraft to be stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry
    Point, North Carolina. The OLF serves as a critical training
    facility for pilots to practice aircraft carrier landings with
    lower risk and under more controlled conditions before
    conducting highly demanding day and night carrier landings at
    sea. A new OLF will afford the Department increased scheduling
    capacity to mitigate current capacity shortfalls, greater
    operational flexibility, improved safety, and higher training
    fidelity in operational flight training on the east coast. The
    committee is aware that public opposition has been expressed to
    the Department of the Navy during the preparation of an
    environmental impact statement evaluating sites for a future
    OLF in North Carolina and Virginia. The committee expects the
    Secretary of the Navy to take into consideration the impact on
    local communities of the placement and operation of an OLF and
    to examine means to mitigate the impact on those communities.
    As part of that consideration, the committee directs the
    Secretary of the Navy to engage and consult with the State of
    North Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as
    local governments and other public stakeholders, prior to the
    issuance of a final environmental impact statement and record
    of decision, to identify ways to mitigate impacts, to evaluate
    opportunities for economic assistance, and to minimize the land
    removed from the state tax base. The committee further directs
    the Secretary of the Navy, prior to the issuance of a final
    environmental impact statement and record of decision, to
    provide to the congressional defense committees a report
    containing a review of the aforementioned engagement and
    consultations, as well as the results of those engagements. The
    report shall include a description of the measures taken by the
    Department of the Navy to identify all suitable options for the
    location of an outlying landing field.
                             TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $1.15 billion for military construction and $569.04 million
    for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2010.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $1.18 billion for military construction and $569.04 million for
    family housing for fiscal year 2010.
        The committee does not recommend authorization of
    appropriations at this time for the War Reserve Material
    Compound and the Airlift Ramp and Fuel Facilities at Al
    Musannah Air Base in Oman. The projects were proposed as a
    result of a Government of Oman request to U.S. Central Command
    to relocate existing U.S. military facilities from Seeb
    International Airport, Oman, in order to facilitate commercial
    development. The committee is concerned that projects have been
    requested for Al Musannah Air Base, without a base master plan,
    without the appropriate long-term agreements in place with the
    Omani Government, and without consideration of contributions
    from the host nation. Furthermore, the committee notes that an
    additional $350 million would need to be included in U.S.
    defense future budgets in order to ensure these projects could
    be used for their intended purpose. Absent a future-years
    defense plan to accompany the budget request for fiscal year
    2010, the committee is unable to confirm the commitment of
    funds in future budgets to complete this requirement.
        The committee does not recommend authorization of
    appropriations at this time for a new hangar facility at Naval
    Air Station (NAS) Sigonella, Italy, to support the Global Hawk
    unmanned aerial vehicle. The committee notes that Navy flight-
    line facilities at Sigonella are currently underutilized and
    can accommodate this requirement in the near-term, starting
    with the arrival of the first Global Hawk system in October,
    2009. The committee recommends deferring the investment in
    additional flightline facilities at NAS Sigonella until the
    Quadrennial Defense Review results inform future Navy P-8 and
    unmanned systems programs, as well as subsequent basing
    decisions for these programs at NAS Sigonella.
        The budget request included an authorization of
    appropriation of $33.75 million to upgrade electrical
    infrastructure at Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, intended to
    support the establishment of power hub for intelligence,
    surveillance, reconnaissance, strike, and aerial refueling
    assets. The committee notes that an additional $500.0 million
    would need to be included in U.S. defense future budgets in
    order to ensure this project can be used for its intended
    purpose. Absent a future-years defense plan to accompany the
    budget request for fiscal year 2010, the committee is unable to
    confirm the commitment of funds in future budgets to complete
    this requirement. The committee has been briefed that the
    project will also correct power distribution deficiencies for
    current mission operations at Anderson Air Force Base.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
    to ensure that the authorization of appropriations for this
    project are expended to only carry out the scope of work in the
    construction data provided with the budget request that
    addresses current requirements regarding power distribution on
    the south side of Anderson Air Force Base.
    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 2010.
    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 2010. 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 2010 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the specific
    projects authorized at each location.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec.
            2305)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2007 military
    construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of
    enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
    for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These extensions were
    requested by the Department of Defense.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec.
            2306)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2006 military
    construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of
    enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
    for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These extensions were
    requested by the Department of Defense.
    Temporary prohibition on use of funds for military construction
            improvements, Palanquero Air Base, Colombia (sec. 2307)
        The committee recommends a provision which would fence the
    funding for military construction improvements at Palanquero
    Air Base, Colombia until the Secretary of Defense, in
    consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies to the
    congressional defense committees and the military construction
    appropriations committees that the negotiations with the
    Republic of Colombia have resulted in long-term access rights
    that will permit United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to
    adequately perform its mission.
        The Air Force budget request includes $46.0 million for
    military construction improvements at Palanquero Air Base,
    Colombia, including funding for runway, apron expansion, and
    various other facilities improvements. The committee is aware
    of the not yet completed negotiations between the United States
    Government and the Republic of Colombia regarding access rights
    for American equipment and personnel. As a result, the
    committee believes these funds should not be expended until the
    Commander of SOUTHCOM has secured terms that will permit the
    Command to perform its mission over a period of time that
    justifies the investment in military construction.
        Further, the committee is aware of the Department's
    expected loss of Cooperative Security Location Manta, Ecuador
    later this calendar year, and the Department's ongoing
    requirement for air base facilities from which to operate
    counter-narcotics aerial detection and reconnaissance
    operations. As such, the committee has approved the Air Force
    request for $46.0 million in funding for military construction
    projects at Palanquero Air Case, Colombia.
        Finally, the committee is aware of concerns raised and the
    perception that this expanded U.S. military presence in the
    region, particularly for Colombia's neighbors (e.g., Venezuela,
    Ecuador, and Bolivia) will give rise to increased skepticism
    about American military intentions in the region. Given these
    concerns, the committee directs the Commander of SOUTHCOM to
    consult partner nations in the region to ensure they are aware
    of ongoing U.S. requirements for robust counter-narcotics
    aerial detection and reconnaissance operations.
                          TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $3.1 billion for military construction for the defense
    agencies, $146.54 million for chemical demilitarization
    construction, and $75.04 million for family housing for the
    defense agencies, the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the
    Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2010.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $2.86 billion for military construction, $151.54 million for
    chemical demilitarization construction, and $425.04 million for
    family housing programs for fiscal year 2010 including a
    significant increase to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
        The committee reduced funding for the fiscal year 2010
    increment of the National Security Agency's Utah Data Center.
    This $1.59 billion facility was recently fully authorized as a
    military construction project, but the level of funding
    requested cannot be reasonably executed in this fiscal year.
        The committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded
    the hospital replacement projects in Guam and at Lackland Air
    Force Base, Texas.
        The committee made small reductions in funding for Health
    and Dental Clinics at Forts Carson, Stewart, and Bliss in order
    to right size to account for the elimination of three brigade
    combat teams from the Army at those installations. In addition,
    the Hospital Replacement Facility at Fort Bliss, Texas is a
    conjunctively funded project which is split between the
    military construction account and the Base Realignment and
    Closure (BRAC) account. The committee reduced the military
    construction portion of the funding for this project by $27.6
    million and expects the Department to use $24.0 million of BRAC
    funding, no longer required for the Hospital Alteration Project
    PN 72865, to fund the project at a slightly reduced scope. The
    committee also eliminated funding for one of two elementary
    schools requested for Fort Stewart, Georgia which the
    Department of Defense Educational Activity has indicated is now
    in excess of requirements given the projected reduction in
    soldiers and dependents to be assigned. Although a brigade will
    no longer be activated there is enough other growth at Fort
    Stewart to warrant another elementary school. The committee
    added $50.0 million for construction of an elementary school at
    Boeblingen, Germany. The current facility is located in a
    converted troop barracks and has significant life, health, and
    safety concerns.The committee fully authorized the Hospital
    Replacement project on Guam for $446.45 million, but
    incrementally funded the authorization for appropriations for
    fiscal year 2010 at $200.0 million. Similarly, the committee
    fully authorized the Ambulatory Care Center at Lackland Air
    Force Base for $441.0 million but authorized for appropriation
    the first increment of $70.0 million.

