[Senate Report 111-35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 89
=======================================================================
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-35
=======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
__________
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1390]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
July 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of June 25, 2009
=======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
Calendar No. 89
=======================================================================
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-35
=======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
__________
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1390]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
July 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of June 25, 2009
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-630 WASHINGTON : 2009
=======================================================================
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(111th Congress, 1st Session)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
CONTENTS
__________
Page
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview........................................... 2
Explanation of funding summary............................... 3
Division A-Department of Defense Authorizations.................. 5
Title I--Procurement............................................. 5
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 5
Subtitle B--Navy Programs.................................... 12
Treatment of Littoral Combat Ship program as a major
defense acquisition program (sec. 111)................. 12
Report on strategic plan for homeporting the Littoral
Combat Ship (sec. 112)................................. 13
Procurement programs for future naval surface combatants
(sec. 113)............................................. 13
Report on a service life extension program for Oliver
Hazard Perry class frigates (sec. 114)................. 14
Subtitle C--Air Force Matters................................ 14
Limitation on retirement of C-5 aircraft (sec. 121)...... 14
Revised availability of certain funds available for the
F-22A fighter aircraft (sec. 122)...................... 14
Report on potential foreign military sales of the F-22A
fighter aircraft (sec. 123)............................ 15
Next generation bomber aircraft (sec. 124)............... 15
Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 16
Modification of nature of data link utilizable by
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (sec. 131)........... 16
Budget Items................................................. 16
Army..................................................... 16
Extended range multi-purpose Sky Warrior............. 16
CH-47 multiyear procurement execution................ 16
Apache AH-64 fuselage manufacturing.................. 16
Blackhawk UH-60A conversion to UH-60L................ 17
Air warrior ensemble generation III.................. 17
Patriot command and control modifications............ 17
60mm mortars Army.................................... 17
Bomb line modernization.............................. 17
Mine protection vehicle family....................... 17
Joint tactical radio system.......................... 18
Night vision devices................................. 18
Fido explosives detector............................. 18
Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program....... 19
Operator driving simulators.......................... 19
Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System... 19
Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System............... 19
Urban training center instrumentation................ 19
Virtual Interactive Combat Environment System........ 19
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 20
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........ 20
Navy..................................................... 20
F/A-18E/F............................................ 20
UH-1Y/AH-1Z.......................................... 22
Weapons industrial facilities........................ 23
Multiple User Objective System....................... 23
Smart valves......................................... 23
TB-33 thinline towed array........................... 23
Man overboard indicators............................. 23
Air Force................................................ 24
F-22A fighter aircraft............................... 24
Global Hawk.......................................... 25
C-130 Avionics Modernization Program................. 25
Advanced targeting pod............................... 25
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.................... 26
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.................... 26
Halvorsen loaders.................................... 26
Unmanned modular threat emitter modernization........ 26
Joint threat emitter................................. 26
Application software................................. 27
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund............. 27
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund......... 27
Defense-wide............................................. 27
MC-130W multi-mission modifications.................. 27
Advanced lightweight grenade launcher................ 28
Special operations visual augmentation systems....... 28
Special operations forces multi-band inter/intra team
radio.............................................. 28
M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask........ 28
Procurement of computing services.................... 29
Items of Special Interest................................ 29
Body armor protocol and requirements................. 29
Irregular warfare in the Navy........................ 30
Joint cargo aircraft................................. 31
Reports to Congress on up-armored high mobility
multipurpose wheeled vehicles and mine resistant
ambush protected vehicle........................... 32
Unmanned aerial vehicle planning..................... 32
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 35
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 35
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 35
Continued development of competitive propulsion system
for the Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211)........ 35
Enhancement of duties of Director of Department of
Defense Test Resource Management Center with respect to
the major range and test facility base(sec. 212)....... 36
Guidance on specification of funding requested for
operation, sustainment, modernization, and personnel of
major ranges and test facilities (sec. 213)............ 36
Permanent authority for the Joint Defense Manufacturing
Technology Panel (sec. 214)............................ 36
Extension and enhancement of Global Research Watch
program (sec. 215)..................................... 37
Three-year extension of authority for prizes for advanced
technology achievements (sec. 216)..................... 37
Modification of report requirements regarding defense
science and technology program (sec. 217).............. 37
Programs for ground combat vehicle and self propelled
howitzer capabilities for the Army (sec. 218).......... 38
Assessment of technological maturity and integration risk
of Army modernization programs (sec. 219).............. 39
Assessment of strategy for technology for modernization
of the combat vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle
fleets (sec. 220)...................................... 40
Systems engineering and prototyping program (sec. 221)... 40
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 41
Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 241) 41
Comprehensive plan for test and evaluation of the
ballistic missile defense system (sec. 242)............ 41
Assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
(sec. 243)............................................. 42
Report on potential missile defense cooperation with
Russia (sec. 244)...................................... 43
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 43
Repeal of requirement for biennial Joint Warfighting
Science and Technology Plan (sec. 251)................. 43
Budget Items................................................. 43
Army..................................................... 43
Army basic research.................................. 43
Minerva.............................................. 43
Materials technologies............................... 44
Sensor research...................................... 44
Manned-unmanned systems teaming...................... 44
Advanced concepts and simulation..................... 45
Ground vehicle research.............................. 45
Army electromagnetic gun............................. 45
Reactive armor technologies.......................... 46
Acoustic sensors systems............................. 46
Army electronics research............................ 46
Military engineering technology...................... 46
Ballistic protection systems......................... 47
Medical technologies................................. 47
Army advanced medical research and technologies...... 48
Army aviation technologies........................... 48
Army weapons and munitions technology................ 49
Alternative energy research.......................... 49
Robotic systems...................................... 49
Tire development for joint light tactical vehicle
program............................................ 50
Vehicle energy and power programs.................... 50
Water analysis technologies.......................... 50
Training and simulation systems...................... 50
Mid-size unmanned ground vehicles.................... 50
Aircraft survivability systems....................... 51
Advanced imaging technologies........................ 51
Bradley third generation forward looking infrared.... 51
Military engineering systems......................... 51
Counter-mortar radar systems......................... 51
Advanced environmental controls...................... 52
Advanced electronics integration..................... 52
Adaptive robotic technology.......................... 52
Joint future theater lift............................ 52
Logistics and engineer equipment-advanced development 55
Next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology 55
Type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber
machine gun........................................ 55
Future combat system non-line of sight cannon........ 55
Future combat system manned ground vehicles and
common ground vehicle.............................. 56
Urban training development........................... 57
Common guidance control module....................... 57
Army test and evaluation programs.................... 57
3D woven preform technology for Army munitions....... 58
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated
Netted Sensor System............................... 58
TOW missile improvements............................. 59
Joint tactical ground station........................ 59
Collection management tools development.............. 59
A160 hummingbird..................................... 59
Army manufacturing technologies...................... 61
Navy..................................................... 61
Navy basic research.................................. 61
Energetics research.................................. 61
Navy force protection research....................... 61
Warfighter sustainment technologies.................. 62
Advanced antenna technologies........................ 62
Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research........ 62
Undersea warfare systems............................. 63
Low observable platforms............................. 63
Mobile intelligence and tracking systems............. 63
Force protection advanced technology................. 63
High-integrity global positioning system............. 64
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations...... 64
Semi-submersible unmanned undersea vehicle........... 64
Sonobouy wave energy module.......................... 65
Shipboard system component development............... 65
Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project........ 65
Marine Corps ground combat/support systems........... 65
Model-based management decision tools for ground
vehicles........................................... 66
Navy energy program.................................. 66
Navy energy research................................. 66
Optical interconnect................................. 66
Radio frequency identification technology program.... 67
Mobile maritime sensor development................... 67
Submarine communications at speed and depth.......... 68
Mold-in-place coating development.................... 68
New design SSN....................................... 68
Submarine tactical warfare system.................... 69
Automated fiber optic manufacturing.................. 69
Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle.................. 70
Next-generation Phalanx.............................. 70
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system................. 70
Navy medical research................................ 71
Navy information technology programs................. 71
Navy test and evaluation programs.................... 71
Advanced linear accelerator facility................. 71
Expandable rigid wall composite shelter.............. 71
Marine personnel carrier support system.............. 71
Ultrasonic consolidation for smart armor applications 72
High performance capabilities for military vehicles.. 72
Mobile User Objective System......................... 72
Navy manufacturing technology........................ 73
National Shipbuilding Research Program-Advanced
Shipbuilding Enterprise............................ 73
Air Force................................................ 74
Air Force basic research............................. 74
Air Force materials research......................... 74
Aerospace vehicle technologies....................... 75
Air Force propulsion research........................ 75
Reconfigurable electronics and software.............. 76
Seismic research program............................. 76
Chemical laser research.............................. 76
High energy laser research........................... 76
Air Force advanced materials research................ 76
Air Force advanced propulsion systems................ 77
Air Force manufacturing technology................... 77
Optical interconnect technologies.................... 77
Space Protection Program............................. 77
Space situational awareness.......................... 78
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Demonstration/
Validation......................................... 78
Operationally Responsive Space....................... 79
Small imaging satellite competitive prototyping...... 79
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System................................... 80
Internet routing in space............................ 80
Next-generation military satellite communications.... 81
B-1B bomber active electronically scanned array radar 81
Space-based Infrared System.......................... 81
Joint Strike Fighter................................. 82
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.................... 82
Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft........ 83
Air Force test and evaluation........................ 83
Multi-platform radar technology insertion program.... 83
Wide-area airborne surveillance...................... 84
Multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid................ 85
Joint Space Operation Center System.................. 85
Biometric signature and passive physiological
monitoring......................................... 86
Defense-wide............................................. 86
Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research........................................... 86
In-vitro models for bio-defense vaccines............. 86
Information and communications technology............ 86
Cognitive computing.................................. 87
Biological decontamination research.................. 87
Chemical and biological infrared detector............ 87
Funding for meritorious bio-defense projects......... 87
Tactical technology.................................. 88
Blast mitigation and protection...................... 88
Combating terrorism technologies..................... 88
Advanced aerospace systems........................... 88
Integrated Sensor is Structure....................... 89
Joint capability technology demonstrations........... 89
High performance defense manufacturing technology
program............................................ 89
Defense Logistics Agency energy research............. 90
High performance computing........................... 90
Deep green........................................... 90
Small unmanned aerial vehicle detection system....... 90
Quick Reaction Fund.................................. 90
Special warfare situational awareness systems........ 91
Joint Forces Command activities...................... 91
Lithium ion battery safety research.................. 91
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution
issues............................................. 91
Real-time non-specific viral agent detector.......... 92
Airborne infrared surveillance technology............ 92
Aegis ballistic missile defense...................... 92
Short-range ballistic missile defense................ 93
Corrosion control research........................... 94
Systems engineering and prototyping program.......... 94
Test and evaluation programs......................... 94
Cyber test range..................................... 94
Technology applications for security enhancement..... 94
Policy decision point technology..................... 95
Software assurance courseware development............ 95
Policy research, development, test, and evaluation... 95
Logistics manufacturing research..................... 95
Long endurance unattended ground sensor technologies. 96
Items of Special Interest................................ 96
Ballistic missile defense overview................... 96
Federally funded research and development centers.... 98
Ground/air task oriented radar....................... 98
Israeli upper tier missile defense................... 98
KC-X tanker replacement program...................... 99
Laboratory recapitalization and sustainment issues... 99
Net-Enabled Command Capability....................... 100
Test and evaluation workforce........................ 101
Third Generation Infrared Surveillance............... 101
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 103
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 103
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions......................... 103
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for
certain costs in connection with the former Nansemond
Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia (sec. 311)...... 103
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues....................... 103
Modification of authority for Army industrial facilities
to engage in cooperative activities with non-Army
entities (sec. 321).................................... 103
Improvement of inventory management practices (sec. 322). 103
Temporary suspension of authority for public-private
competitions (sec. 323)................................ 103
Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec.
324)................................................... 104
Modification of date for submittal to Congress of annual
report on funding for public and private performance of
depot-level maintenance and repair workloads (sec. 325) 104
Subtitle D--Energy Provisions................................ 104
Energy security on Department of Defense installations
(sec. 331)............................................. 104
Extension and expansion of reporting requirements
regarding Department of Defense energy efficiency
programs (sec. 332).................................... 105
Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 333).......... 105
Authorization of appropriations for Director of
Operational Energy (sec. 334).......................... 105
Subtitle E--Reports.......................................... 105
Study on Army modularity (sec. 341)...................... 105
Budget Items................................................. 107
Army..................................................... 107
Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System. 107
Funding for strategic planning and implementation of
interagency training, education, and research in
support of rule of law operations.................. 107
Navy..................................................... 107
Naval aviation depot maintenance..................... 107
Naval ship depot maintenance......................... 108
Transfer of funding from overseas contingency
operations to base budget.......................... 108
United States Joint Forces Command National Program
for Small Unit Excellence.......................... 108
Gun depot overhauls.................................. 109
Naval Strike Air Warfare Center training............. 109
Marine Corps............................................. 109
Advanced load bearing equipment...................... 109
Marine Corps shelters................................ 109
Cold Weather Layering System......................... 109
Air Force................................................ 109
Mission essential airfield operations equipment...... 109
National Security Space Institute.................... 110
Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements 110
Defense-wide............................................. 110
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative.... 110
Authorization of appropriations for Director of
Operational Energy................................. 111
Defense readiness reporting system................... 111
Commercial imagery acquisition....................... 112
Department of Defense Education Activity Operations &
Maintenance funding................................ 113
Undistributed bulk fuel savings...................... 113
Software licenses.................................... 113
Army Reserve............................................. 113
Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve............. 113
Army National Guard...................................... 113
Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard...... 113
Controlled humidity protection....................... 113
Unobligated Balances..................................... 114
Unobligated balances decrease in funding............. 114
Items of Special Interest.................................... 114
Army organizational structure and personnel requirements. 114
Continued assessment of plans for contracting support in
combatant command operational plans.................... 116
Cost-benefit analysis of depot maintenance workload
associated with AV-8B Harrier weapons system........... 116
Depot-level maintenance and repair....................... 116
Pollution Prevention Program............................. 117
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 119
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 119
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 119
Additional authority for increases of Army active duty
end strengths for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 (sec. 402) 120
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 120
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 120
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the Reserves (sec. 412)................................ 120
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 121
Fiscal year 2010 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 121
Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 121
Report on trainee account for the Army National Guard
(sec. 416)............................................. 122
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 122
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 122
Budget Item.................................................. 122
Military personnel funding changes....................... 122
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 123
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 123
Modification of limitations on general and flag officers
on active duty (sec. 501).............................. 123
Revisions to annual report requirement on joint officer
management (sec. 502).................................. 123
Grade of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (sec. 503)............................. 123
Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force
(sec. 504)............................................. 123
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 123
Report on requirements of the National Guard for non-dual
status technicians (sec. 511).......................... 123
Subtitle C--Education and Training........................... 124
Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical
accession programs (sec. 521).......................... 124
Expansion of criteria for appointment as member of the
Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences (sec. 522)...................... 124
Detail of commissioned officers as students at schools of
psychology (sec. 523).................................. 124
Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............ 125
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 531)................................... 125
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
532)................................................... 125
Two-year extension of authority for assistance to local
educational agencies with enrollment changes due to
base closures, force structure changes, or force
relocations (sec. 533)................................. 125
Permanent authority for enrollment in defense dependents'
education system of dependents of foreign military
members assigned to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers,
Europe (sec. 534)...................................... 125
Study on options for educational opportunities for
dependent children of members of the armed forces who
do not attend Department of Defense dependents schools
(sec. 535)............................................. 126
Sense of Senate on the Interstate Compact on Educational
Opportunity for Military Children (sec. 536)........... 126
Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters.... 126
Independent review of judge advocate requirements of the
Department of the Navy (sec. 541)...................... 126
Subtitle F--Military Family Readiness Matters................ 127
Additional members on the Department of Defense Military
Family Readiness Council (sec. 551).................... 127
Comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of substance use disorders and disposition of
substance abuse offenders in the armed forces (sec.
552)................................................... 127
Military community support for children with autism and
their families (sec. 553).............................. 128
Reports on effects of deployments on military children
and the availability of mental health care and
counseling services for military children (sec. 554)... 128
Report on child custody litigation involving service of
members of the armed forces (sec. 555)................. 129
Sense of Senate on preparation and coordination of family
care plans (sec. 556).................................. 130
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 130
Deadline for report on sexual assault in the armed forces
by Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military
Services (sec. 571).................................... 130
Clarification of performance policies for military
musical units and musicians (sec. 572)................. 130
Items of Special Interest.................................... 131
Alaska Territorial Guard................................. 131
Cultural and language proficiency........................ 131
Inspector General review of post-trial processes for
court-martial record preparation and appellate review
within the Department of the Navy...................... 131
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program...................... 133
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 135
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 135
Fiscal year 2010 increase in military basic pay (sec.
601)................................................... 135
Comptroller General of the United States comparative
assessment of military and private-sector pay and
benefits (sec. 602).................................... 135
Increase in maximum monthly amount of supplemental
subsistence allowance for low-income members with
dependents (sec. 603).................................. 135
Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite
Absence program for certain periods before
implementation of program (sec. 604)................... 136
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 136
Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities
for Reserve forces (sec. 611).......................... 136
Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities
for health care professionals (sec. 612)............... 136
Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for
nuclear officers (sec. 613)............................ 137
Extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 137
Extension of authorities relating to payment of other
title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)........... 137
Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral
bonuses (sec. 616)..................................... 137
Special compensation for members of the uniformed
services with combat-related catastrophic injuries or
illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living (sec.
