[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) 512ï¿½091800
       Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001




                      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.

                                  