                   Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

    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 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an
    installation-by-installation basis.
    Family housing (sec. 2402)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    funding for fiscal year 2010 for architectural and engineering
    services and construction design activities for construction or
    improvement of existing family housing units.

    Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403)

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

    Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2404)

        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 2010 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 bill is the binding
    list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

    Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project
            (sec. 2405)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    table relating to the Defense Logistics Agency section 2401 of
    the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2008 (Division B of Public Law 110-181) in the item related to
    Point Loma Annex, California. This increase was requested by
    the Department of Defense.

    Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 project
            (sec. 2406)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    table relating to the Defense Logistics Agency section 2401 of
    the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2009 (Division B of Public Law 110-417) in the item related to
    Souda Bay Greece. This increase was requested by the Department
    of Defense.

    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 project (sec.
            2407)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization for one Defense Logistics Agency fiscal year 2007
    military construction project at Richmond, Virginia until
    October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing
    funds for military construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever
    is later. This extension was requested by the Department of
    Defense.

              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 2010. The authorized
    amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
       TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
                                    PROGRAM

    Summary
        The Department of Defense requested authorization of
    appropriation of $276.3 million for the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2010.
    The committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of
    $276.3 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 $276.3 million for the United States'
    contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
    Investment Program for fiscal year 2010.
                TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

    Summary
        The Department of Defense requested authorization of
    appropriations of $1.02 billion for military construction in
    fiscal year 2010 for National Guard and Reserve facilities. The
    committee recommends a total of $1.27 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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a
    location-by-location basis.
    Authorization of appropriations, 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the
    specific projects authorized at each location.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec.
            2607)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2007
    military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the
    date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
    construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These
    extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 project (sec.
            2608)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorizations for Army National Guard fiscal year 2006
    military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the
    date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
    construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. This
    extension was requested by the Department of Defense.
              TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES

    Summary
        The budget request included $396.8 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 $7.5 billion for implementation of the 2005
    BRAC round. Section 2702 of this Act would authorize the full
    $7.5 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2010.
    Included in the $7.5 billion requested for BRAC is an
    authorization for appropriations for $5.9 billion in military
    construction projects that would be initiated in fiscal year
    2010. Section 2702 of this Act provides authorization for these
    projects.
        The table in Title XXVII of Division B of the bill 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 2010 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 2010 that are
    required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base
    Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title
    of the bill 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the specific
    projects authorized at each location.
    Report on global defense posture realignment and interagency review
            (sec. 2704)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
    committees an annual report on the status of overseas base
    closure and realignment actions undertaken as part of a global
    defense posture realignment strategy and the status of
    development and execution of comprehensive master plans for
    overseas military main operating bases, forward operating
    sites, and cooperative security locations. In addition, the
    report would require the Secretary of Defense to include in the
    report a review by the Department of State and other federal
    departments and agencies deemed necessary to national security.
    The provision would also amend section 118 of title 10, United
    States Code, to direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a
    report to the congressional defense committees 90 days after
    completing a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) on the impact of
    that review on the global posture of United States military
    forces.
        The committee notes that in 2004, the President released an
    Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy which
    subsequently was known as the Global Defense Posture
    Realignment Strategy. This strategy, planned for implementation
    over 8 to 10 years, calls for roughly 70,000 military personnel
    and 100,000 dependents to return from overseas locations from
    Europe and Asia to bases in the continental United States.
    Other overseas forces were to be redistributed within current
    host nations such as Germany and South Korea, while new sites
    would be established in the nations of Eastern Europe, Central
    Asia, and Africa. The committee is aware that these realignment
    plans may have a major impact across many aspects of U.S.
    foreign and security policy. As such the committee has an
    ongoing interest in ensuring that the Global Defense Posture
    Realignment is closely aligned with an overarching strategic
    framework agreed upon by key government agencies in the
    national security strategy formulation process.
        The committee is aware that the Department of Defense's
    2010 QDR will provide an important opportunity to formulate a
    strategic framework that may affect the U.S. global defense
    posture. Therefore, the committee expects that a report
    assessing the impact of the QDR on global basing plans should
    also be shared with other federal agencies responsible for
    national security.
    Sense of the Senate on need for community assistance related to base
            closures and realignments and force repositioning (sec. 2705)
        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that, as the Federal Government implements
    base closures and realignments, global repositioning, and
    initiatives to increase the end strength of the Army and the
    Marine Corps, it is necessary to assist local communities
    coping with these programs and to comprehensively assess the
    needs and degree of assistance to communities to effectively
    implement the various initiatives of the Department of Defense
    while aiding communities to either recover quickly from
    closures or to accommodate growth associated with troop
    influxes.
        The committee notes that Subsection (b)(4) of section 2905
    of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A
    of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; section 2687 of title 10,
    United States Code note) states ``that Secretary shall seek to
    obtain consideration in connection with any transfer under this
    paragraph of property located at the installation in an amount
    equal to the fair market value of the property, as determined
    by the Secretary.'' The same section also authorizes the
    Secretary to convey property at no cost if the redevelopment
    authority with respect to the installation agrees that the
    proceeds from any sale or lease of the property received by the
    redevelopment authority during at least the first seven years
    after the date of the initial transfer of property shall be
    used to support the economic redevelopment of the installation.
        The committee encourages the Department's use of a full
    range of opportunities to assist local communities, including
    the use of no-cost economic development conveyances (EDCs) to
    facilitate economic development during tough economic time. In
    testimony on June 17, 2009 before the Readiness and Management
    Support Subcommittee by Department of Defense representatives,
    the committee recognizes that ``since 2002 the Army has granted
    68 Cost and No-Cost EDCs for 32,000 acres (23 No-Cost EDC
    parcels covering 31,000 acres and 45 ``Cost'' EDC parcels
    covering 1,000 acres), the Navy eight (8) for 4,000 acres with
    zero ``Cost'' EDCs, and the Air Force 19 No-Cost EDCs covering
    just under 24,000 acres.''
        The committee is also aware that the proceeds gained from
    consideration received as a result of a property disposed under
    BRAC authorities are used to supplement appropriated funds to
    accelerate environmental clean-up, remediation, and compliance
    actions for other BRAC property. Therefore, funds received for
    properties have a direct impact on the Department's ability to
    address other military requirements.
    Relocation of certain Army Reserve units in Connecticut (sec. 2706)
        The committee recommends a provision that authorizes the
    Secretary of the Army to locate an Army Reserve Center and
    Maintenance Facility in the vicinity of Newtown, Connecticut,
    at a location to be determined by the Secretary.
             TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Military construction and land acquisition projects authorized by
            American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec. 2801)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    military construction and land acquisition projects for the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The authorized
    amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.