617)................................................... 137
Temporary authority for monthly special pay for members
of the armed forces subject to continuing active duty
or service under stop-loss authorities (sec. 618)...... 138
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 138
Travel and transportation allowances for designated
individuals of wounded, ill, or injured members of the
uniformed services for duration of inpatient treatment
(sec. 631)............................................. 138
Travel and transportation allowances for non-medical
attendants of seriously wounded, ill, or injured
members of the uniformed services (sec. 632)........... 138
Travel and transportation allowances for members of the
Reserve components of the armed forces on leave for
suspension of training (sec. 633)...................... 139
Reimbursement of travel expenses of members of the armed
forces on active duty and their dependents for travel
for specialty care under exceptional circumstances
(sec. 634)............................................. 139
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 139
Authority to continue provision of incentives after
termination of temporary Army authority to provide
additional recruitment incentives (sec. 651)........... 139
Items of Special Interest.................................... 139
Patriot Express.......................................... 139
Travel for active-duty personnel receiving treatment at
Department of Veteran Affairs facilities............... 140
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 141
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program.................................. 141
TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the
Retired Reserve, and family members, who are qualified
for a non-regular retirement but are not yet age 60
(sec. 701)............................................. 141
Expansion of eligibility of survivors under the TRICARE
Dental Program (sec. 702).............................. 141
Constructive eligibility for TRICARE benefits of certain
persons otherwise ineligible under retroactive
determination of entitlement to Medicare Part A
hospital insurance benefits (sec. 703)................. 141
Reform and improvement of the TRICARE program (sec. 704). 142
Comptroller General of the United States report on
implementation of requirements on the relationship
between the TRICARE program and employer-sponsored
group health plans (sec. 705).......................... 143
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits....................... 143
Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces
deployed in connection with a contingency operation
(sec. 711)............................................. 143
Enhancement of transitional dental care for members of
the reserve components on active duty for more than 30
days in support of a contingency operation (sec. 712).. 143
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration....................... 144
Comprehensive policy on pain management by the military
health care system (sec. 721).......................... 144
Plan to increase the behavioral health capabilities of
the Department of Defense (sec. 722)................... 144
Department of Defense study on management of medications
for physically and psychologically wounded members of
the armed forces (sec. 723)............................ 145
Subtitle D--Wounded Warrior Matters.......................... 145
Report on cognitive rehabilitation for members of the
armed forces with traumatic brain injury (sec. 731).... 145
Department of Defense task force on the care, management,
and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured
members of the armed forces (sec. 732)................. 145
Items of Special Interest.................................... 146
Comptroller General study on Department of Defense
efforts to minimize and track military service hearing
loss................................................... 146
Continued Department of Defense and military department
support for suicide prevention......................... 147
Help for wounded, ill, and injured service members....... 148
Report on case management services for TRICARE
beneficiaries with severe mental health conditions..... 149
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 151
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 151
Contract authority for advanced development of prototype
units (sec. 801)....................................... 151
Justification and approval of sole-source contracts (sec.
802)................................................... 151
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 151
Reporting requirements for programs that qualify as both
major automated information system programs and major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 811)................ 151
Funding of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund (sec. 812)............................ 152
Enhancement of expedited hiring authority for defense
acquisition workforce positions (sec. 813)............. 152
Treatment of non-defense agency procurements under joint
programs with the Department of Defense under
limitations on non-defense agency procurements on
behalf of the Department of Defense (sec. 814)......... 152
Comptroller General of the United States report on
training of acquisition and audit personnel of the
Department of Defense (sec. 815)....................... 152
Subtitle C--Contractor Matters............................... 153
Authority for government support contractors to have
access to technical data belonging to prime contractors
(sec. 821)............................................. 153
Extension and enhancement of authorities on the
Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan (sec. 822)................................. 153
Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor
personnel (sec. 823)................................... 153
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 154
Enhanced authority to acquire products and services
produced in Central Asia, Pakistan, and the South
Caucasus (sec. 831).................................... 154
Small arms production industrial base matters (sec. 832). 154
Extension of SBIR and STTR business programs of the
Department of Defense (sec. 833)....................... 154
Expansion and permanent authority for small business
innovation research commercialization program (sec.
834)................................................... 155
Measures to ensure the safety of facilities,
infrastructure, and equipment for military operations
(sec. 835)............................................. 155
Repeal of requirements relating to the military system
essential item breakout list (sec. 836)................ 155
Defense Science Board report on rare earth materials in
the defense supply chain (sec. 837).................... 155
Items of Special Interest.................................... 156
Contractor reimbursement for environmental remediation
costs.................................................. 156
Knowledge management and decision support systems........ 156
Licensing fees for enterprise resource planning software. 157
Performance by private security contractors of certain
functions in an area of combat operations.............. 157
Requirements management for weapon system acquisitions
before milestone B..................................... 158
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 161
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 161
Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and Assistant
Secretaries of Defense (sec. 901)...................... 161
Repeal of certain limitations on personnel and
consolidation of reports on major Department of Defense
headquarters activities (sec. 902)..................... 161
Sense of Senate on the Western Hemisphere Institute for
Security Cooperation (sec. 903)........................ 161
Subtitle B--Space Matters.................................... 162
Provision of space situational awareness services and
information to non-United States Government entities
(sec. 911)............................................. 162
Plan for management and funding of National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite system
program (sec. 912)..................................... 162
Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters............................. 164
Inclusion of Defense Intelligence Agency in authority to
use proceeds from counterintelligence operations (sec.
921)................................................... 164
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 164
United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 931)....... 164
Instruction of private sector employees in cyber security
courses of the Defense Cyber Investigations Training
Academy (sec. 932)..................................... 165
Items of Special Interest.................................... 165
Commercial communications anti-jamming study............. 165
Deep Space Climate Observatory........................... 166
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance task force 167
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 169
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 169
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 169
Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department
of Defense (sec. 1002)................................. 169
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 169
Temporary reduction in minimum number of aircraft
carriers in active service (sec. 1011)................. 169
Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels
of the strike forces of the Unites States Navy (sec.
1012).................................................. 170
Sense of Senate on the maintenance of a 313-ship Navy
(sec. 1013)............................................ 170
Designation of USS Constitution as America's ship of
state (sec. 1014)...................................... 171
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 171
Summary...................................................... 171
High priority National Guard counterdrug programs........ 171
Mobile sensor barrier.................................... 172
United States European Command Counterdrug activities.... 172
Relocatable over-the-horizon radar....................... 172
Fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justification
documents.............................................. 172
Extension and modification of authority to provide
additional support for counter-drug activities of
certain foreign governments (sec. 1021)................ 173
One-year extension of authority for joint task forces
support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities (sec. 1022)....................... 174
One-year extension of authority to support unified
counter-drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia
(sec. 1023)............................................ 174
Subtitle D--Military Commissions............................. 175
Military commissions (sec. 1031)......................... 175
Subtitle E--Medical Facility Matters......................... 176
Medical Facility Matters (sec. 1041-1047)................ 176
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Requirements, Authorities, and
Limitations................................................ 177
Congressional earmarks relating to the Department of
Defense (sec. 1051).................................... 177
National strategic five-year plan for improving the
nuclear forensic and attribution capabilities of the
United States (sec. 1052).............................. 177
One-year extension of authority to offer and make rewards
for assistance in combating terrorism through
government personnel of allied forces (sec. 1053)...... 178
Business process reengineering (sec. 1054)............... 178
Responsibility for preparation of biennial Global
Positioning System report (sec. 1055).................. 178
Additional subpoena authority for the Inspector General
of the Department of Defense (sec. 1056)............... 178
Reports on bandwidth requirements for major defense
acquisition programs and major system acquisition
programs (sec. 1057)................................... 178
Multiyear contracts under pilot program on commercial
fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air Force
(sec. 1058)............................................ 179
Subtitle G--Reports.......................................... 179
National intelligence estimate on nuclear aspirations of
non-state entities and nuclear weapons and related
programs in non-nuclear-weapons states and countries
not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(sec. 1071)............................................ 179
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
military whistleblower protections (sec. 1072)......... 180
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 180
Transfer of Navy aircraft N40VT (sec. 1081).............. 180
Conveyance of Big Crow aircraft (sec. 1082).............. 180
Items of Special Interest.................................... 181
National cyber security initiative....................... 181
Ship decommissioning..................................... 182
Strategic communications and public diplomacy............ 182
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters............................. 185
Repeal of National Security Personnel System; Department
of Defense personnel authorities (sec. 1101)........... 185
Extension and modification of experimental personnel
management program for scientific and technical
personnel (sec. 1102).................................. 185
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1103)............................................ 185
Availability of funds for compensation of certain
civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec.
1104).................................................. 186
Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (sec.
1105).................................................. 186
Review of defense laboratories for participation in
defense laboratory personnel demonstration projects
(sec. 1106)............................................ 186
Item of Special Interest..................................... 187
Utilization of hiring authorities for civilian health
care professionals..................................... 187
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations................... 189
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 189
Increase in unit cost threshold for purchases using
certain funds under the Combatant Commander Initiative
Fund (sec. 1201)....................................... 189
Authority to provide administrative services and support
to coalition liaison officers of certain foreign
nations assigned to Joint Forces Command (sec. 1202)... 189
Modification of authorities relating to program to build
the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1203).... 189
Modification of notification and reporting requirements
for use of authority for support of special operations
to combat terrorism (sec. 1204)........................ 190
Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1205)........................ 191
One-year extension and expansion of Commanders' Emergency
Response Program (sec. 1206)........................... 192
One-year extension of authority for security and
stabilization assistance (sec. 1207)................... 193
Authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense
personnel between the United States and foreign
countries (sec. 1208).................................. 193
Defense cooperation between the United States and Iraq
(sec. 1209)............................................ 194
Report on alternatives to use of acquisition and cross-
servicing agreements to lend military equipment for
personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1210)..... 194
Subtitle B--Reports.......................................... 194
Report on United States engagement with Iran (sec. 1221). 194
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 195
Sense of Congress on establishment of measures of
progress to evaluate United States strategic objectives
in Afghanistan and Pakistan (sec. 1231)................ 195
Items of Special Interest.................................... 195
China's use of nonmilitary warfare concepts.............. 195
Recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia.......... 195
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction......................... 197
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
and funds (sec. 1301).................................. 197
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 197
Authority to enter into agreements to receive
contributions for Biological Threat Reduction program
(sec. 1303)............................................ 198
Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction
program funds for bilateral and multilateral
nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 1304) 198
Title XIV--Other Authorizations.................................. 201
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 201
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 201
Extension of previously authorized disposal of cobalt
from National Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411)............ 201
Authorization for actions to correct the industrial
resource shortfall for high-purity beryllium metal in
amounts not in excess of $80,000,000 (sec. 1412)....... 201
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 201
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................ 201
Budget Items................................................. 202
T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship.......................... 202
Defense Coalition Support Fund........................... 202
Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding.. 202
Medical products sustainment............................. 203
Breast Cancer Center of Excellence....................... 203
Department of Defense Inspector General.................. 203
Title XV--Overseas Contingency Operations........................ 205
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 205
Army procurement (sec. 1502)............................. 205
Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503)............ 205
Air Force procurement (sec. 1504)........................ 205
Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1505).......... 205
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1506).. 205
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1507).................... 205
Military personnel (sec. 1508)........................... 205
Working capital funds (sec. 1509)........................ 205
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)....................... 206
Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1511)....................................... 206
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1512).................... 206
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513)....... 206
Funding tables (sec. 1514)............................... 206
Special transfer authority (sec. 1515)................... 206
Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund (sec. 1516)....................... 206
Availability of funds in Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
(sec. 1517)............................................ 206
Budget Items................................................. 207
Single channel ground to air radio systems family........ 207
Force XXI battle command brigade and below............... 207
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 207
MQ-9 Reaper modifications................................ 209
Commanders' Emergency Response Program................... 209
Human terrain teams...................................... 209
Information Dominance Center............................. 209
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund.......................... 210
Division B Military Construction Authorizations.................. 211
Summary.................................................. 211
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 211
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 211
Effective date (sec. 2003)............................... 212
Funding tables (sec. 2004)............................... 212
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 213
Summary.................................................. 213
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 214
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 214
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 214
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........ 214
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006
projects (sec. 2105)................................... 214
Item of Special Interest..................................... 215
Cooperative security location in Manta, Ecuador.......... 215
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 217
Summary.................................................. 217
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 217
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 217
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 217
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 218
Modification and extension of authority to carry out
certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 2205).......... 218
Budget Item.................................................. 218
Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa................. 218
Items of Special Interest.................................... 219
Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam. 219
Secretary of the Navy report on an outlying landing field 220
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 223
Summary.................................................. 223
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 224
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 224
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 224
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 224
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007
projects (sec. 2305)................................... 224
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006
projects (sec. 2306)................................... 224
Temporary prohibition on use of funds for military
construction improvements, Palanquero Air Base,
Colombia (sec. 2307)................................... 225
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 227
Summary.................................................. 227
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 228
Authorized defense agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 228
Family housing (sec. 2402)............................... 228
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403)................. 228
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec.
2404).................................................. 228
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2008 projects (sec. 2405)......................... 228
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2009 projects (sec. 2406)......................... 228
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007
projects (sec. 2407)................................... 228
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 229
Authorization of appropriations, chemical
demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411) 229
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 231
Summary.................................................. 231
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 231
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 231
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 233
Summary.................................................. 233
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 233
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 233
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 233
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 233
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 233
Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec.
2606).................................................. 234
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007
projects (sec. 2607)................................... 234
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006
projects (sec. 2608)................................... 234
Title XXVII--Base Closure and Realignment Activities............. 235
Summary.................................................. 235
Authorization of appropriations for base closure and
realignment activities funded through Department of
Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701).......... 235
Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded
through Department of Defense base closure account 2005
(sec. 2702)............................................ 235
Authorization of appropriations for base closure and
realignment activities funded through Department of
Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703).......... 235
Report on global defense posture realignment and
interagency review (sec. 2704)......................... 236
Sense of the Senate on need for community assistance
related to base closures and realignments and force
repositioning (sec. 2705).............................. 236
Relocation of certain Army Reserve units in Connecticut
(sec. 2706)............................................ 237
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions........... 239
Military construction and land acquisition projects
authorized by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (sec. 2801)....................................... 239
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 239
Extension of authority to use operation and maintenance
funds for construction projects inside the United
States Central Command and United States Africa Command
areas of responsibility (sec. 2811).................... 239
Modification of authority for scope of work variations
(sec. 2812)............................................ 239
Modification of conveyance authority at military
installations (sec. 2813).............................. 239
Two-year extension of authority for pilot projects for
acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied
housing (sec. 2814).................................... 240
Subtitle B--Energy Security.................................. 240
Report on Department of Defense efforts toward
installation of solar panels and other renewable energy
projects on military installations (sec. 2821)......... 240
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 240
Land conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia (sec.
2831).................................................. 240
Items of Special Interest.................................... 240
Incrementally funded programs............................ 240
Report on long-term strategy to accommodate force
structure initiative implementation at military
installations.......................................... 241
Title XXIX--Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction
Authorizations................................................. 243
Summary.................................................. 243
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2901)................................... 243
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2902)................................... 243
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 245
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 245
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 245
Overview................................................. 245
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 246
Weapons activities................................... 246
Directed stockpile work.............................. 246
Campaigns............................................ 246
Readiness in the technical base...................... 247
Secure transportation asset.......................... 248
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response........... 248
Safeguards and security.............................. 248
Facilities and infrastructure........................ 248
Site stewardship..................................... 248
Support to intelligence.............................. 248
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............ 249
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development........................................ 249
Nonproliferation and international security.......... 249
Fissile materials disposition........................ 250
Global threat reduction initiative................... 251
International nuclear fuel bank...................... 251
Naval reactors....................................... 251
Office of the Administrator.......................... 251
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 251
Waste Treatment Plant.................................... 252
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 252
Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)............... 253
Funding table (sec. 3105)................................ 253
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 253
Nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec.
3111).................................................. 253
Elimination of nuclear weapons life extension program
from exception to requirement to request funds in
budget of the President (sec. 3112).................... 254
Repeal of reliable replacement warhead program (sec.
3113).................................................. 254
Authorization of use of International Nuclear Materials
Protection and Cooperation program funds for bilateral
and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament
activities (sec. 3114)................................. 254
Repeal of prohibition on funding activities associated
with international cooperative stockpile stewardship
(sec. 3115)............................................ 254
Modification of minor construction threshold for plant
projects (sec. 3116)................................... 254
Two-year extension of authority for appointment of
certain scientific, engineering, and technical
personnel (sec. 3117).................................. 255
Repeal of sunset date for consolidation of
counterintelligence programs of Department of Energy
and National Nuclear Security Administration (sec.
3118).................................................. 255
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 255
Ten-year plan for utilization and funding of certain
Department of Energy facilities (sec. 3131)............ 255
Review of management and operation of certain national
laboratories (sec. 3132)............................... 255
Inclusion in 2010 stockpile stewardship plan of certain
information relating to stockpile stewardship criteria
(sec. 3133)............................................ 256
Comptroller General of the United States review of
projects carried out by the Office of Environmental
Management of the Department of Energy pursuant to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec.
3134).................................................. 256
Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain
Department of Energy pension obligations (sec. 3135)... 257
Item of Special Interest................................. 257
W-76..................................................... 257
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 259
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 259
Title XXXIII--Maritime Administration............................ 261
Maritime Administration (sec. 3301)...................... 261
Division D--Funding Tables....................................... 263
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 263
Item of Special Interest................................. 263
Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate................................................. 263
Title XLI--Procurement........................................... 265
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 265
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 265
Title XLII--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.......... 267
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 267
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations(sec. 4202)...................... 267
Title XLIII--Operation and Maintenance........................... 269
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 269
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 269
Title XLIV--Other Authorizations................................. 271
Other authorizations (sec. 4401)......................... 271
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 271
Title XLV--Military Construction................................. 273
Military construction (sec. 4501)........................ 273
2005 base realignment and closure round FY 2010 project
listing (sec. 4502).................................... 273
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act military
construction (sec. 4503)............................... 273
Military construction for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4504)............................................ 274
Title XLVI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 275
Department of Energy national security programs
(sec.4601)............................................. 275
Legislative Requirements......................................... 275
Departmental Recommendations............................. 275
Committee Action......................................... 275
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 276
Regulatory Impact........................................ 277
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 277
Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate................................................. 278
Additional Views................................................. 325
Additional views of Mr. Chambliss........................ 236
Additional views of Mr. Thune............................ 326
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-35
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
July 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Levin, from the Committee on Armed Services,submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1390]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends that the
bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2010;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2010;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2010;
(4) impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2010; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2010.
Committee overview
The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed
conflict for more than 7 years--7\1/2\ years in Afghanistan and
6 years in Iraq. Whether engaged in combat in Afghanistan or
Iraq, delivering humanitarian assistance to victims of
disasters, training foreign national forces to combat terrorism
in their own countries, or assisting State and federal agencies
responding to emergencies here at home, the men and women of
our armed forces, both active and reserve, are serving
honorably and courageously to promote and defend our Nation's
interests. They do so often at great personal risk and
significant sacrifice to themselves and their families.
After more than 7 years of war, our military, particularly
our ground forces, is severely stressed and the readiness of
the military services to conduct the full range of their
assigned missions is low.
The administration has revised the overall strategy for the
war in Afghanistan to encompass a more regional approach,
including in particular a greater emphasis on Pakistan.
Additional U.S. forces are being deployed to Afghanistan and a
new American general has taken over as the U.S. and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Commander, with the promise of a
change in operational strategy and tactics for conducting the
war.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense announced, and the
President approved, a series of decisions relating to the
budget for Fiscal Year 2010 that are based upon an increased
emphasis on irregular war, implementing lessons learned in
Iraq, terminating troubled acquisition programs, and delaying
programs for which requirements are not yet defined.