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

    Extension of authority to use operation and maintenance funds for
            construction projects inside the United States Central Command
            and United States Africa Command areas of responsibility (sec.
            2811)

        The committee recommends a provision that would further
    amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as amended, to
    extend for 1 additional year, through the end of fiscal year
    2010, the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of
    Defense to use funds appropriated for operation and maintenance
    to carry out construction projects intended to satisfy certain
    operational requirements in support of a declaration of war,
    national emergency, or other contingency.

    Modification of authority for scope of work variations (sec. 2812)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the
    Department of Defense from carrying out military construction
    projects or the construction, improvement, or acquisition of a
    military family housing project in which the scope of work
    exceeds the amount specifically authorized by Congress.

    Modification of conveyance authority at military installations (sec.
            2813)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2869 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
    secretary concerned to enter into an agreement to convey real
    property, including any improvements thereon, to any person who
    agrees, in exchange for the real property, to carry out a land
    acquisition to limit encroachment around Department of Defense
    installations and ranges. This provision would also require the
    authority to sunset on September 20, 2013.

    Two-year extension of authority for pilot projects for acquisition or
            construction of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2814)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    Navy's authority for unaccompanied housing for 2 years.

                          Subtitle B--Energy Security

    Report on Department of Defense efforts toward installation of solar
            panels and other renewable energy projects on military
            installations (sec. 2821)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require a
    report no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act on
    the Department's efforts to place solar panels and other
    renewable energy projects on military installations. The
    committee is aware of the efforts of individual services to
    place renewable energy projects on military installations as
    part of an overall effort to achieve partial independence from
    the commercial electrical grid during periods of emergency and
    natural disaster. The committee is also aware that the services
    are adapting existing statues, particularly section 2667 of
    title 10, United States Code, in order to have commercial
    entities construct and operate these projects. The report
    directed by this statute should describe all ongoing efforts,
    legislative and regulatory obstacles, recommended changes to
    current statute which will enhance this effort, and the
    Department's renewable energy goals by 2025.

                          Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

    Land conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia (sec. 2831)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of the Navy to transfer 2.4 acres at Naval Air
    Station, Oceana, Virginia to the city of Virginia Beach,
    Virginia. This would be for the purpose of permitting the City
    to expand services to support the Marine Animal Care Center.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Incrementally funded programs

        The Department has consistently resisted the funding of
    large complex multiyear construction projects incrementally,
    i.e. seeking full authority for the project in the annual
    budget request, and then an authorization for appropriation on
    a yearly basis until completion. The Department has instead
    chosen to fund these projects by using a phasing strategy.
    Since section 2801(b) of title 10, United States Code 2801(b),
    requires that each phase result in a complete and useable
    facility, this strategy can lead to inefficient designs,
    complex construction difficulties brought on by multiple
    contractors on a single site, repeated contractor
    mobilizations, and inefficient ordering of construction
    materials. This phasing strategy often leads to higher overall
    costs to the government and longer construction times from
    start to finish. The committee has authorized incremental
    funding for several large complex military construction
    (MILCON) projects in fiscal year 2010. These projects include
    two hospitals, a ship repair pier, and a Wharf Improvement
    Project. For the two hospitals alone it is estimated that the
    government will save over $165.0 million using this method as
    opposed to a phased strategy. While the vast majority of MILCON
    projects should adhere to the principal of yearly full funding,
    there are a few large and complex projects that warrant
    incremental funding. This strategy has been used to great
    efficiency in the BRAC account. The Department is strongly
    encouraged to consider incremental funding for those few and
    finite projects where the government is able to achieve
    substantial savings and efficiencies.

    Report on long-term strategy to accommodate force structure initiative
            implementation at military installations

        The committee finds that the simultaneous implementation of
    force structure initiatives in the United States has exceeded
    capacity of existing infrastructure at military installations.
    In order to provide enough living and working space for service
    members, the Department of Defense (DOD) has acquired
    relocatable facilities that are used as barracks,
    administrative offices, dining halls, and equipment maintenance
    facilities. In addition, existing barracks at military
    installations are in deteriorating conditions, due to lack of
    facilities sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM), and
    necessary military construction investments by the Department.
        To date, DOD has not provided the committee a comprehensive
    and detailed plan for replacing relocatable facilities with
    permanent facilities, or a long-term strategy to invest in or
    replace existing deteriorating infrastructure. Additionally,
    DOD continues to delay funding of anticipated permanent
    facilities, SRM and necessary military construction required to
    accommodate force structure initiatives already being
    implemented. The committee believes that providing permanent
    adequate facilities for our service members, especially
    housing, is essential to the health of the force.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
    later than January 30, 2010, outlining a strategy to replace
    relocatable housing with permanent facilities, and investments
    or replacement military construction required to provide
    adequate housing for service members at installations affected
    by force structure initiatives. The report shall include: (1)
    how many relocatable facilities are currently being used, (2)
    what installations have relocatable facilities, (3) an
    installation-by-installation plan to replace relocatable
    facilities with permanent facilities, (4) a plan to replace,
    sustain, restore or modernize deteriorating and outdated
    barracks, and (5) investment details associated with the plan.
       TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
                                 AUTHORIZATIONS

    Summary
        The President's Overseas Contingency Operations budget
    request for fiscal year 2010 included $1.4 billion for military
    construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. The table in
    section 4504 describes the specific projects and recommended
    adjustments for fiscal year 2010. The committee removed from
    those fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations military
    construction tables' projects for which funds have already been
    appropriated. The committee then substituted similar projects
    for Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan from the regular fiscal year
    2010 military construction authorization request. The committee
    added $20 million for a facility in Mons Belgium for the North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Coordination
    Center.
    Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $930.49 million in overseas contingency military construction
    projects for the Army for fiscal year 2010.

    Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
            2902)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $474.8 million in Overseas Contingency Operations military
    construction projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2010.
     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
    2010, 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 four categories: (1) National Nuclear
    Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental
    cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) defense nuclear
    waste disposal.
        The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at
    the Department totaled $16.4 billion, a 1 percent increase
    above the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriated level. Of the
    total amount suggested:
              (1) $9.9 billion is for NNSA, of which:
                      (a) $6.4 billion is for weapons activities;
                      (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear
                    nonproliferation activities;
                      (c) $1.0 billion is for naval reactors; and
                      (d) $420.8 million is for the Office of the
                    Administrator;
              (2) $5.5 billion is for defense environmental
            cleanup;
              (3) $852.5 million is for other defense activities;
            and
              (4) $98.4 million is for defense nuclear waste
            disposal.
        The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy
    supply.
        The committee recommends $16.4 billion for atomic energy
    defense activities, the amount of the budget request.
        Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
              (1) $10.2 billion for NNSA, of which;
                      (a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities,
                    an increase of $106.2 million above the budget
                    request;
                      (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear
                    nonproliferation activities, the amount of the
                    amount of the budget request;
                      (c) $1.0 billion is for naval reactors, the
                    amount of the budget request; and
                      (d) $420.8 million is for the Office of the
                    Administrator, the amount of the budget
                    request;
              (2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup
            activities, a decrease of $100.0 million below the
            amount of the budget request;
              (3) $852.5 million for other defense activities, the
            amount of the budget request; and
              (4) $98.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal,
            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 $10.0 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal
    year 2010 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to
    carry out programs necessary to national security, an increase
    of $106.2 million above the budget request.