To date in this First Session of the 111th Congress, the
Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 35 hearings
and numerous briefings on the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2010 and related defense matters, as well as six
nomination hearings. The committee's early focus on acquisition
reform resulted in the enactment into law of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23).
In order to provide a framework for the consideration of
these matters, the committee identified seven guidelines to
guide its work on the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010. These guidelines are:
1. Provide fair compensation and first rate health
care, address the needs of the wounded, ill and
injured, and improve the quality of life of the men and
women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National
Guard and Reserves) and their families.
2. Provide our servicemen and women with the
resources, training, technology, equipment (especially
force protection) and authorities they need to succeed
in combat and stability operations.
3. Enhance the capability of the armed forces to
conduct counterinsurgency operations and apply the
lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan, as appropriate.
4. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter
nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery.
5. Seek to reduce our Nation's strategic risk by
taking action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible,
the readiness of the military services to conduct the
full range of their assigned missions.
6. Terminate troubled programs and activities,
improve efficiencies, and apply the savings to higher-
priority programs.
7. Ensure aggressive and thorough oversight of the
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with
relevant laws and regulations.
Explanation of funding summary
The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2010 was $680.2
billion. Of this amount $550.2 billion was for the so-called
``base'' budget of which $533.8 billion was for the Department
of Defense and $16.4 billion was for the Department of Energy.
The discretionary budget request included $130.0 billion for
overseas contingency operations. In total, the bill authorizes
$679.8 billion, which is slightly below the request. The bill
authorizes $551.1 billion for the base budget and $129.3
billion for overseas contingency operations. The bill also
includes a general reduction of $500.0 million in Division A
and Division B authorizations for management efficiencies.
The administration's budget for national defense also
included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that
do not require further authorizations, mandatory programs that
are part of current law, and a new mandatory proposal dealing
with concurrent receipt. When these programs are added to the
administration's budget the total request for national defense
equals $693.1 billion as re-estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office. The bill is consistent with this level with the
exception that it does not include the concurrent receipt
proposal as the proposed offsets were not within the
jurisdiction of the committee.
The following two tables summarize the direct
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2010 defense programs. The first table summarizes
committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction
of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending
from the trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home which
is outside the national defense budget function. The second
table summarizes the total budget authority implication for
national defense by adding funding for items that are not
within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not
require an annual authorization.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Senate Senate
Request Change Authorization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Department of Defense
Authorizations--Base Bill
Division A: Department of
Defense Authorization
Title I--PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army.. 5,315,991 -171,100 5,144,891
Missile Procurement, Army... 1,370,109 5,000 1,375,109
Weapons & Tracked Combat 2,451,952 2,451,952
Vehicles, Army.............
Procurement of Ammunition, 2,051,895 8,000 2,059,895
Army.......................
Other Procurement, Army..... 9,907,151 -289,160 9,617,991
Joint Improvised Explosive 564,850 -564,850
Device Defeat Fund.........
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.. 18,378,312 277,100 18,655,412
Weapons Procurement, Navy... 3,453,455 62,000 3,515,455
Procurement of Ammunition, 840,675 840,675
Navy & Marine Corps........
Shipbuilding & Conversion, 13,776,867 13,776,867
Navy.......................
Other Procurement, Navy..... 5,661,176 -66,000 5,595,176
Procurement, Marine Corps... 1,600,638 1,600,638
Aircraft Procurement, Air 11,966,276 1,111,600 13,077,876
Force......................
Missile Procurement, Air 6,300,728 -193,000 6,107,728
Force......................
Procurement of Ammunition, 822,462 822,462
Air Force..................
Other Procurement, Air Force 17,293,141 -47,800 17,245,341
Procurement, Defense-Wide... 3,984,352 65,700 4,050,052
Mine Resistant Ambush 1,200,000 1,200,000
Protection Veh Fund........
Rapid Acquisition Fund...... 79,300 79,300
Defense Production Act [38,246]
Purchases\1\...............
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT....... 105,819,330 1,397,490 107,216,820
Title II--RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVALUATION
RDT&E, Army................. 10,438,218 424,785 10,863,003
RDT&E, Navy................. 19,270,932 326,764 19,597,696
RDT&E, Air Force............ 27,992,827 701,125 28,693,952
RDT&E, Defense-Wide......... 20,741,542 -186,272 20,555,270
Operational Test & 190,770 190,770
Evaluation, Defense........
Subtotal, RESEARCH, 78,634,289 1,266,402 79,900,691
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVALUATION.................
Title III--OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, 31,274,882 -342,000 30,932,882
Army.......................
Operation and Maintenance, 35,070,346 819,700 35,890,046
Navy.......................
Operation and Maintenance, 5,536,223 11,000 5,547,223
Marine Corps...............
Operation and Maintenance, 34,748,159 -694,600 34,053,559
Air Force..................
Operation and Maintenance, 28,357,246 -711,249 27,645,997
Defense-wide...............
Operation and Maintenance, 2,620,196 3,600 2,623,796
Army Reserve...............
Operation and Maintenance, 1,278,501 1,278,501
Navy Reserve...............
Operation and Maintenance, 228,925 228,925
Marine Corps Reserve.......
Operation and Maintenance, 3,079,228 3,079,228
Air Force Reserve..........
Operation and Maintenance, 6,257,034 3,600 6,260,634
Army National Guard........
Operation and Maintenance, 5,885,761 2,700 5,888,461
Air National Guard.........
US Court of Appeals for the 13,932 13,932
Armed Forces, Defense......
Defense Acquisition 100,000 100,000
Development Workforce Fund.
Overseas Humanitarian, 109,869 109,869
Disaster and Civic Aid.....
Cooperative Threat Reduction 404,093 20,000 424,093
Environmental Restoration, 415,864 415,864
Army.......................
Environmental Restoration, 285,869 285,869
Navy.......................
Environmental Restoration, 494,276 494,276
Air Force..................
Environmental Restoration, 11,100 11,100
Defense-Wide...............
Environmental Restoration 267,700 267,700
Formerly Used Sites........
Overseas Contingency 5,000 5,000
Operations Transfer Fund...
Subtotal, OPERATION AND 156,444,204 -887,249 155,556,955
MAINTENANCE................
Title IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL 136,016,281 -400,000 135,616,281
Title XIV--OTHER
AUTHORIZATIONS
Defense Working Capital 141,388 141,388
Funds......................
Defense Commissary Agency... 1,313,616 1,313,616
National Defense Sealift 1,642,758 -400,000 1,242,758
Fund.......................
Defense Coalition Support 22,000 -22,000
Fund.......................
Defense Health Program...... 27,903,163 10,700 27,913,863
Chemical Agents & Munitions 1,560,760 1,560,760
Destruction, Defense.......
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 1,058,984 18,800 1,077,784
Drug Activities, Defense...
Office of the Inspector 272,444 16,000 288,444
General....................
Subtotal, OTHER 33,915,113 -376,500 33,538,613
AUTHORIZATIONS.............
Division B: Military
Construction Authorization
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army. 3,660,779 -194,633 3,466,146
Military Construction, Navy 3,763,264 -224,493 3,538,771
and Marine Corps...........
Military Construction, Air 1,145,434 32,350 1,177,784
Force......................
Military Construction, 3,097,526 -241,399 2,856,127
Defense-Wide...............
Chemical Demilitarization 146,541 5,000 151,541
Construction...............
NATO Security Investment 276,314 276,314
Program....................
Military Construction, Army 426,491 55,282 481,773
National Guard.............
Military Construction, Army 374,862 3,850 378,712
Reserve....................
Military Construction, Naval 64,124 64,124
Reserve....................
Military Construction, Air 128,261 173,100 301,361
National Guard.............
Military Construction, Air 27,476 18,100 45,576
Force Reserve..............
Subtotal, MILITARY 13,111,072 -372,843 12,738,229
CONSTRUCTION...............
FAMILY HOUSING
Family Housing Construction, 273,236 273,236
Army.......................
Family Housing O&M, Army.... 523,418 523,418
Family Housing Construction, 146,569 146,569
Navy & Marine Corps........
Family Housing O&M, Navy & 368,540 368,540
Marine Corps...............
Family Housing Construction, 66,101 66,101
Air Force..................
Family Housing O&M, Air 502,936 502,936
Force......................
Family Housing Construction, 2,859 2,859
Defense-Wide...............
Family Housing O&M, Defense- 49,214 49,214
Wide.......................
Homeowners Assistance Fund.. 23,225 350,000 373,225
DoD Family Housing 2,600 2,600
Improvement Fund...........
Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING.... 1,958,698 350,000 2,308,698
BRAC
Base Realignment and Closure 396,768 396,768
Account 1990...............
Base Realignment and Closure 7,479,498 7,479,498
Account 2005...............
Subtotal, BRAC.............. 7,876,266 7,876,266
Prior Year Savings.......... -112,500 -112,500
Subtotal, MILITARY 22,946,036 -135,343 22,810,693
CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY
HOUSING & BRAC.............
General Transfer Authority [5,000,000] [-1,000,000] [4,000,000]
(non-add)..................
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 533,775,253 864,800 534,640,053
DEFENSE (051)..............
Division C: Department of
Energy Authorization
Electricity Delivery and 6,188 -6,188
Energy Reliability.........
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities.......... 6,384,431 106,188 6,490,619
Defense Nuclear 2,136,709 2,136,709
Nonproliferation...........
Naval Reactors.............. 1,003,133 1,003,133
Office of the Administrator. 420,754 420,754
Subtotal NATIONAL NUCLEAR 9,945,027 106,188 10,051,215
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION....
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental 5,495,831 -100,000 5,395,831
Cleanup....................
Other Defense Activities.... 852,468 852,468
Defense Nuclear Waste 98,400 98,400
Disposal...................
Subtotal ENVIRONMENTAL AND 6,446,699 -100,000 6,346,699
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. 16,397,914 16,397,914
Independent Federal Agency
Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities 26,086 26,086
Safety Board...............
Subtotal, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 26,086 26,086
FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD....
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 16,424,000 16,424,000
DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).....
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 550,199,253 864,800 551,064,053
(050)--BASE BILL...........
Department of Defense Authorizations--Overseas Contingency Operations
Division A: Department of
Defense Authorization
Title XV--OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
(OCO)
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army.. 1,636,229 1,636,229
Missile Procurement, Army... 531,570 531,570
Procurement of WTCV, Army... 759,466 759,466
Procurement of Ammunition, 370,635 370,635
Army.......................
Other Procurement, Army..... 6,225,966 104,000 6,329,966
Joint Improvised Explosive 1,535,000 564,850 2,099,850
Device Defeat Fund.........
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.. 916,553 916,553
Weapons Procurement, Navy... 73,700 73,700
Procurement of Ammunition, 710,780 710,780
Navy and MC................
Other Procurement, Navy..... 318,018 318,018
Procurement, Marine Corps... 1,164,445 1,164,445
Aircraft Procurement, Air 936,441 -40,000 896,441
Force......................
Missile Procurement, AF..... 36,625 36,625
Procurement of Ammunition, 256,819 256,819
AF.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force 2,321,549 2,321,549
Procurement, Defense-Wide... 491,430 491,430
Mine Resistant Ambush 5,456,000 5,456,000
Protected Vehicle Fund.....
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO.. 23,741,226 628,850 24,370,076
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVALUATION...............
RDT&E, Army................. 57,962 57,962
RDT&E, Navy................. 107,180 107,180
RDT&E, Air Force............ 29,286 29,286
RDT&E, Defense-Wide......... 115,826 115,826
Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO........ 310,254 310,254
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation & Maintenance, 52,170,661 -100,000 52,070,661
Army.......................
Operation & Maintenance, 6,219,583 -568,850 5,650,733
Navy.......................
Operation & Maintenance, 3,701,600 3,701,600
Marine Corps...............
Operation & Maintenance, Air 10,026,868 10,026,868
Force......................
Operation & Maintenance, 7,578,300 7,578,300
Defense-Wide...............
Operation & Maintenance, 204,326 204,326
Army Reserve...............
Operation & Maintenance, 68,059 68,059
Navy Reserve...............
Operation & Maintenance, 86,667 86,667
Marine Corps Reserve.......
Operation & Maintenance, Air 125,925 125,925
Force Reserve..............
Operation & Maintenance, 321,646 321,646
Army National Guard........
Operation & Maintenance, Air 289,862 289,862
National Guard.............
Afghanistan Security Forces 7,462,769 7,462,769
Fund.......................
Pakistan Counterinsurgency 700,000 -700,000
Capability Fund............
Iraq Freedom Fund........... 115,300 115,300
Subtotal, OPERATION AND 89,071,566 -1,368,850 87,702,716
MAINTENANCE, OCO...........
MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO..... 13,586,341 13,586,341
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Defense Working Capital 396,915 396,915
Funds......................
Defense Health Program...... 1,155,235 1,155,235
Drug Interdiction and 324,603 324,603
Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense....................
Office of the Inspector 8,876 8,876
General....................
Subtotal, OTHER 1,885,629 1,885,629
AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO........
Special Transfer Authority [4,000,000] [500,000] [4,500,000]
(non-add)..................
Division B: Military
Construction Authorization
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army. 923,884 6,600 930,484
Military Construction, Air 474,500 474,500
Force......................
Military Construction, 6,600 -6,600
Defense-Wide...............
Subtotal, MILITARY 1,404,984 1,404,984
CONSTRUCTION, OCO..........
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 130,000,000 -740,000 129,260,000
OPERATIONS.................
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 663,775,253 124,800 663,900,053
Reduction in Authorizations -500,000 -500,000
for Management Efficiencies
(Divisions A and B)........
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL 680,199,253 -375,200 679,824,053
DEFENSE....................
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION
Title IV--Armed Forces 134,000 134,000
Retirement Home (Function
600).......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Defense Production Act Purchases are not in the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee (see Budget Implication).
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Senate Senate
Request Change Authorization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 533,775,253 864,800 534,640,053
DEFENSE (051)..............
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 16,424,000 16,424,000
DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).....
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 550,199,253 864,800 551,064,053
(050)--BASE BILL...........
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 130,000,000 -740,000 129,260,000
OPERATIONS.................
Reduction in Authorizations -500,000 -500,000
for Management Efficiencies
(Divisions A and B)........
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL 680,199,253 -375,200 679,824,053
DEFENSE
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are not in the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or do not require
additional authorization
Defense Production Act 38,246 38,246
Purchases..................
National Science Center, 25 25
Army.......................
Disposal Of DOD Real 10,393 10,393
Property...................
Lease Of DOD Real Property.. 8,856 8,856
DOD Overseas Military 1,227 1,227
Facility Investment
Recovery...................
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 58,747 58,747
Function (051).............
Formerly Utilized Sites 134,000 134,000
Remedial Action Program....
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 134,000 134,000
Function (053).............
Other Discretionary Programs 6,751,000 6,751,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 6,751,000 6,751,000
Function (054).............
Total Defense Discretionary 6,943,747 6,943,747
Adjustments (050)
OCO National Defense Discretionary Programs that are not in the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee
FBI Salaries and Expenses... 101,066 101,066
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 101,066 101,066
Function (054)
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense-- 663,834,000 -375,200 663,458,800
Military (051).............
Atomic Energy Defense 16,558,000 16,558,000
Activities (053)...........
Defense-Related Activities 6,852,066 6,852,066
(054)......................
Total BA Implication, 687,244,066 -375,200 686,868,866
National Defense
Discretionary
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Concurrent receipt accrual 4,376,000 4,376,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund............
Concurrent receipt policy 330,000 -330,000
proposal...................
Revolving, trust and other 1,240,000 1,240,000
DOD Mandatory..............
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 4,205,000 -330,000 3,875,000
Function (051).............
Energy employees 1,377,000 1,377,000
occupational illness
compensation programs and
other......................
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 1,377,000 1,377,000
Function (053).............
Radiation exposure 32,000 32,000
compensation trust fund....
Payment to CIA retirement 291,000 291,000
fund and other.............
Subtotal, Budget Sub- 323,000 323,000
Function (054).............
Total National Defense 5,905,000 -330,000 5,575,000
Mandatory (050)
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory
Department of Defense-- 668,039,000 -705,200 667,333,800
Military (051).............
Atomic Energy Defense 17,935,000 17,935,000
Activities (053)...........
Defense-Related Activities 7,175,066 7,175,066
(054)......................
Total BA Implication, 693,149,066 -705,200 692,443,866
National Defense
Discretionary and Mandatory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle B--Navy Programs
Treatment of Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense
acquisition program (sec. 111)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department to manage and report on the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) program as a major defense acquisition program (MDAP).
The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-23) emphasizes the need to start acquisition programs
on sure footing as a central mechanism by which the Department
of Defense (DOD) can get control of cost growth and schedule
slippage on MDAP programs. The cost and schedule reporting
requirements in chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code,
play a key role in ensuring that the Department and Congress
are aware of emerging problems in such programs.
The Navy was able to avoid this oversight in the case of
the LCS program by claiming that the program was just to build
a handful of ships to test their capabilities and then see what
the Navy wanted to build later. From the outset of the LCS
program, however, program proponents within the Navy, including
all three Chiefs of Naval Operations in office during the
development of the LCS program, have invariably called this a
55-ship program. Some officials have even suggested that it
might grow to be larger than that. The Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 amended section 2430 of title
10, United States Code, to ensure that the Department include
future program spirals in assessing whether a program should
fall within the definition of a MDAP. That modification alone
should cause DOD to define LCS as a MDAP, but the committee
recommends this provision to remove any discretion in treating
this program.
Had the Navy leadership been operating within the spirit of
the title 10, United States Code, provisions regarding MDAPS,
LCS would have fallen under the management and reporting
requirements required for MDAPs.
No one can say that MDAP oversight would have prevented the
problems of poor requirements generation, poor requirements
control, poor program oversight, insufficient supervision of
program execution, and abysmal cost estimating. However, when a
program is expected to cost roughly $12.0 billion (even under
the rosiest cost scenario), it should be subject to the
requirements development, cost estimating, acquisition
planning, and other requirements established in statute and
regulation for the beginning of MDAP programs. Otherwise, we
will have little chance of fixing such programs after they fall
into trouble, and DOD will never be able to get control of its
acquisition problems.
Report on strategic plan for homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship (sec.
112)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to report on the Navy's strategic plan
for homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship on the east coast and
west coast of the United States.
Procurement programs for future naval surface combatants (sec. 113)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
Navy from obligating any funds for building surface combatants
after 2011 until the Navy conducts particular analyses, and
completes certain tasks that should be required at the
beginning of major defense acquisition programs (MDAP).