    Weapons activities

        The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons
    activities, an increase of $106.2 million above the budget
    request. The committee authorizes the following activities:
    $1.6 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.6 billion for
    campaigns; $1.7 billion for readiness in the technical base and
    facilities; $234.9 million for the secure transportation asset;
    $227.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response;
    $90.4 million for site stewardship; $871.6 million for
    safeguards and security; $154.9 million for facilities and
    infrastructure recapitalization; and $30.0 million for support
    to intelligence.

    Directed stockpile work

        The committee recommends $1.6 billion for directed
    stockpile work, an increase of $45.0 million above 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 an increase of $15.0 million in
    weapons dismantlement and disposition to position Pantex to
    support additional dismantlements and to explore potential
    dismantlement scenarios for the Device Assembly Facility to
    augment or support Pantex. The committee recommends an increase
    of $30.0 million for research and development for certification
    and safety. The committee is concerned that sufficient
    attention be paid to more collaborative certification
    activities and that there is a need to ensure that methods to
    improve surety and safety in nuclear weapons are further
    explored.

    Campaigns

        The committee recommends $1.6 billion for campaigns, an
    increase of $15.5 million above 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 recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
    advanced certification to further support the committee's
    concern that increased attention be paid to surveillance
    activities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
    million for enhanced surety and $10.0 million for enhanced
    surveillance in engineering campaigns to continue to support
    efforts to further enhance the knowledge of the health of the
    stockpile and addressed surety concerns. The committee
    recommends an increase of $6.5 million in the inertial
    confinement fusion campaign for Omega operations to ensure that
    the Omega facility can fully support work at the National
    Ignition Facility to achieve ignition in 2010. To support the
    increase in certification and surveillance activities the
    committee recommends an increase in the advanced simulation and
    computing campaign of $9.0 million. The committee recommends a
    reduction of $20.0 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 $1.7 billion for readiness in the
    technical base, an increase of $10.0 million above the budget
    request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure in
    the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding
    for new facilities.
        The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in the
    Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement project (CMRR),
    Project 04-D-125, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a
    result of uncertainty in the design of the CMRR. The committee
    notes that the certification required to be made by the Defense
    Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) and the National Nuclear
    Security Administration has not been made. The committee
    continues to believe that replacing the existing facility is
    essential but the CMRR has significant unresolved issues
    including the appropriate size of the facility. Some of these
    decisions will not be made until the Nuclear Posture Review is
    completed at the end of the year. The CMRR is one of two
    projects that the DNFSB has identified as having significant
    unresolved safety issues. These issues are associated with the
    project's safety-related systems. Until such time as the safety
    basis documents are completed, the outstanding issues cannot be
    resolved. CMRR will be a category I facility supporting pit
    operations in building PF-4 and has a preliminary cost estimate
    of $2.6 billion. As stated last year the committee continues to
    support reconstitution of the pit manufacturing capability in
    PF-4 but urges that all safety issues with CMRR be resolved as
    soon as possible. If there is any change in the planned mission
    at CMRR, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
    notify the congressional defense committees.
        The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for
    the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) refurbishment,
    Project 09-D-007. The LANSCE is the only machine capable of
    performing nuclear cross section measurements of weapons
    materials to support the resolution of significant findings
    investigations. LANSE refurbishment would also further enhance
    the ability of the NNSA to perform surveillance on the
    stockpile.

    Secure transportation asset

        The committee recommends $234.9 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. Last year 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 committee has been
    notified that this third-party financing option is no longer
    being pursued. If the STA resumes consideration of any third-
    party option, the committee expects STA to fully notify
    Congress of any third-party financing arrangements in advance
    of executing any leases.

    Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

        The committee recommends $227.6 million for nuclear
    counterterrorism incident response, an increase of $5.7 million
    above the amount of the budget request. This increase supports
    the committee's efforts to improve U.S. capability for nuclear
    forensics and attribution. Additional funds are also provided
    in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.

    Safeguards and security

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

    Facilities and infrastructure

        The committee recommends $154.9 million for the facilities
    and infrastructure program (FIRP), 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.

    Site stewardship

        The committee recommends $90.4 million for site
    stewardship, the amount of the budget request.

    Support to intelligence

        The committee recommends an increase to weapons activities
    generally of $30.0 million to ensure that the National Nuclear
    Security Administration Laboratories can continue to support
    the intelligence community with specialized analysis
    particularly in the areas of nuclear weapons issues and nuclear
    weapons related proliferation activities as well support for
    biological and chemical weapons proliferation issues.

    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

        The committee recommends $2.1 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: $347.3 million for nonproliferation and verification
    research and development, an increase of $50.0 million; $193.2
    million for nonproliferation and international security, a
    decrease of $14.0 million; $552.3 million for international
    nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the
    budget request; $24.5 million for elimination of weapons-grade
    plutonium production, the amount of the budget request; $705.9
    million for fissile materials disposition, an increase of $4.0
    million; and $313.5 million for the global threat reduction
    initiative, a decrease of $40.0 million.

    Nonproliferation and verification research and development

        The committee recommends $347.3 million for
    nonproliferation and verification research and development, an
    increase of $50.0 million for increased forensics capabilities,
    international safeguards technologies, nuclear detonation
    systems, seismic monitoring, proliferation detection
    technologies, and support to 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, must develop requirements
    and identify the capabilities needed to detect, locate, render
    safe, and attribute any nuclear event, and to identify gaps in
    the necessary capabilities. While some work has started, much
    remains to be done. In order to more fully integrate and
    coordinate these actions, the committee recommends a provision
    elsewhere in this Act to develop a nuclear forensics and
    attribution plan.

    Nonproliferation and international security

        The committee recommends $193.2 million for
    nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of
    $14.0 million, including a reduction of $2.0 million for Global
    Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP), and a
    reduction of $12.0 million for nuclear noncompliance
    verification, as a result of the failure of the North Koreans
    to support the Six-Party Talks.
        Last year, when the committee was working on the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
    417), there was great hope that the Six-Party Talks, which were
    making progress at the time, would result in the permanent
    dismantlement and disablement of the North Korean nuclear
    weapons program. Unfortunately the talks have come to a
    complete stop since the North Koreans conducted another nuclear
    test, ejected the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
    inspectors, reversed most of the initial disablement work,
    started to reprocess the irradiated fuel previously under the
    IAEA seal, and have repeatedly tested cruise and ballistic
    missiles. Other provocative actions, such as the detention of
    the U.S. journalists, have further aggravated an already tense
    situation. As a result the committee, reluctantly, has not
    authorized any of the funds requested to support future
    disablement and disarmament actions. In the event that there is
    any change in the current situation and the North Koreans
    return to the negotiating table, sign a binding verifiable
    agreement to disclose fully and to dismantle permanently their
    nuclear weapons program, the committee would welcome an amended
    or supplemental budget request, or reprogramming action, to
    implement such an agreement.

    Fissile materials disposition

        The committee recommends $705.9 million for fissile
    materials, an increase of $4.0 million. The committee notes
    that the United States and Russia have made considerable
    progress in formulating a new plan for each country to
    disposition 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium
    and that the protocol to the Plutonium Management and
    Disposition Agreement (PMDA) could be signed in the near
    future. The committee continues to support the fissile
    disposition program as an important part of the overall nuclear
    nonproliferation program. The committee recommends a $2.0
    million reduction in the U.S. uranium disposition program. The
    committee notes that the program office intends to buy depleted
    uranium to blend-down U.S. highly enriched uranium. The
    committee believes that other programs in DOE, notably the
    Environmental Management (EM) program, has material that could
    be used as blend-down stock and that this material should be
    transferred to the uranium blend-down program at no charge.
        The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million for the
    Russian fissile materials disposition program to continue the
    joint gas reactor technology demonstration program. 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.
        The Russian fissile material program has supported the gas
    reactor design and technology risk reduction program for many
    years and the committee believes that the time has come for a
    decision to be made with respect to the future of the gas
    reactor. As a result, the committee directs DOE to enter into
    discussions with Russia and establish a plan, no later than
    December 1, 2011, to either build a gas reactor or close the
    U.S. portion of the gas reactor technology program.

    Global threat reduction initiative

        The committee recommends $313.5 million for the global
    threat reduction initiative, a decrease of $40.0 million. These
    funds were requested to support disablement and dismantlement
    of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

    International nuclear fuel bank

        The committee is pleased to note that international support
    for the IAEA international fuel bank continued to grow and over
    $100.0 million has now been raised so that the Nuclear Threat
    Initiative challenge to provide $50.0 million for the fuel bank
    has been met. With the required funding in hand the IAEA has
    taken the first initial steps to formulate plans to implement
    the fuel bank. The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
    provide to the congressional defense committees, brief
    quarterly updates on the progress implementing the fuel bank
    over the course of the next 2 years. The first quarterly report
    shall be due April 1, 2010 and the last quarterly update shall
    be due December 31, 2012.

    Naval reactors

        The committee recommends $1.0 billion for naval reactors,
    the amount of the budget request. The committee notes that the
    Office of Naval Reactors has begun design work to support a new
    strategic ballistic missile submarine, in advance of the
    Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). While this work is premature from
    a policy perspective, the committee understands that the work
    must start this year to support the replacement schedule for
    the current SSBN fleet should the NPR determine that a follow-
    on ballistic missile submarine is needed.

    Office of the Administrator

        The committee recommends $420.8 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
    $5.4 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year
    2010 for defense environmental cleanup, a decrease of $100.0
    million below the amount of the budget request. Without the
    approximately $6.0 billion in funds received under the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)(Public Law 111-5)
    the DOE office of Environmental Management (EM) would be at
    risk of not meeting a number of milestones in various
    compliance agreements. With these funds, however, EM will be
    able to not only reduce its backlog of projects but in many
    instances will be able to accelerate projects, particularly
    decommissioning projects. EM plans to obligate and expend the
    ARRA funds over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. As a result, the
    effective EM annual budget is approximately $8.0 billion for
    each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, a substantial increase from
    prior years.
        While the committee recognizes that need for additional
    funds for the EM program generally, the committee is concerned
    about the ability of the EM program to manage and oversee this
    substantial increase, particularly in light of the fact that
    the EM office is understaffed to manage the regular budget
    request. As a result, the committee recommends a reduction of
    $100.0 million in the fiscal year 2010 budget request as the
    committee believes there is a low probability that all of the
    AARA funds and the amount included in the budget request could
    be obligated and expended by the end of fiscal year 2010 or a
    reasonable period of time thereafter.

    Waste Treatment Plant

        The committee is aware of a 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 of the safety systems could be downgraded,
    if the MAR is modified. The EM office is currently developing a
    schedule to review, modify, and approve: the MAR, the pre-
    treatment plant design revision, the equipment design
    modification, and a plan for procurement, fabrication, and
    installation of equipment. Simplification of operations is a
    laudable goal but the committee is very concerned about this
    entire process and the possibility that in the long run the
    changes made could reduce operational or environmental safety,
    complicate long term operations, and possibly increase the
    overall cost of the WTP or delay the schedule for the waste
    treatment plant.
        The committee notes that EM has recently committed to take
    a more cautious approach than originally planned and will use
    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 Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB), as the
    statutory review body for operational nuclear safety at DOE
    defense nuclear facilities, must also have adequate time to
    review fully all aspects of this process, including all
    documents and the results of all studies, including the results
    of the independent review before any changes are adopted or
    implemented. Only after complete review will the DNFSB be in a
    position to make a recommendation on the advisability of any
    proposed changes or modifications.
        The committee expects this whole process to be carried out
    expeditiously but also thoroughly and expects to be kept
    informed by both DOE and the DNFSB as the effort progresses.

    Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $852.5 million for other defense activities, the amount of the
    budget request. The committee recommends $449.9 million for
    health, safety and security, the amount of the budget request;
    $189.8 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget
    request; $6.4 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
    the amount of the budget request; $83.4 million for the Office
    of Nuclear Energy, the amount of the budget request; $123.0
    million for departmental administration, the amount of the
    budget request.

    Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $98.4 million to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
    Management for the defense contribution to the effort to
    permanently dispose of high level nuclear waste.

    Funding table (sec. 3105)

        The committee recommends a provision that would provide
    that the amounts authorized for the Department of Energy in
    this title are available for the projects, programs, or
    activities and in the dollar amounts indicated by the funding
    tables in Division D of the Act.

       Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

    Nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec. 3111)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Energy to carry out a life extension program, to
    develop a life extension program plan and direct the manner in
    which funds for the life extension programs should be requested
    in the annual Department of Energy budget request. This
    provision recognizes that the nuclear weapons stockpile is
    aging and that the existing efforts to extend or repair weapons
    will need to continue. The provision also directs the Secretary
    to establish mechanisms to ensure the appropriate assignment of
    roles and missions for each laboratory plant. Clear lines of
    responsibility should be established to avoid duplication and
    overlap of activity. The committee is concerned that there is
    unneeded duplication of effort and not enough true peer review.
    Finally to ensure that there is true and rigorous peer review
    the provision would direct that each lab has full access to all
    data and information about each nuclear weapon available.
        The committee believes that as the stockpile draws down the
    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) should increase
    the level of intensity of surveillance activities to improve
    the knowledge of the aging stockpile. The committee is also
    concerned that there may be missed opportunities to make the
    stockpile more secure through surety improvements in the
    weapons themselves. As a result the committee recommends
    increases in various weapons activities accounts that deal with
    surveillance, certification, and surety. Other elements of work
    that should be included in the life extension program include
    efforts to reduce the complexity of the weapons and change as
    possible the use of exotic and toxic materials.