For at least the past couple of years, the Navy's strategy
for modernizing the major surface combatants in the fleet has
been in upheaval. The Navy was adamant that the next generation
cruiser had to begin construction in the 2011-2012 timeframe.
After 15 years of consistent, unequivocal support of the
uniformed Navy for the fire support requirement, and for the
DDG-1000 destroyer that was intended to meet that requirement
(i.e., gun fire support for Marine Corps or Army forces
ashore), the Navy leadership, in the middle of last year,
decided that they should truncate the DDG-1000 destroyer
program and buy DDG-51 destroyers instead.
The Defense Department has announced that the Navy will
complete construction of the three DDG-1000 vessels and will
build three DDG-51 destroyers, one in fiscal year 2010 and two
in fiscal year 2011. Beyond that, the plan is less well
defined, and includes building only a notional ``future surface
combatant,'' with requirements, capabilities, and costs to be
determined.
Notwithstanding Navy protests to the contrary, this was
mainly due to the Navy's affordability concerns. The committee
notes with no little irony that this sudden change of heart on
the DDG-1000 program is at odds with its own consistent
testimony that ``stability'' in the shipbuilding programs is
fundamental to controlling costs and protecting the industrial
base.
The Navy claims the change of heart on the DDG-1000 program
was related to an emerging need for additional missile defense
capability that would be provided by DDG-51s and is being
requested by the combatant commanders, and would be used to
protect carrier battle groups against new threats.
The committee certainly believes that the services should
have the ability to change course as the long-term situation
dictates. However, since we are talking about the long-term and
hundreds of billions of dollars of development and production
costs for MDAPs, the committee believes that the Defense
Department should exercise greater rigor in making sure such
course corrections are made with full understanding of the
alternatives and the implications of such decisions, rather
than relying on inputs from a handful of individuals. The
committee has only to look at the decision-making behind the
major course correction in Navy shipbuilding that yielded the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to be concerned by that prospect.
Before deciding on a course of action regarding acquisition
of surface combatants after 2011, we collectively have time to
perform the due diligence that should be and must be performed
at the beginning of any MDAP. That is what this section will
ensure.
In addition, in order to deter any delaying action on
conducting and completing the activities required by this
section before 2011, the committee directs that the Secretary
of the Navy obligate no more than 50 percent of the funds
authorized for fiscal year 2010 in PE 24201N, CG(X), until the
Navy submits a plan for implementing the requirements of this
section to the congressional defense committees.
Report on a service life extension program for Oliver Hazard Perry-
class frigates (sec. 114)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to report on a potential service life
extension program (SLEP) for the Oliver Hazard Perry-class
frigates, to include: (1) costs and schedules for a program,
and shipyards capable of conducting such a program; (2) a
detailed plan for achieving a 313-ship fleet; (3) the strategic
plan for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to fulfill roles and
missions currently performed by Oliver Hazard Perry-class
frigates; (4) the strategic plan for LCS if a SLEP were
performed on Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates; and (5) a
description of the manner in which the Navy has been meeting
the needs of United States Southern Command during the past 5
years.
Subtitle C--Air Force Matters
Limitation on retirement of C-5 aircraft (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
Air Force from retiring any C-5 aircraft until certain
conditions are met. These include: (1) completing operational
testing of the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining
Program; (2) providing a report by the Director of Operational
Testing on the results of that operational testing; and (3)
delivering reports on the economic and risk analyses that led
to any decision to retire the aircraft before the end of their
useful service lives.
Revised availability of certain funds available for the F-22A fighter
aircraft (sec. 122)
In section 134 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), Congress authorized
$523.0 million in funds for F-22A advance procurement, but
prohibited obligation of more than $140.0 million of that
amount until the President certified to the congressional
defense committees that: (1) the procurement of F-22A fighter
aircraft is in the national interest of the United States; or
(2) the termination of the production line for F-22A fighter
aircraft is in the national interest of the United States. The
certification was required to be submitted before March 1,
2009.
The President made no such certification. The Department
has determined that, since the President did not make a
determination under section 134 of Public Law 110-417, the
remaining $383.0 million is unavailable for obligation.
The President's budget request includes a proposal to
terminate production for the F-22A and includes no funds for
additional F-22A aircraft. The budget request also includes a
request for $95.2 million to fund various activities related to
the F-22A production line, and $350.7 million to purchase and
install various modifications for the F-22A fleet.
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) repeal
section 134 of Public Law 110-417 to lower the fence around the
$383.0 million that might have been used for advance
procurement; and (2) allow the Secretary of the Air Force to
reallocate those funds for other priorities. Lowering that
fence would allow the Secretary to use these fiscal year 2009
funds to pay for fiscal year 2010 F-22A funding needs. The
committee believes that, subsequent to action on the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32) the
Air Force should have $383.0 million available for such
purposes.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $383.0
million to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, with $350.7 million
of that amount applied to the F-22A modifications request, and
$32.3 million applied to the full funding line.
Report on potential foreign military sales of the F-22A fighter
aircraft (sec. 123)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, and in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force,
to report on: (1) the costs of developing an exportable version
of the F-22A; (2) an assessment of whether such development is
technically feasible, and if so, how long it would take; (3) an
assessment of the strategic implications of permitting foreign
sales of the F-22A; (4) an assessment of the potential impact
of foreign sales on the domestic aerospace industry; and (5)
any changes in law that would be required to permit such sales.
Next generation bomber aircraft (sec. 124)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
series of findings with respect to the next-generation bomber
and that would declare that it is the policy of the United
States to support a development program for next-generation
bomber technologies.
On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates announced that the United
States ``will not pursue a development program for a follow-on
Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the
need, the requirement, and technology.'' Subsequent to this
announcement, commanders of the United States Strategic
Command, the United States Pacific Command, and the United
States Joint Forces Command all testified before the committee
that the capability that a next-generation bomber would provide
will be needed in the future.
The committee understands that discussion on a next-
generation bomber will occur in the context of the Quadrennial
Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review, which will
inform the fiscal year 2011 budget deliberations.
Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Modification of nature of data link utilizable by tactical unmanned
aerial vehicles (sec. 131)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 141 of The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), which mandates that all
Department of Defense (DOD) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
utilize data links from the Common Data Link family. The
recommended provision would establish Internet Protocol-capable
communications relays as an additional standard for DOD UAVs.
The committee believes this change is necessary because new
requirements exist for communications relays that are Internet
Protocol-capable and that support mobile ad hoc networking,
range extension, and point to multi-point networking, as well
as interoperability between Joint Tactical Radio System air-
and surface-domain waveforms, which are capabilities not
previously available with the Common Data Link.
Budget Items
Army
Extended range multi-purpose Sky Warrior
The budget request included $651.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), to procure 36 MQ-1C extended range
multi-purpose (ERMP) Sky Warrior unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
in the Overseas Contingency Operations account and the base
budget request. The Government Accountability Office reports,
as is confirmed in the APA budget exhibits, that only 24 of
these 36 aircraft will be delivered over a single year period,
and that, therefore, the budget request reflects substantial
forward funding. The committee strongly supports the ERMP
program, but agrees that the Army should budget only for a
single year's worth of aircraft production and deliveries. The
committee recommends a reduction to the request of 12 ERMP
aircraft and $200.0 million.
CH-47 multiyear procurement execution
The budget request included $1,001.3 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), for the purchase of CH-47 Chinook
cargo helicopters. The Army informed the committee that funds
requested are insufficient to support the multiyear procurement
contract. The committee recommends a decrease of $22.0 million
in APA, line 22 for the modification of CH-47 Chinook
helicopters and an increase of $22.0 million in APA, line 13 to
support CH-47 Chinook multiyear procurement.
Apache AH-64 fuselage manufacturing
The budget request included $426.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for Apache AH-64 helicopter
modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5
million in APA to procure one set of the special tooling
required to qualify a domestic source for the manufacture of
the Apache AH-64 fuselage.
Blackhawk UH-60A conversion to UH-60L
The budget request included $66.7 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for utility helicopter modifications.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.4 million in APA to
accelerate the conversion of older UH-60A model aircraft to the
newer, more capable UH-60L model.
Air warrior ensemble generation III
The budget request included $52.7 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for aircrew integrated systems. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in APA for air
warrior ensemble generation III systems.
Patriot command and control modifications
The budget request included $44.8 million in Missile
Procurement, Army, for modification of Patriot missile systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to modify
the Patriot Tactical Command System/Battery Command Post to
meet the threshold requirements of the Patriot Advanced
Capability 3 system. This upgrade will help improve the Patriot
system capability until the follow-on Medium Extended Air
Defense System is fielded.
60mm mortars Army
The budget request included $21.6 million in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA) for 60mm mortars, all types. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PAA for the
procurement of additional mortars.
Bomb line modernization
The budget request included $151.9 million in Procurement
of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial
facilities, but provided no funds for bomb line modernization
at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PAA for bomb line
modernization.
Mine protection vehicle family
The budget request includes $134.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for 93 medium mine protected vehicles
(MMPV). The committee notes that mine resistant ambush
protected (MRAP) category 2 (Cat II) vehicles, of which the
Army currently has approximately 2,000 in its inventory, and
which have not yet been incorporated into Army doctrine,
organization, or materiel, meet the Army's requirement for a
medium mine protected vehicle. The committee is aware that,
instead of deploying with vehicles organic to their formations,
engineer and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units receive
Cat II vehicles in theater. Therefore, the committee believes
that procuring 93 more of an eventual 443 new Cat II MRAP
vehicles which would principally be used for training, is
imprudent, especially in light of the draw-down in forces from
Iraq and the future availability of excess MRAP vehicles.
In the interim, the committee recommends a decrease of
$90.0 million in OPA to slow the production of these vehicles
in fiscal year 2010 so that the Army may perform an assessment
of its requirement and current inventory.
Joint tactical radio system
The budget request includes $55.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of engineering
design model four-channel joint tactical radio system ground
mobile radios for use in a multi-service operational test and
evaluation. The committee understands that these tests will not
occur until fiscal year 2011 due to ongoing technical
complexities in the program's testing schedule and a recent
shift in the program's milestone C decision. The committee also
understands that both the Department's Defense Contract
Management Agency and its cost analysis improvement group have
conducted assessments indicating the schedule may slip further.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease in OPA of $55.2
million due to program delays.
Night vision devices
The budget request includes $250.6 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the procurement of enhanced night
vision goggles (ENVG). The committee strongly supports the
Army's ongoing efforts to equip soldiers with the most advanced
night vision devices available and the ongoing work at the
Army's night vision lab to maintain and extend the U.S.
military's strategic advantage in this technology area. ENVGs
permit superior tactical mobility and engagement during limited
visibility conditions and enable soldiers to see, understand,
and act first on the battlefield. This advantage is critical to
current and future operations.
The committee understands that the ENVG production line is
significantly behind on its production schedule and has a
backlog of systems due to failures found during monthly quality
control testing of ENVG systems. Additionally, the committee
understands that the ENVG contractor has notified the Army of a
reduction in their capacity in the second quarter of 2009. The
committee is aware of the Army's plan to award contracts to
other suppliers in order to increase capacity; however, even
with this mitigation strategy, the Army will not be able to
execute all of the funding requested for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in
OPA due to ENVG production delays.
Fido explosives detector
The budget request included $56.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection
systems, but provided no funds for the Fido explosives
detector. The Fido explosives detector is deployed and in use
by units in Iraq to counter improvised explosive devices and
land mines. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million in OPA for additional Fido explosives detectors.
Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program
The budget request included $33.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for medical combat support equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million in OPA to
accelerate the upgrade of Army field medical equipment.
Operator driving simulators
The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices.
Additional driving simulators would allow deploying soldiers to
maximize their training time while providing a realistic
experience without risk to personnel or equipment. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for
operator driving simulators.
Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System
The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but
provided no funding for the Immersive Group Simulation Virtual
Training System (IGS-VTS). The IGS-VTS is a fully immersive,
interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier
vehicle training. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5
million in OPA for the IGS-VTS.
Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System
The budget request included $3.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Call for Fire Trainer, but
included no funds for the Joint Fires and Effects Trainer
System (JFETS) project. JFETS is a next-generation, virtual
reality call for fire training simulation. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for JFETS.
Urban training center instrumentation
The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The
committee notes that the Army's readiness and rotation training
strategies call for units to accomplish more of their mission
training and rehearsals at their local training areas and
facilities. The Army is using several technologies to increase
the flexibility and value of local training ranges and
facilities including the Deployable Range Package, the
Homestation Instrumentation System, and the Integrated Military
Operations in Urbanized Terrain Training System. The committee
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in OPA for the
instrumentation of a regional urban operations training center.
Virtual Interactive Combat Environment System
The budget request included $261.3 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but
included no funds for the Virtual Interactive Combat
Environment (VICE) system. VICE is a team tactics, techniques,
and procedures training system for dismounted infantry tasks.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million in OPA for
VICE.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request includes $564.9 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), which funds
the operations of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO), including $203.1 million for JIEDDO's
attack the network line of operation; $199.1 million for
JIEDDO's defeat the device operation; $41.1 million for
JIEDDO's train the force operation; and $121.6 million for
JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure line of operation. The
committee recommends full funding for JIEDDO, but recommends
transferring all of JIEDDF funds from title I to the same
budget activities in title XV, which funds the overseas
contingency operations of the Department.
Navy
F/A-18E/F
The budget request included $1,009.5 million to purchase
nine F/A-18E/F aircraft. This is nine fewer aircraft than the
Navy had planned to buy in fiscal year 2010 in the fiscal year
2009 future-years defense program.
The committee has expressed concern that the Navy is facing
a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets
retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) is available. The committee raised this
issue in the committee reports accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept.
110-77) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 and accompanying S. 3001 (S. Rept. 110-335) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The
committee is disappointed that the Navy has failed to provide
the report comparing single versus multiyear procurement costs
mandated by the second of those committee reports.
Last year, the committee received testimony from the Navy
of a projected shortfall in Navy tactical aviation. The Navy
indicated that, under assumptions current at that time, it
would experience a shortfall of 69 tactical aircraft in the
year 2017, a number that swells to 125 when requirements of the
United States Marine Corps are included. The committee believes
that the Navy's projection of this shortfall was, however,
based on a series of questionable assumptions.
This year, the Chief of Naval Operations said that the
projected gap may be as high as 250 aircraft total for the
Department of the Navy. The committee believes that the Navy
has failed to present a budget in fiscal year 2010 that takes
effective action to deal with this substantially increased
projected shortfall in the Department of the Navy's tactical
air fleet and is concerned about the potential risk such a
shortfall could pose to national security. The committee also
notes that this shortfall figure is still predicated on an
initial operation capability of the F-35C in 2015 but that
achieving this is considered optimistic by many observers. The
Navy's delay in taking action causes concern that it: (1) is
continuing to accept the substantial security risks associated
with the projected shortfall; (2) remains overly reliant on a
potentially costly service life extension program (SLEP) for
legacy F/A-18s as a means to mitigate the gap until the Joint
Strike Fighter achieves full operational capability; and (3) is
not adequately considering realistic, fiscally responsible
long-range procurement plans to address the carrier strike
aircraft shortfall, such as a multiyear procurement of F/A-18E/
F aircraft as opposed to a series of single year purchases.
The committee is concerned that, in response to possible
further delays, expanding costs and technological immaturity
with the JSF, the Navy appears increasingly reliant on its
proposal to extend the life of select legacy F/A-18's from
8,600 to 10,000 flight hours through a SLEP currently estimated
to cost on average $26.0 million per plane. This life extension
would be in addition to the 2,600-hour service life extension
that the Navy already plans for most legacy F/A-18s. By the
Navy's own testimony, it is unclear how many of the planes are
capable of reaching 10,000 flight hours even with a SLEP. The
committee is concerned that the cost uncertainties of a SLEP
achieving an additional 1,400 flight hours make such a plan
risky. In any case, the committee believes such SLEP may be
inefficient when compared with the benefits of procuring new F/
A-18E/F's, which might cost less than $50.0 million each in
2009 constant dollars under a multiyear procurement acquisition
strategy. Normalizing costs for the expected return in
additional service life, a SLEP to achieve the additional 1,400
hours would cost approximately $18,571 per flight hour gained,
versus $8,333 per flight hour provided by a new F/A-18E/F (at a
6,000 flight hour life, the cost per flight hour of a new F/A-
18E/F would fall even further to $5,814 if those planes are
similarly extended to 8,600 flight hours as have legacy F/A-
18s). In light of such costs, the committee believes the Navy
must more carefully evaluate costs and benefits of new F/A-18E/
F procurements, compared to investing in a SLEP of legacy
aircraft.
The committee further notes that new F/A-18E/F models come
equipped with improved technological capabilities over the
legacy F/A-18's, including active electronically scanned array
radar, modernized avionics, advanced aerial refueling system
capability, and added weapon hard points, among other features
that would not be part of a SLEP upgrade package for the older
aircraft. These factors would tend to increase the benefit of
purchasing new F/A-18E/Fs compared to conducting a SLEP on
legacy aircraft. The Navy projects that the F/A-18E/F will
remain in the fleet until at least 2040, and should be able to
use most or all of the full service life of any newly purchased
aircraft.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
intends to review the whole issue of tactical aircraft forces
in the pending Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee
expects the Department to conduct and submit the analysis of
multiyear procurement for the F/A-18 as directed in the
committee report last year to include cost differentials
between single year and multiyear procurement strategies and
tradeoffs between a SLEP and new procurements of the F/A-18E/F.
The Department should include such information derived from
that analysis in deciding how to implement the results on the
ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review regarding tactical aviation.
The committee expects that the Department's tactical
aviation procurement strategies will be informed by the
Quadrennial Defense Review. In light of the significant
increase in the strike-fighter shortfall testified to before
the committee this year, additional actions to address that
shortfall cannot be delayed too long. The committee emphasizes,
as it did last year, that if purchasing new F/A-18E/F aircraft
proves to be the preferred method of resolving the shortfall,
not acquiring those aircraft under a multiyear contract could
lead to the loss of ``substantial savings'' to the government--
subject to the outcome of required independent cost estimates.
The committee notes that a request for a multiyear procurement
must fully comply with the requirements of section 2306b of
title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 811 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181).
In the interim, the committee fails to see the wisdom in
cutting planned F/A-18E/F procurement with potential shortfalls
this large. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$560.0 million to buy 18 F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2010
as originally planned.
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
The budget request included $835.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for the UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopter
program. These funds would support purchasing 16 new UH-1Ys, 2
new AH-1Zs, and remanufacturing 12 existing AH-1Ws to the AH-1Z
configuration. This compares to the program for fiscal year
2009 of 15 new UH-1Ys, and remanufacturing 5 existing AH-1Ws to
the AH-1Z configuration.
In conjunction with the plan to increase the size of the
Marine Corps, the total program quantities have been increased
to 123 UH-1Ys and 226 AH-1Zs. A total of 58 of the programmed
226 AH-1Zs will be new production to reduce the impact on
operational forces of taking operational helicopters off the
line and inducting them into the remanufacturing effort. Fiscal
year 2010 would be the first year of buying new AH-1Zs.
Operational testing for the UH-1Y has been completed, which
resulted in a positive Milestone B decision in September 2008.
Operational testing for the AH-1Z has been delayed, mainly due
to issues surrounding the targeting sight system. The program
office now predicts that operational testing for the AH-1Z
configuration will not be completed until late in fiscal year
2010. Despite these delays, the fiscal year 2010 request
reflects an increase of two AH-1Z aircraft since the plan last
year.
Also since last year, the Secretary of the Navy notified
Congress that the Service Acquisition Executive had determined
the program had breached the significant cost growth threshold
of 15 percent, compared to the baseline average procurement
unit cost.
The committee supports the Marine Corps plans to expand the
size of the force, but also believes that the Department should
not proceed too quickly in ramping up this program absent
successful operational testing.
The committee recommends a decrease of $282.9 million to
keep the UH-1Y/AH-1Z program at the same level of effort as
fiscal year 2009.
Weapons industrial facilities
The budget request included $3.2 million for various
activities at government-owned, contractor-operated weapons
industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of
$30.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program
at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory.
Multiple User Objective System
The committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million in
Weapons Procurement, Navy, line 18 for the Multiple User
Objective System (MUOS). A complete discussion of the MUOS
program is contained in title II of this Act.
Smart valves
The budget request included $11.4 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for firefighting equipment, but
included no funding to expand the application of ``smart
valves'' for firefighting systems to support the DDG-51
modernization program.
The Navy developed smart valve technology as part of the
DDG-1000 autonomic fire suppression system (AFSS). These
systems support reducing crew sizes because they can
automatically reconfigure a ship's firefighting system to route
around damaged sections of piping without human intervention.
The current DDG-51 modernization program is upgrading
various systems on the DDGs, including the hull, mechanical and
electrical systems. If the Navy were to make appropriate
engineering changes, this smart valve technology could be
backfit to the DDG-51 during this modernization period, and
provide the opportunity to reduce crew sizes.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in OPN for expanding the application of smart valve
technology.
TB-33 thinline towed array
The budget request included $28.2 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for purchasing various components of
the thinline towed systems. Installing these arrays holds the
promise of providing much better acoustics performance for our
submarines.
The committee understands that additional funding would
permit the Navy to accelerate initial qualification testing,
implement automated manufacturing processes, qualify commercial
suppliers for critical components, and improve acceptance
testing methods.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in OPN for the TB-33 thinline towed array.
Man overboard indicators
The budget request included $55.3 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for command support equipment, but no
funding to procure man overboard indicators (MOBI).
The Navy has tested a one-per-person MOBI transmitter.
Additionally, at least two expeditionary strike groups
recommended the Navy procure MOBI transmitters for each
embarked sailor, marine, and airman. The committee understands
that a large majority of ship commanding officers having MOBI
systems installed have requested additional MOBI transmitters
in order to protect all embarked personnel. In addition, the
U.S. Navy Safety Center has recommended that each embarked
sailor and marine be afforded MOBI protection.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million for the procurement of additional MOBI systems.
Air Force
F-22A fighter aircraft
The budget request included $95.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the F-22A aircraft program,
including $64.0 million for shutting down the production line.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.75 billion to
purchase an additional seven F-22A aircraft in fiscal year
2010. The committee also directs that the production shutdown
costs be applied to other program requirements.
The Air National Guard is charged with providing homeland
aerial defense for the United States and is primarily
responsible for executing the air sovereignty alert (ASA)
mission as part of the National Defense Strategy. In carrying
out this mission on a daily basis, the Air National Guard
relies on more than 1,600 Air National Guard men and women who
operate legacy F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft. The committee
has been informed that the projected retirements of these
legacy aircraft with which the Air National Guard currently
executes the ASA mission will leave the Guard short of the
required number of aircraft to execute this mission.
Additionally, the Government Accountability Office has
commented that ``unless the Air Force modifies its current
fielding schedules or extends the service lives of its F-15s
and F-16s . . . it will lack viable aircraft to conduct ASA
operations at some of the 18 current ASA sites after fiscal
year 2015.''
The committee is concerned that no plan has been developed
to fill this shortfall, either through modernizing legacy
aircraft or buying new aircraft. Of specific concern is the
fact that 80 percent of the F-16s will be gone in 8 years and
since the majority of the ASA mission is accomplished by these
F-16s, this will negatively impact the Air National Guard's
ability to execute the ASA mission.
In a recent letter, the Director of the Air National Guard
commented, ``While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the
nature of the current and future asymmetric threats to our
Nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a
fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to
address them. The F-22's unique capability in this arena
enables it to handle a full spectrum of threats that the Air
National Guard's current legacy systems are not capable of
addressing . . . basing F-22 (and eventually F-35s) at
strategic Air National Guard locations throughout the United
States while simultaneously making them available to
rotationally support worldwide contingency operations is the
most responsible approach to satisfying all of our Nation's
needs.''
For these reasons, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to develop a plan, including force structure and
basing requirements, for executing the ASA mission over the
next 2 decades. The Secretary shall deliver that plan to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2010.
The plan shall give full consideration toward: (1) stationing
the additional F-22s procured in fiscal year 2010 at strategic
Air National Guard locations; (2) creating new or expanding
current Active/Guard associate units in which both active-duty
and Air National Guard personnel could operate these additional
aircraft, as well as F-22s and F-35s procured in the future;
and (3) transitioning earlier model F-22s as well as F-35s
procured in the future to the Air National Guard at the first
possible opportunity.
Global Hawk
The budget request included $554.8 million for procurement
of the Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned aerial system. The
Government Accounting Office recommends a reduction to the
request to slow production because of continued delays in the
program, including operational testing. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million to the
request.
C-130 Avionics Modernization Program
The budget request included $354.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C-130 Modifications
Program, including $209.5 million for the C-130 Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP). The C-130 AMP effort suffered a
Nunn-McCurdy breach in February 2007, which caused the
Department of Defense to significantly restructure and
recertify the program in June 2007. Since last year, there have
been additional delays in starting production, primarily
because of software testing issues and a failure to complete
required documentation. The milestone decision review to
authorize production is at least 1 year later than the
projected date of June, 2008. This means that production funds
from fiscal years 2008 and 2009 will be awarded, at the
earliest, sometime late this summer.
While the committee remains supportive of the program, the
committee sees no need to provide additional kit and
installation funding in fiscal year 2010, with the program
running at least a full year behind the planned schedule and
not requiring additional production funds until fiscal year
2011.
The committee recommends a reduction of $209.5 million in
APAF for the C-130 AMP Modification Program.
Advanced targeting pod
The budget request included $103.3 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for other aircraft
modifications, including $0.9 million for modifications of
advanced targeting pods (ATP), also known as precision attack
systems.
The Air Force and the contractor team for the Litening ATP
program have devised a spiral enhancement kit for existing
Litening ATPs that will provide:
(1) a new fourth generation forward-looking infrared
sensor;
(2) a new fourth generation charged coupled device
camera that enables targeting acquisition and
identification;
(3) a C-Band video downlink capability which will
provide exceptional standoff capability outside of most
surface-to-air threats at twice the distance of the
earlier Litening ATPs; and
(4) a laser spot tracker and a laser target imaging
processor which yield much improved performance for
targeting at long-ranges using precision weapons.
The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million in
APAF for the procurement of spiral upgrade kits for Litening
ATPs.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
The budget request included $1.3 billion for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), in Missile Procurement, Air
Force, line 24. The committee recommends a reduction of $88.0
million as a result of the delay of the Global Positioning
System IIF satellite number 8 (GPS IIF-8). The EELV booster for
GPS IIF-8 will have to be purchased in fiscal year 2011.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
The budget request included $1.3 billion for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), in Missile Procurement, Air
Force, line 24. The committee recommends a reduction of $105.0
million as a result of the ability of the Air Force to utilize
a previously purchased booster for AFSPC-4. As a result the
funds requested for the AFSPC-4 booster in the fiscal year 2010
budget request are excess.
Halvorsen loaders
The budget request included $19.6 billion for Other
Procurement, Air Force, but did not include any funds for
Halvorsen loaders. The committee recommends an increase of
$12.0 million for the procurement of 15 Halvorsen loaders to
assist the Air Force to meet its requirement of 538 loaders.
Unmanned modular threat emitter modernization
The budget request included $40.6 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force, for Combat Training Ranges, but no
funds to sustain the Unmanned Modular Threat Emitter (UMTE)
modernization program. Current threat emitters supporting the
Air Warfare Center Nellis Range Complex are out of date and
inadequate for training, particularly with the F-22 and F-35.
The UMTE modernization program will provide affordable and
realistic threats at the required density, and the upgraded
performance and extended life of existing assets needed at the
Nevada Test and Training Range. The committee recommends
authorization of $43.6 million, $3.0 million above the request
for UMTE.
Joint threat emitter
The budget request included $40.6 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for making improvements at
combat training ranges, including $7.1 million for the joint
threat emitter (JTE) program. These improvements are aimed at
increasing the capability to support realistic air-to-air, air-
to-ground, ground-to-air, and electronic warfare training,
along with the ability to record and play-back events for
aircrew debriefing and analysis.
The Air Force has developed a new infrared threat simulator
for augmenting the JTE system, called the aviation crew trainer
(ACT). The Air Force needs to buy additional ACT systems to be
able to field that system to all of its training ranges.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2
million in OPAF for buying additional ACT systems for the JTE
program.
Application software
The budget request included $111.3 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), line 37, for Milsatcom Space but
no funds for the Application Software Assurance Center of
Excellence. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million for the Center to assess and strengthen defenses
against cyber attacks at the software application level.
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
The base budget request included no funding for the Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) Fund to procure MRAP
all-terrain-vehicles (M-ATV). The overseas contingency
operations (OCO) budget request, however, included $5,456.0
million to procure approximately 2,080 M-ATVs and sustain the
approximately 15,000 MRAP vehicles in the Department's existing
inventory, much of which is in Iraq.
The committee is aware that the Department is close to a
decision to increase the M-ATV requirement to more than 5,200
M-ATVs to support combat operations in Afghanistan. This
process was spurred by the inadequate armor protection of the
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle and the poor
mobility of the MRAP vehicles in Afghanistan's rugged terrain.
In anticipation of an increase in the M-ATV requirement, the
committee recommends an increase of $1,200.0 million for the
MRAP Fund, thereby bringing the total funding in the base and
OCO components to $6,956.0 million for M-ATVs.
The committee is aware that the MRAP program office has
funds available from lower-than-expected MRAP sustainment costs
that can be shifted to begin production of additional M-ATVs.
The committee is committed to ensuring that this critical force
protection program proceeds rapidly with all the necessary
resources.
The committee also continues to monitor closely the Army's
ongoing assessment of its MRAP fleet and how it plans to
incorporate the more than 12,000 MRAPs it has procured over the
past 2 years into its current force structure and fleet of
tactical wheeled vehicles, as directed by the Secretary of
Defense.
Defense-wide
MC-130W multi-mission modifications
The budget request included $31.6 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for MC-130 Multi-Mission Modifications. These
modifications fulfill an urgent combat requirement to rapidly
arm and field multi-mission precision strike platforms. These
aircraft will provide an enhanced armed-overwatch capability
utilizing various sensors, communications systems, precision
guided munitions, and a medium-caliber gun. The Commander of
the U.S. Special Operations Command has identified an $85.0
million shortfall in funding for these aircraft modifications.
The committee recommends an increase of $85.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, C-130 Modifications, for the U.S.
Special Operations Command.
Advanced lightweight grenade launcher
The budget request included no funding in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for advanced lightweight grenade launchers for
special operations forces. These grenade launchers provide
special operations forces with a vehicle and man-portable
weapon to defeat personnel and lightly armored targets from
extended distances. U.S. Special Operations Command has a basis
of issue requirement for 926 advanced lightweight grenade
launchers, but has only fielded 709 toward that requirement.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, Small Arms and Weapons, to help the
U.S. Special Operations Command meet its basis of issue
requirement.
Special operations visual augmentation systems
The budget request included $33.7 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for the special operations forces (SOF) visual
augmentation, lasers, and sensor systems. However, no funding
was included for the special operations visual augmentation
systems hand-held imager/long-range. These hand-held imagers
allow special operators to detect, recognize, and identify
targets under varying conditions or at ranges at which the
operator would not normally be able to see the target. The
Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command has identified
a $15.4 million shortfall in funding for these hand-held
imagers.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.4 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Visual Augmentation, Lasers and
Sensor Systems, for the U.S. Special Operations Command.
Special operations forces multi-band inter/intra team radio
The budget request included $32.9 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for Multi-band Inter/Intra Team Radios for special
operations forces (SOF). These radios provide SOF with a
lightweight, hand-held communications capability adequate for
the air, ground, and maritime missions they are tasked to
perform. The Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command
has identified a $31.3 million shortfall in funding for these
radios.
The committee recommends an increase of $31.3 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Tactical Radio Systems, for the
U.S. Special Operations Command.
M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask
The budget request included $92.0 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for chemical and biological individual protection
equipment, including $48.4 million for the Joint Service
General Purpose Mask (JSPGM). However, there was no funding for
the special operations forces variant of the JSPGM, the M53
Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask (JCBPM). The
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, Line 93, for M53 JCBPM.
United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has a
validated requirement for 14,601 JCBPMs, but only 70 percent of
that requirement has been procured to date. Additional funding
for this program would allow the purchase of the remaining 30
percent of the JCBPMs that are required by SOCOM.
Procurement of computing services
The committee recommends a total reduction of $300.0
million from service and defense-wide operation and maintenance
accounts that support the procurement and delivery of computing
services. The reductions include a $75.0 million decrease from
each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide accounts.
The committee does not intend for these reductions to be
assessed against Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
computing services activities.
The committee directs the services to aggressively explore
increased opportunities to utilize DISA computing services and
eliminate redundant, wasteful service-specific computing
services activities. The committee notes that consolidation of
computing services activities, such as reductions in numbers of
computing centers, data storage systems, and electronic file
servers, has saved the Department of Defense an estimated
$200.0 million or more annually since 1990, according to DISA.
Further, a June 2007 independent assessment of DISA's computing
services noted that they ``...provided world-class computing
services that enable the DOD community to better execute their
missions,'' and compared DISA's services favorably to general
government, federal, and workload peers. The assessment also
recommended continuing assessment of organizational staffing,
structure, and realignment, as well as continued maturation of
data center processes. Finally, the committee notes that
uncoordinated, Department-wide deployment of servers,
mainframes, data warehouses, websites, and other computing
services has resulted in inefficiencies, underutilization of
computing infrastructure, and interoperability difficulties.
The committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration initiate
independent, comparative benchmarking studies of computing
services across the Department of Defense to inform and
accelerate the consolidation of the provision of computing
services to increase efficiency, improve services, and reduce
costs.
Items of Special Interest
Body armor protocol and requirements
The committee concurs with the Department of Defense
Inspector General's recommendation that the Department should
establish standardization for testing and evaluation of all
body armor components. Standard protocols by all military
departments will improve confidence in the level of ballistic
protection provided by the Department and will better
facilitate rapid procurement and fielding. The committee
believes the use of common test and evaluation standards will
also enable commercial ballistic test facilities and body armor
component producers to more quickly and effectively respond to
the Department's requirements.
Additionally, the committee recommends the Department
consult a peer review of any proposed standardized test and
evaluation procedures from ballistics experts in other federal
agencies and departments prior to publication. The committee is
aware that such expertise resides in the Department of
Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
and in the National Institute of Justice. The committee would
also recommend that representatives from commercial ballistics
test facilities be given an opportunity to comment on the draft
test and evaluation standards before final versions are issued.
The committee believes body armor requirements for the
military services should be coordinated through the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System process. The
committee encourages the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
to review and determine if an update to the current body armor
requirements is necessary.
The committee echoes the testimony of the Vice Chief of
Staff of the Army and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine
Corps, that there is an urgent need to lighten the warfighter's
combat load. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
consider establishing and funding a Department-wide task force
which could expedite efforts and advancements in weight
reduction for body armor. The committee highlights similar task
forces such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Task
Force and the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Task Force which were created to confront the urgent
operational requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Irregular warfare in the Navy
In prepared statements before the committee on the posture
of the Department of Defense regarding the authorization
request for fiscal year 2010, the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both observed that the
Department of Defense (DOD) needed to shift relative emphasis
in resource allocations towards the threats we face today and
will likely face tomorrow.
One of those threats encompasses the irregular warfare (IW)
mission area. The committee is concerned that DOD has not
shifted enough emphasis quickly enough in certain areas. One
such area is in the Department of the Navy's budget for IW
programs, which may be inadequate to achieve the objectives the
Secretary has laid out.
A major component of the Navy's ability to contribute to
the IW mission area is the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
(NECC). A large proportion of NECC force structure is ground
equipment (i.e., SEABEE equipment and vehicles), underwater
demolition and diving equipment, small boats, riverine craft
and maritime expeditionary force equipment. These categories of
equipment have seen persistent use and have been exposed to the
harsh elements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the
Central Command theater of operations. The committee
understands that much of that equipment will be left behind or
given to local forces, such as the Iraqi National Army or
police forces, when the U.S. withdraws the bulk of its forces.
The committee expects that the Quadrennial Defense Review
will review this situation and help inform DOD on the
requirements to fully fund NECC modernization and sustainment
requirements, and that the Navy will adequately apply resources
to those requirements in future budgets. In addition, the
committee believes that any such review of NECC requirements
should account for equipment shortfalls due to: (1)
transferring equipment to local forces; (2) changing force
structure requirements; (3) changing threat levels requiring
equipment modifications or different equipment entirely; (4)
losing equipment in combat; (5) operating beyond economic
service life; and (6) operating in environments which result in
excessive wear and tear.
Joint cargo aircraft
The budget request included $319.1 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), to purchase eight C-27J Joint
Cargo Aircraft (JCA).
Over the past several years, the Department of Defense
(DOD) has produced a number of studies for Joint Cargo
Aircraft, including an Analysis of Alternatives, which the Army
conducted in 2005-2006. More recent studies produced by the
RAND Corporation as late as 2009 suggest that the requirement
for the JCA program would be 78 aircraft. Originally, both the
Army and Air Force planned to buy JCA aircraft, with 54 and 24
aircraft in the future-years defense program for the Army and
Air Force, respectively.