    Elimination of nuclear weapons life extension program from exception to
            requirement to request funds in budget of the President (sec.
            3112)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 4209 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2529)
    to eliminate the nuclear weapons life extension program
    exception in the budget request. This provision would have
    relieved the President from specifically requesting funds for
    life extension programs. In recent years, the Appropriations
    Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have
    in fact required that the funds be specifically requested, as a
    result this provision is no longer necessary.

    Repeal of reliable replacement warhead program (sec. 3113)

        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 4204A of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
    2524a) directing the Department of Energy to establish a
    reliable replacement warhead program.

    Authorization of use of International Nuclear Materials Protection and
            Cooperation program funds for bilateral and multilateral
            nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 3114)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Energy to obligate not more than 10 percent of
    the funds authorized to be appropriated for the international
    nuclear materials protection and cooperation program for any
    bilateral or multilateral activities relating to
    nonproliferation or disarmament, notwithstanding any other
    provision of law. The Secretary may exercise this authority
    after notifying the congressional defense committees 15 days in
    advance of the intent to exercise this authority and if the
    President certifies the action is necessary to support the
    national security objectives of the United States.
        The committee believes that additional flexibility is
    needed to ensure there are adequate funds available to address
    urgent immediate requirements for which funds might not
    otherwise be available or are inadequate. Similar authority has
    been provided to the Secretary of Defense elsewhere in this
    bill.

    Repeal of prohibition on funding activities associated with
            international cooperative stockpile stewardship (sec. 3115)

        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 4301 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2561).
    This provision repeals a prohibition on a program that no
    longer exists.

    Modification of minor construction threshold for plant projects (sec.
            3116)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 4701(3) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
    2741(3)) to modify permanently the threshold for general plant
    projects from $5.0 million to $7.0 million. The committee notes
    that for fiscal year 2009 this threshold was temporarily
    increased to $10.0 million.

    Two-year extension of authority for appointment of certain scientific,
            engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 3117)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend
    until September 30, 2011, the authority for the Secretary of
    Energy to hire, establish, and set rates of pay for not more
    than 200 positions in the Department of Energy for scientific,
    engineering, and technical personnel whose duties will relate
    to safety at defense nuclear facilities.

    Repeal of sunset date for consolidation of counterintelligence programs
            of Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security
            Administration (sec. 3118)

        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 3117 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). When the
    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was created
    there was a separate office of counterintelligence established
    in the NNSA and another office of counterintelligence for the
    Department of Energy (DOE). In 2006, DOE and NNSA determined
    that it would be more efficient to combine these offices into
    one office of counterintelligence that served the entire DOE.
    Congress agreed to the consolidation in Section 3117 of Public
    Law 109-364, but to ensure that the new single office would
    effectively serve all of the DOE entities, the authority for
    the consolidated office would expire at the end of fiscal year
    2010.
        The committee believes that the consolidated office has
    been effective and understands that both the Secretary of
    Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA support the integrated
    counterintelligence office.

                           Subtitle C--Other Matters

    Ten-year plan for utilization and funding of certain Department of
            Energy facilities (sec. 3131)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
    (NNSA) and the Under Secretary of Science (USS) at the
    Department of Energy to jointly develop a plan to use and fund,
    over a 10-year period, the National Ignition Facility at the
    Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos Neutron Science
    Center at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the ``Z''
    Machine at the Sandia National Laboratory. The committee notes
    that these three facilities are primarily funded and maintained
    by NNSA, but each of these has significant contributions to the
    science and energy research communities. The committee believes
    that the NNSA Administrator and the USS should explore how
    these unique facilities could be used and supported
    collaboratively to ensure that the capabilities of the
    facilities are fully utilized.

    Review of management and operation of certain national laboratories
            (sec. 3132)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Armed Services
    Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, to
    appoint an independent panel of experts to conduct a review of
    the management and operation of the Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Sandia
    National Laboratory.
        The committee notes that several recent studies have
    focused on the organizational location of the three labs but
    not on their actual management and operations. The committee
    believes that the labs should remain under the Department of
    Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, but believes
    that a review of the lab operations is timely.

    Inclusion in 2010 stockpile stewardship plan of certain information
            relating to stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 3133)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Energy to include, in the annual stockpile
    stewardship plan for fiscal year 2010, an update on the
    stewardship criteria used to assess the safety, security, and
    reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The last update
    of the criteria was completed in 2005. The 2010 plan would also
    include a review of each science-based tool, such as
    experimental facilities, developed or modified in the last 5
    years.
        The committee believes that as the stockpile ages and the
    total number of nuclear weapons in the stockpile decreases, the
    Department of Energy should articulate clear criteria for the
    stockpile stewardship program going forward.

    Comptroller General of the United States review of projects carried out
            by the Office of Environmental Management of the Department of
            Energy pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
            of 2009 (sec. 3134)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Comptroller General to review and report on the efforts of the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management
    (EM) to identify and implement cleanup projects using the funds
    received pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). The review would occur in three
    phases. The first phase is an initial review focused on the
    criteria used for project selection and the process to develop
    cost and schedules for the projects. The second phase would be
    an ongoing review of the project implementation with quarterly
    reports on the ongoing work. The committee expects these
    quarterly reports to be short letter reports that give a very
    brief status of the projects, including jobs generated and
    preserved. The third and final phase of the review would be a
    recap of the entire effort that would look at areas such as
    cost and schedule compliance and how the overall effort has led
    to an accelerated cleanup schedule. The committee wants to
    ensure that the funds are used to generate both jobs and
    necessary cleanup work.
        The committee supports the work of the EM Office to
    accelerate the cleanup effort and utilize the funds to reduce
    the overall footprint of the DOE complex, thus reducing
    maintenance costs and providing for worker health and safety.
    The committee notes that the majority of on-the-job injuries in
    the DOE complex occur as a result of work being done in and
    around old buildings that are no longer used and no longer
    maintained.

    Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain Department of
            Energy pension obligations (sec. 3135)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    funding needed to meet pension obligations of contractor
    employees at each Department of Energy (DOE) facility operated
    using funds authorized in the National Defense Authorization
    Acts for environmental management be included in the DOE budget
    materials.
        DOE is continuing a process, started approximately 3 years
    ago, to no longer provide defined benefit pension plans for
    newly hired contractor employees at DOE contractor operated
    sites and facilities. As the workforce in the older defined
    benefit plans age and retire the defined benefit plans will
    require more funds as the ratio of retirees to active workers
    continues to shift toward retirees. Already at the Savannah
    River Site there are more retirees than active employees. With
    the downturn in the economy, the situation has gotten worse as
    the investments that support these plans have lost value. As a
    result of this situation, these defined benefit plans will
    continue to be more expensive as the amount of new
    contributions decreases and more of the workforce retires. In
    the long run, DOE believes that the shift to defined
    contribution plans will be less costly.
        To understand and manage the costs of the pension
    obligations, particularly the defined benefit plans, the
    committee directs that the amount of the projected pension
    obligations be spelled out in the budget justification
    materials for each environmental management funded site.