This year, DOD, the Army, and the Air Force are
recommending that the Air Force assume sole responsibility for
the JCA program and mission set. Against that backdrop, the
committee heard testimony from DOD and Air Force officials on
their commitment to replace the Army National Guard's C-23
Sherpa aircraft. That testimony reflected the Army's need for
less than a full load of cargo carrying capacity for the ``last
tactical mile,'' where the C-27J may be able to operate more
effectively and efficiently than other Army or Air Force
aircraft.
This year, both the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force testified that the correct number of C-27J aircraft
is at least 38, and that the goal for the program as identified
in the budget request for a program of 38 C-27s was a floor,
not the ceiling.
The committee understands that DOD intends to review the
whole issue of intra-theater airlift in terms of relative
balance between heavy-lift helicopters, C-27s, and C-130s in
the pending Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee
believes that any complete review of intra-theater airlift
requirements and programs must give due consideration to the
potential requirements for and contribution of these systems to
the homeland security mission.
The committee will continue to follow this program through
the QDR process and provide oversight to ensure that: (1) the
program's schedule is maintained during transition from Army to
Air Force management; (2) the Air Force meets flight test and
aircraft worthiness certification schedules; (3) that the
Department meets all Operational Test and Evaluation objectives
in 2010; and (4) the Air Force satisfies the Army's direct
support airlift requirements.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in conjunction with the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act on the Air
Force's plans for: (1) integrating these aircraft in the
Department of the Air Force's force structure; (2) deploying
these aircraft to support combatant commander requirements; and
(3) permanent stationing for these aircraft.
Reports to Congress on up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicles and mine resistant ambush protected vehicle
The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-
13) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after
enactment, and every 60 days thereafter until the termination
of Operation Iraqi Freedom, setting forth the current
requirements of the armed forces for Up-Armored High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). The U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veteran's Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Act (House Report 110-104) directed the military
services to jointly report on the mine resistant ambush
protected (MRAP) vehicle program's status, requirements, and
execution of funds.
While both of these reports provide helpful information to
the congressional defense committees, the committee believes
the picture remains incomplete. As such, the committee directs
the military services to consolidate these two reports into one
single report that details the following information for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: (1) current requirements
for up-armored HMMWVs, MRAPs, and MRAP all-terrain-vehicles;
(2) status of theater equipment (i.e., quantities and vehicles
readiness levels); and (3) execution of funds to support these
programs.
Unmanned aerial vehicle planning
The Air Force is required to acquire and maintain enough
Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), along with
the processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) capacity,
for 50 combat air patrols (CAP). The committee is aware that
U.S. Strategic Command is conducting a force mix study that may
well result in an increase in the required number of CAPs.
The Air Force has produced a plan to achieve the 50-CAP
requirement by September 2011. The UAV Task Force in the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) is concerned that the Air Force plan
is substantially underfunded, specifically in sustainment of
the Predator portion of the planned fleet, the money for which
was re-directed to Reaper procurement. While the Air Force
states that it will fully fund the plan in the next budget
cycle, the Task Force expects that budget pressures on the Air
Force will make it very difficult for the Air Force to make
good on this pledge.
The Air Force plan also shows that there will be a shortage
of the number of aircraft required to fully equip the number of
CAPs the Air Force is pledged to provide between 2010 and 2013.
The Air Force plan is to compensate for the shortage by
maintaining a ``surge'' profile, whereby less than the four
aircraft standard for a CAP will be operated at higher tempo.
The reason for this ``flat spot'' in the aircraft inventory is
that funds appropriated in fiscal year 2009 for production of
18 Predators have not been obligated and the Air Force
indicates that the funds will be reprogrammed for other
activities.
The committee regards this as unacceptable and will not be
favorably inclined towards a future reprogramming request. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to resolve the issues
between the Air Force and USD (AT&L) promptly and proceed to
procure the Predator aircraft approved by Congress.
The committee directs the USD (AT&L) to report to the
congressional intelligence and defense committees coincident
with the submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget request on:
The number of endurance UAV CAPs required by
date through the Future Years Defense Program;
The Department's plans, including funding, to
achieve the required CAP levels;
The mix of Predators and Reapers over time,
including the mix of Predator 1Bs and 1Cs;
The adequacy of data relay and PED resources to
support the CAPs, including appropriately cleared analysts to
support sensitive special operations; and
How the Department intends to manage the
relationship between the Air Force Global Hawk and the Navy
Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance version of the RQ-4, in terms
of interoperability and data relays.
The report also should include an update on the
Department's efforts to engage the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on all aspects of integrating UAVs into
the national airspace control system. The committee is
discouraged that the FAA has yet to establish a UAV program
office to work jointly with DOD on this critical challenge. The
committee believes that an FAA program office with a separate
funding line and adequate resources is essential for the FAA to
meet its obligations in this area.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Continued development of competitive propulsion system for the Joint
Strike Fighter program (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department to obligate sufficient funds for fiscal year 2010
for the continued development and procurement of the F136
competitive propulsion system for the F-35 Lightning II to
ensure that the Department continues the system development and
demonstration (SDD) program during fiscal year 2010. The
committee understands that current plans for the F136 Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) propulsion system would complete the
development in sufficient time to conduct a first competitive
contract award in fiscal year 2012, concurrent with the award
for the sixth lot of low-rate initial production aircraft.
The budget request included $1,741.3 million in PE 64800N,
and $1,858.1 million in PE 64800F for continued development of
the JSF program, but included no funds for continuing the SDD
phase of the F136 program.
The committee continues to believe that, in light of
studies performed by the Department of Defense, the Institute
for Defense Analyses, and the Government Accountability Office,
it is in the best interests of the Nation to continue the
development of the F136. Though the results of these studies
were, in the aggregate, inconclusive on whether there would be
a financial benefit to the Department in continuing to develop
a competitive propulsion system for the JSF program, the
committee notes that all studies identified significant non-
financial factors of a two-engine competitive program. These
included better engine performance; improved contractor
responsiveness; a more robust industrial base; increased engine
reliability; and improved operational readiness. The committee
believes that the benefits, which could be derived from the
non-financial factors, favor continuing the JSF competitive
propulsion system program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $438.9
million for continuing F136 SDD, with half that amount added to
PE 64800N and the other half added to PE 64800F.
Enhancement of duties of Director of Department of Defense Test
Resource Management Center with respect to the major range and
test facility base (sec. 212)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
authority of the Director of the Department of Defense Test
Resource Management Center to review changes to major test
range funding before changes are implemented. The committee
established the Test Resource Management Center in order to
ensure that the Department is adequately investing in the test
capabilities it requires to develop and deploy needed defense
systems to meet current and emerging operational needs. The
provision would allow the Director to review changes to test
resource funding that occur outside the traditional planning,
programming, and budgeting process, as well as to ensure that
the Director has access to all the information he or she needs
to make recommendations to the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on test resource issues.
Guidance on specification of funding requested for operation,
sustainment, modernization, and personnel of major ranges and
test facilities (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
information required in budget justification materials
delivered to Congress describing amounts requested for test and
evaluation activities. The committee is concerned that existing
justification materials provide incomplete and inconsistent
information and are not comparable across services and
agencies. The committee believes that the Army, Air Force, and
the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) are each
underfunding test and evaluation capabilities potentially to
the long-term detriment of the Department of Defense and its
ability to develop and field new systems. The committee
believes that the Director of the Test Resource Management
Center should play a key role in ensuring that the budget
justification materials are prepared and displayed in a
consistent manner across the Department to provide maximum
transparency for Congress and the public.
Permanent authority for the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology
Panel (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the establishment of a Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology
Panel (JDMTP) as a permanent part of the statutorily mandated
Manufacturing Technology Program. The committee notes that the
December 2008 Report to Congress on Implementation of
Department of Defense ManTech Projects estimated that
investments in the program made between fiscal years 2003 and
2005 could result in over $6.3 billion in savings for the
Department through lower production costs and increased systems
reliability and performance. The committee believes that the
activities of the existing JDMTP have contributed significantly
to these types of successes for the program, as well as other
important initiatives, such as the use of manufacturing
readiness level assessment tools, investment in joint
manufacturing research projects, and enhanced dissemination of
manufacturing advances into the defense industrial base. The
committee directs the services and the Office of the Secretary
of Defense to continue to support the activities and
initiatives of the JDMTP in order to continue to reduce life
cycle and acquisition costs for defense systems.
Extension and enhancement of Global Research Watch program (sec. 215)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
requirement for the Department to execute the Global Research
Watch program. The program was established by the committee to
provide a centralized repository of information on
international research and technology capabilities in areas of
interest to the Department for the purposes of enabling
international cooperative activities and providing data and
analyses to inform Department research investment decisions.
The provision would also limit the funds available to military
department programs that support international research
assessment activities until the military departments provide
information consistent with the statutory goals of the Global
Research Watch program to the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering.
The committee notes that Department efforts to comply with
the statutory requirement for the program have not been
complete or successful to date. The committee further notes
that the Department has requested funding for fiscal year 2010
in the Militarily Critical Technologies Program for the purpose
of improving and expanding ``the focus of the DSTL [Defense
Science and Technology List] effort to represent a broader
global research watch.''
Three-year extension of authority for prizes for advanced technology
achievements (sec. 216)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
Department of Defense's authority to award prizes for advanced
technology achievements. The committee notes that the
Department has successfully used this authority to hold
challenge competitions for robotic vehicles and wearable power
technologies. These competitions have encouraged large groups
of researchers and innovators to work on defense challenges for
the first time, highlighted the importance of defense research
and technology to address warfighter needs, and advanced state-
of-the-art critical defense technologies.
Modification of report requirements regarding defense science and
technology program (sec. 217)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
funding objective established by Congress for the defense
science and technology program as well as the reporting
requirements triggered when the Department fails to achieve
established goals. The committee notes that the Department's
rhetoric on modernizing defense capabilities to meet the
emerging threats of the 21st century does not match its
investment strategy for the programs that develop those
capabilities. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2010
budget request for science and technology programs has
decreased by over $50.0 million in constant dollars with
respect to the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
The committee notes that reduced investments in science and
technology programs will inevitably lead to a number of
negative consequences. First, the Department will not be able
to take advantage of new research ideas and innovative
technologies that are being developed within the private
sector, which may lead to enhanced defense capabilities.
Second, the United States may lose the technical lead it enjoys
in critical defense research areas such as advanced materials,
nanotechnology, biotechnology, and cybersecurity to global
competitors. Both of these outcomes would result in a long-term
loss of military superiority for the United States. The
committee's provision requires the Department to provide
information to Congress that will help address both of these
concerns and better evaluate future science and technology
budget submissions.
Programs for ground combat vehicle and self propelled howitzer
capabilities for the Army (sec. 218)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out programs to develop, test,
and field an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and
affordable next-generation ground combat vehicle and next-
generation self-propelled howitzer for the Army. The Secretary
of Defense is further required to develop a strategy and plan
for each of these programs and to report annually on the
investments made for each in the budget request.
On April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates announced the
restructuring of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and
cancelled the manned ground vehicle (MGV) component of the
program, including the non-line of sight cannon (NLOS-C).
Secretary Gates was concerned that there were significant
unanswered questions in the FCS vehicle design strategy and
that despite some adjustments to the MGVs, they did not
adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency and close
quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates was
also critical that the Army's vehicle modernization and
equipping strategy did not include a role for Mine-Resistant
Ambush-Protected vehicles that have been used successfully in
current conflicts. After re-evaluating requirements,
technology, and approach, the Army will re-launch its next-
generation ground combat vehicle modernization program,
including a competitive bidding process. Also, in his April 6th
announcement, and again shortly after at a speech delivered to
the Army War College, Secretary Gates emphasized his conviction
that the Army needs a next-generation ground combat vehicle
program and his commitment to support the Army's resource
requirements to field this vehicle in 5 to 7 years.
Secretary Gates' decisions were implemented on June 23,
2009, by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics issuing an Acquisition Decision
Memorandum to the Secretary of the Army directing the
cancellation of the FCS Brigade Combat Team acquisition program
and a stop-work order for the NLOS-C.
The committee recognizes that the Army will need some time
to react to these programmatic changes and reexamine its ground
combat vehicle requirements. The committee is also aware that
Army modernization priorities and programs are subject to
further adjustment depending upon the analysis and
recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review. The
committee is concerned that Secretary Gates' pronouncement that
the Army will have a new ground combat vehicle in 5 to 7 years
and the Chief of Staff of the Army's target fielding for such a
system by 2015 to 2017 may be introducing schedule pressure on
the program before its requirements have been defined and
technologically realistic and affordable alternatives
considered.
The committee has been a strong supporter of Army
modernization over the years, including FCS and its MGV and
NLOS-C components. However, the committee is concerned that
instability in Army modernization strategy and plans
contributes to management problems and avoidable cost,
schedule, and technology risk. The Army's best chance to
ultimately deliver a next-generation ground combat vehicle and
a self-propelled howitzer depends on the creation of well
planned, realistic, and affordable programs resourced and
managed in a disciplined manner consistent with acquisition law
and regulation.
The recommended provision would direct the creation of two
development programs, one each for a next-generation ground
combat vehicle and a next-generation self-propelled howitzer to
ensure the continuation of the Army's effort to meet its future
requirements for these capabilities. To the extent practical,
these new programs should take advantage of the range of
relevant and mature technologies already developed as part of
the full FCS program and its MGV and NLOS-C components.
The recommended provision would also require appropriate
acquisition strategies and plans to ensure that these programs
comply with the requirements of the recently enacted Weapons
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-124).
Additionally, the provision would require an annual report
detailing the investments requested to develop these
capabilities and ensure that the Defense Department is honoring
its commitment that necessary resources will be available for
the next-generation ground combat vehicle to provide program
stability and reduce risk.
Finally, the committee understands that continuing analysis
and important initial decisions will be made in the coming
months with regard to the next-generation ground combat vehicle
program. Information from these analyses and decisions could be
available for the committee's consideration before completing
action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than September 8, 2009, that updates the
Army's strategy and plans for the next-generation ground combat
vehicle program, including its requirements determination,
analysis of alternatives, and any cost and schedule estimates.
Assessment of technological maturity and integration risk of Army
modernization programs (sec. 219)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering to review and
assess the technological maturity and integration risk of the
technologies critical to the development and deployment of
systems and technologies related to the platforms, sensors, and
networks of the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The committee
understands that major restructuring of the FCS program was
partially driven by concerns over the lack of technological
maturity of important elements of this system of systems. The
committee believes that a detailed technical review and
analysis of FCS-related technologies and associated systems
will provide important insight and data to inform the
requirements, structure, baseline, and schedule for a successor
modernization program, as well as to help prioritize the
investment of resources.
The committee notes that these types of reviews and
assessments are consistent with the mandates established in the
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23).
Assessment of strategy for technology for modernization of the combat
vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle fleets (sec. 220)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent assessment
of a strategy for technology development that could support the
modernization of the defense combat vehicle and tactical
wheeled vehicle fleet. The committee notes that these types of
vehicles have played a critical role in the military operations
of various nations in operations in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and
Iraq, and have incorporated new technologies, such as armor and
improvised explosive device jammers, as a result of lessons
learned from those operations.
In light of the major restructuring of the Future Combat
Systems program; the termination of the Manned Ground Vehicle
program; the initiation of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
program; the fielding of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicles; the desire to reduce energy costs to the Department
of Defense; and the proliferation of threats such as improvised
explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators, and rocket
propelled grenades; the committee believes that it is an
opportune time to reshape the Department's vehicle
modernization research, development, and fielding strategies,
so as to prioritize capability gaps that need to be addressed
and investments that will support those efforts. The committee
understands that some of these discussions are currently
ongoing in the Department of Defense and believes that an
independent technical assessment will contribute useful data
and analysis to those deliberations.
The committee directs that this assessment address all
aspects of vehicle systems and the full range of operational
missions for the Army, Marine Corps, and U.S. Special
Operations Command.
Systems engineering and prototyping program (sec. 221)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
systems engineering and prototyping program in the Department
of Defense under the management of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
The committee notes that the Weapons Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) has highlighted the need for a
greater emphasis on systems engineering and prototyping as a
means to improve the acquisition process. The recommended
provision would support those efforts by establishing a program
that will help build and train the government and industry
workforce needed to perform those critical design and
engineering tasks. Through the funding of innovative, rapid
systems engineering and prototyping projects this initiative
will encourage the exercising of the Nation's systems
engineering technical workforce as well as the development of
systems and technology that can address Department needs and
requirements.
The provision would require the Under Secretary to manage
the program through the services and defense agencies and would
require cost sharing between organizations to help maximize the
probability of addressing joint problems, grow the base of
experienced acquisition personnel, and promote the likelihood
of transition into programs of record or deployment. The
committee intends that programs funded under the programs be
selected on a competitive basis. Elsewhere in this report, the
committee recommends an authorization of funding to support the
initiation of this program.
Finally, the committee notes that this provision is not
intended to change in any way the requirements of the recently
enacted Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-23) regarding competitive prototyping.
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 241)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress regarding ballistic missile defense, namely
that the United States should develop, test, field, and
maintain operationally effective, cost-effective, affordable,
reliable, suitable, and survivable ballistic missile defense
systems that are capable of defending the United States, its
forward deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations
from the threat of ballistic missile attacks from nations such
as North Korea and Iran; that the missile defense force
structure and inventory levels of such missile defense systems
should be determined based on an assessment of ballistic
missile threats and a determination by senior military leaders,
combatant commanders, and defense officials of the requirements
and capabilities needed to address those threats; and that the
test and evaluation program for such missile defense systems
should be rigorous, robust, operationally realistic, and
capable of providing a high level of confidence in the
capability of such systems, including their continuing
effectiveness over the course of their service lives, and that
adequate resources should be available for such test and
evaluation program, including interceptor missiles and targets
for flight tests.
Comprehensive plan for test and evaluation of the ballistic missile
defense system (sec. 242)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive plan for the
developmental and operational testing and evaluation of the
Ballistic Missile Defense System and its various elements. The
plan would include a number of specific elements related to
objectives, procedures, data requirements, and related test
activities. The provision would require the Secretary to submit
an unclassified report to the congressional defense committees,
not later than March 1, 2011, setting forth and describing the
test plan and each of its elements. Additionally, the report
would include a description of test and evaluation activities
specifically related to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
(GMD) element, including plans for salvo tests, multiple
simultaneous target engagement testing, intercept testing using
the Cobra Dane radar as the engagement sensor, and plans to
test and demonstrate the ability of the GMD system to
accomplish its mission over the planned term of its operational
service life (sustainment testing).
Assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of
the Ballistic Missile Defense System (sec. 243)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review
and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, to conduct an
assessment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element
of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, and future options for
the GMD element. The assessment would consider such matters as:
the military requirement for GMD capabilities; current and
planned GMD capabilities; force structure and inventory levels;
infrastructure; and the number of Ground-Based Interceptors
needed for operational and testing purposes.
The provision would also require the Secretary to establish
a plan for the GMD element, covering such matters as the GMD
program schedule, funding plan, maintaining the effectiveness
of the GMD element over the course of its service life; flight
testing; and production of Ground-Based Interceptors for
operational and testing purposes.
The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the
congressional defense committees, at the time of the budget
submission for fiscal year 2011, a report setting forth the
results of the assessment and a report setting forth the plan
required in the provision.
The provision would also express the Sense of Congress
concerning the GMD element.
The committee is aware that, as part of its plan to field
30 effective operational Ground-Based Interceptors, the Missile
Defense Agency plans to complete seven silos at Missile Field 2
at Fort Greely, Alaska, to replace the older silos at Missile
Field 1. The committee notes that four of the seven silos at
Missile Field 2 are nearly complete, and that it would be
possible to complete all seven silos in fiscal year 2010 with
additional funding. The committee understands there could be a
cost savings benefit to such an acceleration. If the Department
believes there is benefit to completing the seven silos in
Missile Field 2 during fiscal year 2010, the committee would
look favorably upon a reprogramming request from the Secretary
of Defense to provide the funds to complete the seven silos in
fiscal year 2010.
Report on potential missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 244)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than 120 days after enactment of
this Act, setting forth potential options for cooperation among
or between the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), and the Russian Federation on ballistic
missile defense. The report would include a description of
proposals made by the United States, NATO, or the Russian
Federation for such cooperation, as well as a description of
data sharing options, assessments of the potential for certain
types of cooperation, and an assessment of the potential
security benefits of such cooperation.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Repeal of requirement for biennial Joint Warfighting Science and
Technology Plan (sec. 251)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the biennial Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan
reporting requirement. The committee commends efforts to invest
in research and technologies that will develop joint
warfighting capabilities, but believes that Department
resources can be better invested in higher priority research or
management endeavors.
Budget Items
Army
Army basic research
The budget request included $377.3 million for Army basic
research programs. The Army's basic research program makes
investments in a number of thrust areas including materials
science, mathematical and information sciences, network
science, and environmental science. Consistent with those
research thrusts, the committee recommends increases in PE
61102A of an additional $3.5 million for ballistic protection
materials research and an additional $2.0 million for research
characterizing critical global natural environments in support
of military operations worldwide. The committee also recommends
increases in PE 61103A of $2.0 million for nanocomposte
materials research; $2.0 million for research on open source
intelligence analyses techniques; $2.0 million for research on
advanced nanoscale memory devices and nanosensors; $1.0 million
for electrolyte research for battery applications; $1.2 million
for immersive simulation research; $2.0 million for materials
processing research; and $1.5 million for structural response
modeling and analysis.
Minerva
The budget request included $88.4 million in PE 61103A for
Army university research initiatives. This account includes a
total of $13.3 million for the Minerva Research Initiative, a
portion of the roughly $20.0 million being requested for this
purpose across the Department of Defense. The committee directs
that at least $7.5 million of the amount requested in PE 61103A
be used to develop in-house Department of Defense capabilities
at defense laboratories and schools consistent with the
research goals of the Minerva Initiative. Further, the
committee directs that no Minerva Initiative funds may be
transferred to the National Science Foundation unless that
agency equally matches any Department of Defense funding
provided for research projects funded under the Initiative.
Materials technologies
The budget request included $27.2 million in PE 62105A for
applied research on materials technology. The committee notes
that the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Department of
Defense Energy Strategy recommended that the Department
continue to invest in mobile, in-theater synthetic fuels
processes which would address the Department's fuel problem by
reducing battlespace fuel demand. Consistent with that
recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $4.0
million for the research on advanced biofuels.
The Army's current Future Combat Systems armor development
technology objective seeks to develop lightweight, affordable,
manufacturable armor protection against a variety of threats.
In support of that objective, the committee recommends an
additional $3.0 million for applied composite materials
research; $3.0 million for research on high strength glass
fibers for armor applications; $2.5 million for advanced
moldable composite armor technology development; $2.0 million
for advanced manufacturing technologies; and $4.5 million for
smart materials and structures research.
The 2007 report on the Defense Nanotechnology Research
Program indicated that the Department is working to increase
investments in nanomanufacturing since ``this area remains a
significant barrier to the commercialization of nanomaterials
and nanotechnology-based products.'' The committee recommends
an additional $4.0 million for research on manufacturing of
nanosensors for military applications.
Sensor research
The budget request included $50.6 million in PE 62120A for
applied research on sensors and electronic survivability. The
2007 Department of Defense Nanotechnology Research and
Development Report recommended that sustained support of
development of novel devices and systems was necessary to
enhance Department of Defense capabilities in information
technology, energy storage, and other areas. In support of that
recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million for research on nanoelectronic memory, sensor, and
energy devices.
Manned-unmanned systems teaming
The budget request included $41.3 million in PE 62211A for
research on aviation technologies. The 2005 National Research
Council report on ``Interfaces for Ground and Air Military
Robots'' identified one of the goals of Army efforts in
robotics is to support collaborative operations among manned
and unmanned vehicles. In support of that goal, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of
guidance, navigation, and control technologies for manned-
unmanned systems teaming operations.
Advanced concepts and simulation
The budget request included $17.5 million in PE 62308A for
advanced concepts and simulation research. The 2006 National
Research Council study on ``Defense Modeling, Simulation, and
Analysis'' recommended research investment on video game-based
training and simulation to further training and education
activities in the Department of Defense. Consistent with that
recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for cognitive modeling and simulation research to
support tactical decision-making by military planners in
training and operational scenarios.
Ground vehicle research
The budget request included $55.9 million in PE 62601A and
$89.6 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and
automotive technologies. The Army has established a technology
objective to develop advanced survivability systems for the
protection of crew and passengers in current and future
tactical wheeled vehicles. To support these efforts, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63005A
for systems that identify and warn vehicles of incoming
threats, and $11.0 million in PE 62601A for research on
advanced coatings, composite materials, and metals for vehicle
armor and vehicle shelters.
The Army has established a technology objective to develop
and demonstrate wheeled vehicle power and mobility
technologies, including commercial engines adapted to military
requirements that reduce cost, increase efficiency, and improve
reliability. To support these efforts, the committee recommends
an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62601A for research on engine
and transmission friction and wear, and an increase of $23.5
million in PE 63005A for development of suspension systems,
advanced power electronics, reliability assessment systems, and
other engine subsystems.
The committee also recommends an increase of $20.0 million
in PE 62601A for vehicle systems engineering and an additional
$4.0 million in PE 63005A for equipment to accurately measure
vehicle engine performance. These additions are to support Army
efforts to integrate advanced armors, networks, active
protection systems, power and propulsion systems, and to
enhance the government workforce's capabilities to replace the
systems engineering efforts that have been traditionally
performed by contractors.
Army electromagnetic gun
The budget request included $11.7 million in PE 63004A,
$4.1 million in PE 62618A, and $6.4 million in PE 61104A for
activities related to the Army's Electromagnetic (EM) Gun
initiative. The committee believes that the technologies
related to EM Gun size, weight, power, and thermal management
require a platform much larger than the system currently or
will prospectively provide in direct-fire capability to the
Army, therefore calling into question the operational utility
of the system as currently envisioned. The committee is also
concerned that the Army, Navy, and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency collaborative program on EM gun
technologies, as envisioned originally by Congress and the
Department of Defense, has never materialized. Therefore, the
committee reduces funding relating to the Army's EM Gun
initiative by $11.5 million in PE 63004A and $2.0 million in PE
62618A. The committee continues to authorize funding for
activities on power and energy issues and basic research
efforts to support development of future EM gun systems.
Reactive armor technologies
The budget request included $61.8 million in PE 62618A for
ballistics technologies. The Army has established a technology
objective to develop armor and vehicle structure technologies
to influence all future generations of combat vehicles. To
support this effort and enhance industrial production capacity,
the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
research on reactive armor systems.
Acoustic sensors systems
The budget request included $41.1 million in PE 62624A for
applied research on weapons and munitions technology. The
Army's Sensor and Information Fusion for Improved Hostile Fire
Situational Awareness technology objective seeks to develop
enhanced acoustic and other sensors to detect, locate, and
classify a wide range of threats. In support of these efforts,
the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for
continued development of gunfire detection and location
systems, and an additional $3.0 million for research on
innovative acoustic signal processing techniques to address
high clutter environment battlefield sensing challenges.
Army electronics research
The budget request included $61.4 million in PE 62705A for
research on electronics and electronic devices. The Army's non-
primary power system technology objective seeks to provide
electrical power solutions for ground vehicles during engine-
off operations. In support of that goal, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.5 million for hybrid battery
systems that could be used during silent watch operations.
The Army's dismounted soldier power technology objective
seeks to develop and demonstrate technologies to provide small,
lightweight, low-cost power sources. Consistent with that
objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million
for research on hybrid portable power systems.
Military engineering technology
The budget request included $54.8 million in PE 62784A for
military engineering technologies. In support of efforts to
develop lower cost, lightweight, blast resistant materials for
use at forward operating bases and other military
installations, the committee recommends an additional $3.0
million for research on ballistic materials for force
protection applications.
The Army's has established a technology objective to
improve battlespace and terrain awareness for forces by
creating actionable information from terrain, atmospheric, and
weather impacts and their effects on Army assets. In support of
this objective, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for geosciences and atmospheric research.
The Army has a stated objective to create prognostics and
diagnostic systems for operational readiness and condition-
based maintenance by developing technologies to detect health
status and performance as well as environmental conditions and
metrics that limit the lifetime of military assets. In support
of this objective, the committee recommends an additional $3.5
million for sensors and communication systems to monitor
structural integrity of defense infrastructure.
Ballistic protection systems
The budget request included $27.1 million in PE 62787A for
warfighter technologies. The Army is currently undertaking
efforts to improve the ballistic protection capabilities of
infrastructures at base camps in order to reduce vulnerability
to mortars and improvised explosive devices. In support of
those efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for development of advanced composite ballistic panels.
The Army's enhanced performance personnel armor technology
objective seeks to develop materials technology and tools to
address emerging ballistic and blast threats. In support of
that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for research on enhanced ballistic protection
materials. In order to help address the threat of burn injuries
to deployed warfighters, the committee recommends an increase
of $2.5 million for thermal resistant fiber research.
Medical technologies
The budget request included $99.0 million in PE 62787A for
applied research on medical technologies. In support of the
Army's objective to develop fluid resuscitation technology to
reduce injury and loss of life on the battlefield, the
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on
advanced functional nanomaterials for biological processes such
as drug and critical fluid delivery.
To support development of combat casualty care
capabilities, the committee recommends an additional $5.5
million for research on hemorrhaging, advanced tissue
replacement, and bone regeneration relevant to military trauma
care; an additional $3.5 million for biomechanics research to
evaluate the risk of brain injury from blast and blunt loading;
$3.5 million for research on equipment designs to reduce
neurotrauma in warfighters; and $5.0 million for research on
explosion blast interactions with protective equipment and
personnel. The committee also recommends an additional $2.5
million for research on secondary trauma issues facing service
personnel who are treating mental health problems, in
coordination with existing Army and Department of Defense
programs in this area.
The committee notes that although the Department of Defense
has significantly increased investments in medical research
over previous budget requests, there is still limited
investment in capabilities to prevent and treat infectious
diseases. To enhance efforts in this area, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on
treatments for dengue fever and $2.5 million for malaria
vaccine research.
Army advanced medical research and technologies
The budget request included $72.9 million in PE 63002A for
advanced medical technologies. The Army's medical research
program on this effort focuses on warfighter medical protection
performance standards that demonstrate and transition
technologies and tools associated with biomechanical-based
health risks, injury assessment and prediction, soldier
survivability, and performance during continuous operations.
Consistent with these efforts, the committee recommends an
additional $2.0 million for the development of biosensor
controller and monitor systems, and $2.5 million for body
temperature conditioning technologies.
The committee notes that the Army has established the Armed
Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM). The
committee notes that AFIRM is developing clinical therapies in
areas including burn repair, wound healing, and limb
reconstruction, regeneration, or transplantation. The committee
recommends an additional $4.0 million to support the activities
of the institute.
The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency for its work developing advanced prosthetics
technologies for use by wounded warriors. In support of these
efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million
for lower limb prosthetics development, and $8.0 million to
support transition of prosthetics technologies to clinical
practice to improve amputee patient care.
The committee further recommends an additional $7.5 million
for research on the integration of medical technologies to
address combat casualty care issues, and $12.0 million to
support research on Gulf War illnesses.
Army aviation technologies
The budget request included $60.1 million in PE 63003A for
advanced aviation technologies. The Army's aviation science and
technology program includes funding for the Advanced Affordable
Turbine Engine (AATE) program. The goal of the AATE program is
to develop the next generation utility and attack helicopter
engine. In support of that goal, the committee recommends an
additional $4.0 million for the AATE program, and $5.0 million
for the development of full authority digital engine controls.
In support of the Army's technology objective to develop
technologies for small JP-8 fueled engines for small unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV), the committee recommends an additional
$3.0 million for research on heavy fuel UAV propulsion systems.
Consistent with committee efforts to enhance systems
engineering and prototyping capabilities, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million for aviation weapon
systems integration technologies and $3.75 million for an
enterprise resource planning system for Army prototype
integration efforts.
The Army is currently investing in a number of capability-
based operations and sustainment technologies that improve the
operational availability of rotorcraft while reducing operating
and support costs. In support of these efforts, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of an
inspection system for helicopter rotor blades and other
composite components.
Army weapons and munitions technology
The budget request included $66.4 million in PE 63004A for
advanced weapons and munitions technologies. The committee
recommends an additional $3.0 million for efforts to reduce
vehicle weight and improve fuel efficiency by developing low
cost, lightweight, high strength metals such as castings,
powder metal forgings, and titanium components. In support of
Department of Defense efforts to increase manufacturing
capabilities of advanced systems based on nanotechnology, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for
nanotechnology manufacturing research.
Alternative energy research
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
begun to make significant efforts to improve energy efficiency
of its installations, processes, platforms, and weapons
systems. These investments have the promise of reducing
Department costs, increasing defense capabilities, and reducing
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
In order to support these efforts and expand Department
investments in next generation energy technologies, promote
technology demonstration and prototyping of advance energy
technology systems, and to enhance the Department's role as an
aggressive early adopter of novel energy technologies, the
committee recommends a set of increases for competitively
awarded energy research projects. The committee recommends an
increase of $20.0 million in PE 63005A, $20.0 million in PE
62123N, $20.0 million in PE 63216F, and $20.0 million in PE
63712S for alternative energy research efforts.
Robotic systems
The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A for
research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. The
committee notes the increasing use and value of robotic systems
on the battlefield to perform counter-improvised explosive
device maneuvers; intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance; and other tactical missions. The committee also
notes that section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)
established a goal that by 2015, one-third of the operational
ground combat vehicles acquired through the Army's Future
Combat Systems program will be unmanned. In support of these
goals, the committee recommends an increase of $24.5 million
for the development of robotics systems, vehicle autonomy, and
advanced energy and propulsion systems for robotic vehicles.
The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63711D8Z for robotics operations training efforts. Finally, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62624A
to continue the testing and development of weaponized unmanned
ground vehicle platforms.
Tire development for joint light tactical vehicle program
The budget request includes $181.6 million for combat
vehicle and automotive advanced technology development. The
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to continue
development efforts for lighter, more agile tires. This project
will also sustain a critical manufacturing capability in the
defense industrial base, thereby providing the Department with
competitive alternatives for critical components in price and
supply.
Vehicle energy and power programs
The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A and
$55.9 million in PE 62601A for combat vehicle research and
development. The committee has been supportive of efforts to
increase the energy efficiency and performance of combat and
tactical vehicles through the application of advanced energy
technologies. These technologies can also enable capabilities
such as silent watch, extended range, and the provision of
mobile electric power, all of which serve to enhance the
operational capability of warfighters. To support the
development of advanced battery technologies for vehicle
systems, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million
for battery research and demonstrations.
The committee notes that the Army has been experimenting
with a variety of hybrid systems to support Future Combat
Systems, trucks, and light tactical vehicles. Consistent with
the development of hybrid engines and systems to support
military applications, the committee recommends an increase of
$30.6 million for hybrid engines and components.
In support of the development of advanced auxiliary power
units (APU) to meet growing vehicle and equipment power
requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million for the development of advanced APU systems.
Water analysis technologies
The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A for
combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The committee notes
that water represents a significant part of the sustainment
requirement for deployed operations. The committee recommends
an increase of $2.0 million for the development of water
analysis systems to improve water quality monitoring for
deployed forces.
Training and simulation systems
The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 63015A for
next generation training and simulation systems. To enhance
training for battlefield lifesaving skills, the committee
recommends an additional $2.5 million for combat medic training
systems. The committee notes that the Army's Institute for
Creative Technologies has developed a number of computer
simulations that are being transitioned into Army training
systems. To support these types of efforts, the committee
recommends an additional $4.5 million for joint fires and
effects trainer system enhancements.
Mid-size unmanned ground vehicles
The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63125A for
technologies to combat terrorism. The Army has an established
technology objective to develop near autonomous unmanned
systems for a variety of combat missions. In support of this
effort, and to encourage systems engineering and prototyping
activities, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5
million for development of mid-size unmanned ground vehicles
for counterterrorism missions.
Aircraft survivability systems
The budget request included $19.2 million in PE 63270A for
electronic warfare technologies. The Army has established a
technology objective to develop and integrate threat warning
sensors and countermeasures to protect aircraft against small
arms, rocket propelled grenades, man-portable air defense
systems, and other threats. Consistent with that objective, the
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for development
of laser technologies to improve aircraft survivability against
missile threats.
Advanced imaging technologies
The budget request included $64.0 million in PE 63313A for
advanced missile and rocket technologies. The Army has a
technical objective to develop tactical information
technologies for assured network operations and to enable
battlefield information sharing. Consistent with that
objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million
for imaging and networking research to enable rapid and precise
target discrimination and identification.
Bradley third generation forward looking infrared
The budget request included $40.3 million in PE 63710A for
night vision advanced technology, but provided no funds for
third generation infrared technology. The committee recommends
an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63710A for Bradley infantry
fighting vehicle third generation forward looking infrared
technology development.
Military engineering systems
The budget request included $5.9 million in PE 63734A for
advanced military engineering technologies. The committee
recommends an additional $500,000 for permafrost research to
enhance the understanding and implications of permafrost-
related geophysical phenomenology on defense infrastructure and
systems for current and future operations.
Consistent with efforts to improve Department of Defense
energy security and efficiency, the committee recommends an
additional $8.0 million for development of solar cell
technologies for use at military installations.