                            Item of Special Interest

    W-76

        The committee notes that the W-76 warhead for the submarine
    launched Trident D-5 missile recently started a major life
    extension effort. Planning for the life-extension took over 5
    years and cost in excess of a billion dollars. The first
    production unit was late as a result of the delay in
    replicating a legacy material known as fogbank. A decision was
    made to use this material although the National Nuclear
    Security Administration (NNSA) developed a substitute for the
    fogbank that would have simplified future life extensions and
    long-term maintenance. The committee directs that the
    Administrator of the NNSA review this decision and report to
    the committee no later than August 1, 2009, on the results of
    the review.
              TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

    Authorization (sec. 3201)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $26.1 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    (DNFSB) the amount of the budget request.
        The committee continues to support the work of the DNFSB
    and the rigorous oversight that the DNFSB brings to the
    operational nuclear safety of defense nuclear facilities. The
    funds requested will allow the DNFSB to increase its staff by
    approximately 10 positions, still well below the statutory
    personnel cap of 150. DNFSB brings a consultative, interactive,
    technically competent approach to oversight that is well suited
    to the work at Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear
    facilities. Most of the DOE defense nuclear facilities are one
    of a kind with unique and technically complex operations. On
    the other hand, facilities that are more commercial-like, such
    as the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, have been
    statutorily directed to be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission. As a result, the committee does not support a new
    regulatory oversight regime for defense nuclear facilities
    absent extensive and careful review, consideration, and
    discussion.
                     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.

                            Item of Special Interest

    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 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 Committee on Armed Services after the committee votes to
    report the bill.
        By including a table of requested funding items at the end
    of 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.
                             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
    sections 105 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request for procurement programs and indicates those programs
    for which the committee either increased or decreased the
    requested amounts.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 201 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 301 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 1407 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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
    sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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 sections 2004 and 4001. The
    provision also displays the funding requested by the
    administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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 FY 2010 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
    sections 2004 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request for 2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year
    2010 project listing programs and indicates those programs for
    which the committee either increased or decreased the requested
    amounts.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a
    reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
    Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
    request are made without prejudice.
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act military construction (sec.
            4503)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
    program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized by
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
    111-5) in accordance with the requirements of sections 2004 and
    4001.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) 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. 4504)
        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
    sections 2004 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 (DOD) 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 DOD) 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 XLVI--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
    sections 3105 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
    requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 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 Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) 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 May 13, 2009, the General Counsel of the
    Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate
    proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal
    year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
    to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010,
    and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed
    legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication
    1673 to the Committee on Armed Services on May 20, 2009.
        Executive Communication 1673 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 2010 passed unanimously by
    roll call vote, 26-0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin,
    Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida,
    Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
    Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
    Graham, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr, Vitter and Collins.
    Opposed: None.
        The 5 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to
    the bill which were considered during the course of the markup
    are as follows:
        1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed
    session because classified information will be discussed.
        VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 20-5.
        In Favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed,
    Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall
    of Colorado, Begich, Burris, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
    Thune, Martinez, Wicker, and Burr.
        Opposed: Senators McCaskill, McCain, Graham, Vitter, and
    Collins.
        2. MOTION: To fully fund 7 additional F-22 aircraft.
        VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13-11.
        In Favor: Senators Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Begich,
    Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr,
    Vitter and Collins.
        Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida,
    Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
    Hagan, and McCain.
        3. MOTION: To include additional funds in Navy and Air
    Force research, development, test and evaluation accounts for
    alternate engine development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
        VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 12-10.
        In Favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Nelson of Florida,
    Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Thune, Wicker, and
    Vitter.
        Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of
    Nebraska, Udall of Colorado, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
    Martinez, and Collins.
        4. MOTION: To restore the $45 million reduction for
    construction of the Brigade Complex at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
        VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 9-14.
        In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
    Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Vitter, and Collins.
        Opposed: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed,
    Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall
    of Colorado, Hagan, Begich and Burris.
        5. MOTION: To prohibit the establishment of an outlying
    landing field at Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, North Carolina.
        VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 6-19.
        In Favor: Senators Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich,
    Burris, Chambliss, and Burr.
        Opposed: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed,
    Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb,
    McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Graham, Thune, Martinez,
    Vitter, and Collins.

                   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 2010.

                            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. CHAMBLISS

        In relation to the report language in the bill directing
    the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a plan for executing
    the Air Sovereignty Alert mission, I encourage the Air Force to
    give particular consideration in their plan to the ``5
    Corners'' plan in which Air Sovereignty Alert aircraft, to
    include F-22's or F-35's the Air National Guard receives for
    executing that mission, are based at strategic, coastal
    locations in the United States, specifically Massachusetts,
    California, Oregon, Louisiana, and Florida, as well as in
    Alaska and Hawaii.
                                                       Saxby Chambliss.

                         ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. THUNE

        I appreciate the Committee passing my Next Generation
    Bomber Amendment and my Air Force Alternative Aviation Fuel
    Amendment during markup of the Fiscal Year 2010 National
    Defense Authorization Act. These additional views provide
    further context to my amendments.
    Thune Next Generation Bomber Amendment
        My amendment that has been accepted by the committee
    regarding the Next Generation Bomber is based on legislation I
    introduced earlier this year known as the Preserving Future
    United States Capability to Project Power Globally Act of 2009
    (S. 1044). As my amendment states, ``[t]he 2006 Quadrennial
    Defense Review found that there was a requirement for a next
    generation bomber aircraft and directed the United States Air
    Force to `develop a new land-based, penetrating long range
    strike capability to be fielded by 2018.''' As an advocate for
    preserving our nation's future long range strike capability, I
    strongly disagree with the Obama Administration's proposal to
    terminate the Next Generation Bomber program. Their
    justification for this proposal, on page 44 of the Office of
    Management and Budget's ``Terminations, Reductions, and
    Savings'' document for FY10, cites a Congressional Budget
    Office (CBO) conclusion that the Department of Defense's
    weapons acquisition program, including the future bomber fleet,
    ``may not be affordable over the next six years'' and states
    that ``[n]ot pursuing this [Next Generation Bomber] program
    will result in savings of several hundred million dollars
    through 2013.''
        I believe the Obama Administration's decision to terminate
    the Next Generation Bomber is a reflection of the austere
    approach the administration has taken toward the funding of the
    Department of Defense, rather than an approach based on the
    National Defense Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
    Review. President Obama's proposed 2010 defense budget increase
    is substantially less than the robust 6.7% increase in the
    overall budget. In my view, our nation's strategic long range
    strike capability is eroding at an alarming rate. As I wrote in
    a March 26, 2009 letter to President Obama, signed by a
    bipartisan group of five other Senators,\1\ almost half of our
    current bomber inventory pre-dates the Cuban Missile Crisis of
    1962. There are only 16 combat ready B-2 bombers currently
    available with vital stealth technology to hold targets deep in
    heavily defended airspace at risk. Allowing this long range
    strike capability to further erode due to budget
    considerations, where less pressing priorities are robustly
    funded by the administration at the expense of our nation's
    long range strike capability, is a mistake we cannot afford to
    make.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator David
    Vitter, Senator John Cornyn, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Preserving a credible long range strike capability is
    important because, while our current wars are being fought in
    undefended airspace, the conflicts of the near-term future will
    likely feature heavily defended airspace, due in large part to
    the proliferation of relatively inexpensive, but extremely
    sophisticated and deadly air defense systems. These and other
    emerging anti-access capabilities drive the need for a Next
    Generation Bomber. Secretary Robert Gates, who I admire and
    respect, has publicly acknowledged the need for a Next
    Generation Bomber on at least four separate occasions:
               In a September 29, 2008, speech at National
            Defense University, Secretary Gates said that ``[i]n
            the case of China, investments in cyber- and anti-
            satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry,
            submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten
            America's primary means to project power and help
            allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets,
            and the networks that support them. This will put a
            premium on America's ability to strike from over the
            horizon, employ missile defenses, and will require
            shifts from short-range to longer-range systems such as
            the next generation bomber.'' (Emphasis added)
               In the January/February 2009 edition of
            Foreign Affairs, in an article entitled ``A Balanced
            Strategy; Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,''
            Secretary Gates wrote that ``[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.''
            (Emphasis added)
               In the First Quarter 2009 edition of Joint
            Force Quarterly, in an article entitled ``The National
            Defense Strategy; Striking the Right Balance,''
            Secretary Gates wrote that ``[i]n the case of China,
            investments in cyber and antisatellite warfare, anti-
            air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic
            missiles could threaten America's primary means to
            project power and help our allies in the Pacific: our
            bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that
            support them. This will put a premium on America's
            ability to strike from over the horizon and employ
            missile defenses; and it will require shifts from
            short-range to longer range systems such as the next
            generation bomber''. (Emphasis added)
               During a May 14, 2009 Senate Armed Services
            Hearing on the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal
            Year 2010 and the Future Years Defense Program,
            Secretary Gates testified that ``My own personal view
            is we probably do need a follow-on bomber.'' (Emphasis
            added)
        Until the 2009 QDR is completed and released next year, the
    2006 document is the only framework we have for judging how
    well the military's airpower capabilities meet national
    requirements. I believe we must undertake the task of
    developing a new long range strike capability by 2018, based in
    substantial part on the arguments Secretary Gates has made
    since October of last year. This view is reinforced by the
    views of the commanders of the United States Pacific Command,
    the United States Strategic Command and the United States Joint
    Forces Command, who have each testified before the Senate Armed
    Services Committee this year in support of the capability that
    the next generation bomber aircraft would provide. General
    James Cartwright, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    and chair of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, has also
    testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year
    that ``the nation needs a new bomber.''
    Maintaining the Triad
        Secretary Gates also stated at the same May 14 Senate Armed
    Services hearing mentioned above that the negotiations with
    Russia regarding the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
    (START) to further reduce the number of nuclear weapons, are
    going to ``raise the question whether we still need a triad,
    depending on the number of deployed nuclear weapons that we
    need.'' I believe that the triad of strategic delivery systems
    (bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles)
    should be maintained, for the reasons set forth by the
    Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, in
    its final report to Congress. With regard to bombers, the
    Commission states unequivocally on page 25 of its report that
    it has ``reviewed arguments in favor of a dyad but recommends
    retention of the current triad. Each leg of the triad has its
    own value: The bomber force is valuable particularly for
    extending deterrence in time of crisis, as their deployment is
    visible and signals U.S. commitment. Bombers also impose a
    significant cost burden on potential adversaries in terms of
    the need to invest in advanced air defenses.'' It is my fervent
    hope that the Obama Administration will not negotiate away the
    bomber leg of the triad during talks on the follow-on START
    treaty.
    Delays in START Negotiations
        Secretary Gates' proposal to subject decisions on our
    current strategic and nuclear-force structure, including the
    Next Generation Bomber, to post-START arms-control talks also
    appears problematic due to the foreseeable delays that could
    occur in negotiating the follow-on treaty. While seemingly
    reasonable on its face, waiting until a new START treaty is
    negotiated could, literally, take years. Appearing before the
    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last fall, Secretary
    Gates himself expressed concern about how long the original
    START negotiations took, and what that meant for the follow-on
    START treaty about to be negotiated. The lead START negotiator,
    likewise, has indicated that negotiations over the follow-on
    treaty could be delayed. I do not believe the Next Generation
    Bomber program should be delayed by negotiations with Russia
    over the follow-on START treaty, particularly if it becomes
    clear that negotiations will extend past the December 5, 2009
    expiration of the current treaty.
    The Nation Needs a New Bomber
        During his appearance before the Senate Armed Services
    Committee on May 14, 2009, Secretary 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.'' As
    the Administration develops a new QDR to inform FY 2011 budget
    decisions, I believe that the record that has been developed
    before the Armed Services Committee since January of this year,
    along with the Committee's passage of my amendment with regard
    to the Next Generation Bomber, provides compelling evidence of
    the need and requirement for a new bomber, and should
    ultimately be validated by the new QDR. As we move forward with
    the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, and observe
    further decisions by the Obama Administration on the Next
    Generation Bomber program, I will continue the fight to
    preserve this important long range strike capability.
    Thune Air Force Alternative Aviation Fuel Amendment
        I appreciate the committee accepting an amendment I offered
    that seeks to advance two innovations being made by the Air
    Force regarding alternative aviation fuel. My amendment
    represents an effort to enact into law current innovative Air
    Force programs that will help alleviate America's growing
    energy problems.
        We need to move toward secure, domestic energy sources. One
    need look no further than last year's oil price spikes, the oil
    embargoes of the 1970's, or the effect recent Russian-Ukraine
    natural gas disputes had on the European continent to see the
    peril of relying on unsecure, foreign sources for the
    preponderance of our energy needs. Continuing to fund foreign
    regimes unfriendly to the U.S. grows more untenable by the day,
    and we must decrease this capital flight.
        This amendment advances two innovations being made by the
    Air Force. First, the amendment moves the Air Force toward
    domestic, synthetic fuels. The amendment sets the goal that the
    Air Force certify its entire fleet on a 50/50 synthetic blend
    by early 2011. The Air Force has already certified the B-1, B-
    52, C-17, F-15, and F-16. The amendment also sets the goal that
    the USAF acquire half of its domestic fuel requirement from a
    domestically sourced synthetic fuel blend by 2016. It is
    important to note the amendment contains the following
    limitations:
               Synthetic fuels would only be acquired if
            the fuel is the same cost or less than conventional
            fuels and if they have a ``greener'' lifecycle than
            conventional fuels.
               The synthetic fuels procured can be based on
            any feedstock.
        My amendment also encourages the Navy and Army to advance
    similar innovations with regard to alternative aviation fuels.
    We should seek to understand how the Army and Navy can also use
    these alternative aviation fuels, and how the buying power of
    the entire Department of Defense can achieve efficiencies and
    decreased costs due to large economies of scale. The amendment
    calls on the Navy and Army to annually report on each
    department's goals and progress to research, test, and certify
    the use of alternative fuels in their respective aircraft
    fleets.
        The amendment also requests the Defense Science Board to
    assess the achievability and impact of the goals with
    implementation recommendations while there is still time to
    make program changes. The amendment requires the Defense
    Science Board to report on the feasibility and impact of
    reaching the Air Force's alternative energy goals. This report
    is due in 2011, five years prior to the Air Force 2016 goal.
        This amendment is a responsible use of public policy to
    take a step toward solving our energy crisis. This amendment
    will help to save the government money as any fuels procured
    will be at or less than the cost of conventional petroleum
    fuels. This amendment will help to preserve the environment as
    any fuels procured must be ``greener'' than conventional
    petroleum fuels throughout their lifecycle.
        I look forward to continuing work on this and other
    important defense energy initiatives.
                                                            John Thune.