Counter-mortar radar systems
The budget request included $41.2 million in PE 63772A for
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technologies. The
National Research Council's 2008 study on ``Directed Energy
Technology for Countering Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars
(CRAM)'' highlights the potential need for the development of
radar systems that can perform precise tracking of targets in
all-weather conditions. In support of that need, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for research on advanced
CRAM radar systems.
Advanced environmental controls
The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
advanced environmental control systems. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A for the
development of thermal management control systems that can
support sensors and electronic systems that operate in the
harsh environmental conditions required by missile defense
systems. The committee notes that advanced environmental
control systems have applicability to a variety of military
systems that operate in harsh environments.
Advanced electronics integration
The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
advanced electronics integration. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million in PE 63305A for advanced electronics
integration to improve state-of-the-art weapon system
electronics, with the goal of reducing the size, weight, and
cost of electronic components, while also reducing hazardous
materials used in such advanced electronics. This effort
supports Army objectives for research, prototyping, testing,
and production technologies that have potential to produce more
efficient, high performance, less hazardous, and lower cost
electronics.
Adaptive robotic technology
The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for
development of adaptive robotic technology to improve
integrated missile defense capabilities. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 63305A for
development of adaptive robotic technology for Army missile
defense and space mission requirements, including processes,
tools, models, and simulations for improved integration of
complex functions and operations.
Joint future theater lift
The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63801A for
Aviation Advanced Development, but no funds to sustain the
technology base and risk reduction activities for advanced
tiltrotor platforms, particularly for the joint future theater
lift (JFTL) mission. In addition, the Joint Advanced Concepts
Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), which has
purview over all Department of Defense (DOD) vertical take-off
and landing (VTOL) technology, has insufficient resources to
conduct analyses, planning, and oversight. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense is on the verge of
losing an opportunity to exploit technology that could enable
fundamentally new ground force operational concepts, and
provide major energy efficiencies, a baseline for future VTOL
aircraft, and major benefits to commercial aviation.
The Army, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with private sector
investments, have methodically matured technology for high-
performance tiltrotor aircraft. In parallel, the Army, the Army
Science Board, and the Defense Science Board, have examined the
potential operational benefits and concepts of operation that
advanced tiltrotor platforms could enable. The results of these
activities indicate that a credible option exists to make large
gains in effectiveness that the committee believes the
Department must seriously address.
These efforts have been building towards a decision point
that DOD must, in any event, soon face: a long-term replacement
for the C-130 theater lift capability. The 2008 Air Mobility
Master Plan stated that planned initial operational capability
for a C-130 replacement is 2021, and, to support that date,
that a prototype would need to be flying by 2015. As far as the
committee knows, the Department has budgeted no funds for
accomplishing this objective.
The Army and the Air Force are currently deadlocked over
requirements for the JFTL platform. The Army is proposing
requirements that only a high-performance VTOL/short take-off
and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft could meet; the Air Force
is insisting on requirements that favor a fixed-wing jet. The
committee notes that the Air Force touts that the C-17 is
designed for the strategic delivery of troops and cargo
directly to forward bases in the deployment area, operating
through small, austere airfields. Extrapolating from this, the
committee would expect the Air Force to embrace the direct
delivery goal on the operational and tactical level.
The Army wants a VTOL/STOVL transport with strategic range
that could (1) carry all the Army's ground vehicles except the
M-1 tank; (2) support mounted vertical maneuver, including from
sea basing; and (3) routinely deliver supplies and equipment
directly to the point of need, instead of first to airfields
and then via helicopter to forward locations. These missions
could be conducted only with a heavy-lift VTOL/STOVL. Because
of the ability to deliver cargo directly to the point of need,
and the anticipated far greater efficiency of a tiltrotor as
compared to helicopter transport, the Army projects that a
tiltrotor JFTL would be far more efficient than a fixed-wing
replacement for the C-130, providing major fuel savings, in
addition to supporting revolutionary operational concepts.
Proponents of advanced tiltrotor concepts in the Army, the
Army Science Board, and the Defense Science Board argue also
that it could serve as a flexible tanker able to operate from
forward locations near the point of need, rather than from
distant airbases, including picking up fuel at sea. Proponents
foresee that a large tiltrotor would also have major benefits
for commercial aviation in relieving congestion at airports.
Scaled down in size, proponents believe that advanced tiltrotor
platforms would provide tremendous gains in performance and
efficiency over current helicopters, and could become the basis
in the future for higher-performing unmanned aerial vehicles.
The committee is aware that, for a number of years, the
Army Science Board has recommended that the best way to resolve
or prove whether these capabilities are realistic is to conduct
a competitive prototyping effort. The Defense Science Board in
2008 (Report on DOD Energy Strategy) made a similar, strongly
worded recommendation.
The cost of such a prototyping effort would be substantial
if it were conducted in the normal manner. Moreover, a plan to
wait to conduct a competitive prototyping effort as part of an
acquisition program would take years to begin, and presupposes
that the current requirements dispute is resolved and that
there is confidence in the cost and performance estimates of an
advanced tiltrotor. This scenario seems unlikely, but possible,
provided funds are forthcoming to sustain the industrial base
in the interim.
An alternative would be to initiate now a competitive
prototype of an advanced tiltrotor independent of a program of
record and a formally approved requirement in the most
streamlined manner possible. This is the approach used
successfully to prototype the aircraft that became the F-16 and
F-18 fighters, which was relatively inexpensive.
The committee is aware that DARPA offered to fund half the
cost of this type of prototyping effort if a suitable partner
would step forward. In addition to the Army and Marine Corps,
potential participants include SOCOM and the Central
Intelligence Agency, which could value, for a variety of
sensitive missions, an efficient, large, and long-range
aircraft that requires no runway.
The committee directs that the USD (AT&L), in consultation
with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, report to
the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2009, on:
1. Plans to sustain the tiltrotor risk reduction
activities for a JFTL;
2. How the Department intends to determine whether
the revolutionary benefits of a heavy lift tiltrotor
can be realized so that the Department may make an
informed decision on the C-130 replacement program; and
3. The merits of initiating a low-cost, highly
streamlined competitive prototyping effort immediately,
at an appropriate scale to cover all potential mission
applications, to determine whether cost and performance
goals can be met, to help define requirements, and to
sustain the industrial base.
The committee also recommends authorization of $58.5
million for Aviation Advanced Development, an increase of $50.0
million above the request, to sustain the tiltrotor industrial
base through risk reduction activities. The committee
recommends authorization of $3.0 million in PE 63200D8Z, Joint
Advanced Concepts Office, for planning and oversight of VTOL
programs and activities across the Department.
Finally, the committee urges the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council, to ask the combatant commanders (COCOM) to provide
detailed views on the requirements for JFTL. The committee
notes that section 105 of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requires input from the COCOMs.
Logistics and engineer equipment-advanced development
The budget request includes $32.1 million in PE 63804A for
the ongoing development of the joint light tactical vehicle
(JLTV). The committee continues to support the Army and Marine
Corps development of a next-generation family of light tactical
vehicles. However, the committee understands that the Army and
Marine Corps lack a long-term tactical wheeled vehicle
strategy. Additionally, the committee is concerned about the
uncertainty in the services' plan to incorporate the sizable
fleet of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAP) and
the MRAP all-terrain-vehicle (M-ATV), which is still in
development. Further, the committee believes that lessons
learned from the eventual deployment of the M-ATV in
Afghanistan will ultimately benefit the JLTV program and that
JLTV should be more appropriately phased to incorporate these
lessons.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million in funding for the JLTV program. This decrease is in
addition to the committee's $12.0 million reduction in the
Marine Corps' funding request for the JLTV program.
Next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology
The budget request included $74.8 million in PE 64601A for
infantry support weapons. The committee notes that the Army is
accelerating research and development of materials to increase
personal protective equipment while reducing its weight. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 64601A
for next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology.
Type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun
The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64601A for
the development of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64601A
to complete the type classification of the lightweight .50
caliber machine gun.
Future combat system non-line of sight cannon
The budget request included $58.2 million in PE 64647A for
the contract termination liability associated with the
cancellation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) non-line of
sight cannon (NLOS-C).
The Department of Defense has directed the cancellation of
the FCS Brigade Combat Team acquisition program and issued a
stop-work order with respect to the NLOS-C pending resolution
of statutory requirements for system fielding. The committee
understands that as of June 2, 2009, $215.9 million in fiscal
year 2009 research and development, procurement, and advanced
procurement funds for FCS NLOS-C has not been executed. Final
termination liability will not be negotiated until the program
is formally cancelled; however, unexecuted funds currently
available in the program appear adequate to cover the potential
cost. Therefore, the funds requested for fiscal year 2010 are
unjustified.
The committee notes that the Army has been attempting to
modernize its armored self-propelled howitzer fleet for several
years. The cancellation of the NLOS-C, following cancellation
of the Crusader program in 2002, means that the current self-
propelled howitzer system, the M109A6 Paladin, may remain the
workhorse of the Army's armored artillery for several more
years.
In 2008, the Army started the Paladin Integration
Management (PIM) program to modernize and upgrade the M109A6
Paladin. The PIM program is part of the Army's overall heavy
force management strategy to ensure the sustainability of
current armored weapon systems capabilities. Planned Paladin
upgrades to improve power train, suspension, power management,
and electronic subsystems will support the modernization of
fire control, navigation, communications, and gun drive
systems. All these improvements will increase the Paladin's
performance and reliability, reduce life cycle costs, and
address electronic obsolescence issues to meet the Army's needs
to 2050.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $58.2
million in PE 64660A and an increase of $58.2 million in PE
64854A to complete testing, continue cost reduction efforts,
and accelerate low rate initial production of the PIM program.
The committee further notes that the most mature prototype
FCS NLOC-C technologies were those mission module components
that were in some cases carried forward from the cancelled
Crusader program. These weapons system technologies applied to
M109A6 Paladin could have the potential to significantly
improve the accuracy, reliability, and responsiveness of
indirect fire support. The committee acknowledges that the
Paladin PIM program provides critical capability updates for
the M109A6 Paladin for today's heavy force. At the same time,
the committee notes the need for a networked next-generation
self-propelled howitzer program that keeps pace with other Army
weapons modernization programs.
The committee therefore directs that the Army conduct an
analysis of the technical feasibility, suitability, and
affordability of upgrading the M109A6 Paladin with NLOS-C
mission module components, such as fire control, munitions
handling, and crew station capabilities. The Army shall provide
the congressional defense committees with a report on the
results of this analysis not later than September 30, 2009. The
report required is not intended to delay the current PIM
development or production schedule.
Future combat system manned ground vehicles and common ground vehicle
The budget request included $368.6 million in PE 64660A for
the contract termination liability associated with the
cancellation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground
vehicle (MGV).
The Department of Defense has directed the cancellation of
the FCS Brigade Combat Team program and initiation of a new
Army ground vehicle program. After re-evaluating requirements,
technology, and approach, the Department of Defense will re-
launch the Army's combat vehicle modernization program,
including a competitive process.
The committee understands that as of June 2, 2009, $612.7
million in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 funds for FCS MGV has not
been executed. Final termination liability has not been
negotiated; however, unexecuted funds currently available in
the program appear adequate to cover the potential cost.
Therefore, the funds requested for fiscal year 2010 are
unjustified.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $323.6
million in PE 64660A.
The committee agrees with the Secretary of Defense's
assessment that the Army does need a next-generation ground
combat vehicle modernization program and believes that the
funds requested are better invested in related armored and
tactical vehicle research and development activities. The
committee recommends increases as follows for research and
development activities to support Army ground vehicle
modernization:
[In millions of dollars]
PE 62601A Army vehicle modernization research..................... $25.0
PE 62618A Army vehicle survivability research..................... $25.0
PE 63005A Army vehicle modernization technologies................. $50.0
PE 63653A Advanced tank armament systems.......................... $50.0
PE 64604A Medium tactical vehicle development..................... $10.0
PE 64622A Heavy tactical vehicle development...................... $10.0
PE 78045A Combat vehicle manufacturing technology................. $30.0
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
increases for additional high priority Army vehicle research
and development projects.
The committee further recommends that all of the $45.0
million remaining in PE 64660A shall be available only for the
research and development of active protection systems for
light, medium, and heavy vehicles against the full range of
threats, including rocket-propelled grenades, antitank guided
missiles, kinetic energy rounds, and other threats. The
committee believes that these funds should be used to leverage
ongoing live fire testing activities previously mandated by
Congress, to develop common active protection system (APS)
components that can be used for a variety of vehicle types, and
also to address specific APS vehicle integration issues.
Urban training development
The budget request included $30.2 million in PE 64715A for
engineering development of non-system training devices. The
committee recognizes the importance of developing up to date
concepts and systems for training joint military operations in
complex urban terrain that will increase unit effectiveness at
reduced training costs. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million in PE 64715A for research projects leading to the
development of concepts and systems for joint military training
in urban terrain and cultural environments.
Common guidance control module
The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 64802A for
development of precision guidance systems for artillery and
mortar munitions. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5
million in PE 64802A to accelerate the development of a common
guidance control module adapted to the precision guidance kit
for 105mm howitzer munitions.
Army test and evaluation programs
The budget request included $51.8 million in PE 64759A for
major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that
this account funds the operations, sustainment, and
modernization of Army test ranges. These ranges are critical to
the delivery of operational systems to deployed forces since
they provide the facilities and infrastructure for both the
developmental and operational testing of defense systems to
validate their operational effectiveness, suitability, and
reliability.
The committee notes that the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center has not certified the Army's fiscal year 2010
test budget after analyses indicated there was insufficient
funding in this account to support the projected workload. The
insufficient request in the fiscal year 2010 budget seems to
indicate to the committee that the Army is willing to take
risks with the effectiveness of both Army and other joint
systems by providing inadequate testing resources. Risking
inadequate testing resources can quickly lead to unknowable
consequences for the cost and effectiveness of deployed systems
as well as for the warfighters who depend on those systems. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to work more
closely with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to ensure that future Army
investments in test resources is sufficient to meet the
projected workload requirements of the users of Army test
facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $25.6
million in PE 65601A to correct the Army's underfunding of this
account.
The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 65605A for
the Department of Defense High Energy Laser Test Facility
(HELSTF). The committee notes that in 2009, the Army will
complete a significant upgrade of the facility by adding a
solid-state laser source from the Joint High Power Solid State
Laser program. Following these upgrades, the Army plans to use
the facility beginning in 2010 for tests associated with the
High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator program. To support
these activities, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million for HELSTF.
The committee notes that the Dugway Proving Grounds is the
Department of Defense's premier testing facility for chemical
and biological defense systems. To support the development of
these capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of
$7.0 million for data fusion and test equipment improvements.
To help address the integration of test and training
activities between Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, and
Holloman Air Force Base, the committee recommends an increase
of $3.0 million for tools for frequency management, airspace
deconfliction, and real-time monitoring of ranges.
3D woven preform technology for Army munitions
The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 65805A for
munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety, but
provided no funds for 3D woven preform technology. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 65805A
for 3D woven preform technology for Army munitions
applications.
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System
The budget request included $360.1 million in PE 12419A for
continued development of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile
Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS). The committee
notes that the JLENS program schedule has slipped by 1 year
since last year. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
reduction of $20.0 million in PE 12419A for the JLENS program.
TOW missile improvements
The budget request included no funds in PE 23802A for other
missile product improvements. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 23802A for TOW missile
improvements to demonstrate a new propulsion system that will
be insensitive-munitions compliant, reduces time of flight, and
extends the missile's maximum effective range beyond 5,000
meters.
Joint tactical ground station
The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 28053A for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the Joint
Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS), and $6.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army, line 70. The committee concludes that this
program is an unnecessary expense since the Air Force provides
the same missile warning data through the same principal data
dissemination means--the Global Broadcast System. The Air Force
also maintains survivable direct downlink and processing
capabilities for assured injection into the broadcast. The
committee recommends no funding in these accounts for JTAGS.
Collection management tools development
The budget request included $2.1 million in PE 33028A for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Security and
Intelligence Activities, but no funds to sustain the program to
develop and improve automated tools for tasking the all-source
intelligence collection process on foreign missile threats,
from the identification of collection requirements through
optimization of collection system deployment. The committee
recommends an authorization of $5.0 million above the requested
amount for this activity.
A160 hummingbird
The budget request included $202.5 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, in PE 35204A for Army
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), but no funds for the
A160 Hummingbird. The A160 was developed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and has completed
successful demonstrations. The A160 can carry a larger payload
than the Predator with the same endurance and range, but, as a
helicopter, is not dependent on any sort of prepared runway
surface. The optimal speed rotor on the A160 makes it quiet and
fuel efficient. There is every reason to believe that the A160,
when matured through the accumulation of flight time, will be
an excellent platform with huge potential across multiple
mission areas.
DARPA developed the A160 along with the Foliage Penetration
Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar
(FORESTER). This radar has a demonstrated capability to detect
and track people walking beneath forest canopy at substantial
range, but only when operated from a motionless platform like
the A160. DARPA's objective was to produce a system that could
support special forces and conventional forces in conducting
surveillance in the forest and jungle, such as in U.S. Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM).
Congress and DARPA have already funded the production of a
significant number of A160 airframes, in various
configurations, most of which are owned by U.S. Special
Operations Command (SOCOM). SOCOM has budgeted significant
funds for an upcoming 4-month duration operational deployment
to SOUTHCOM. However, SOCOM lacks the resources to sustain the
factory and workforce that build the A160. Without additional
funding by the start of fiscal year 2010, the factory will shut
down, which could, practically speaking, mean the end of the
program before users can determine fully its value. This
situation is a reflection of DARPA's recurring problem in
transitioning even its most successful technology developments.
The committee is dismayed at the prospect of the A160
program dying. It is very hard to conceive that the Department
of Defense (DOD) would have no use for an endurance vertical
take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV that requires no airfield and
carries a large payload. Fortunately, the Army and the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force
have begun to take notice of this platform and recognize its
potential. The Army G2 has indicated to the committee that the
Army wants to deploy four A160 aircraft to Afghanistan, to be
flown with the FORESTER or another radar that is also designed
to detect humans walking, only in the open rather than under
foliage. This radar, called the vehicle and dismount
exploitation radar (VADER), also was developed by DARPA and the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization.
VADER does not have to be operated on a motionless platform
to detect the movement of dismounted people, but platform speed
affects performance. Above a certain platform speed, VADER
cannot discriminate small target velocities from platform
motion-induced clutter. The committee understands that the ISR
Task Force intends to deploy VADER to Afghanistan as soon as
possible. The VADER radar is too large for the Predator-1B and
even the Predator-1C UAVs. The Task Force reluctantly decided
to deploy on the Reaper UAV, and reportedly will seek funding
in a reprogramming request.
However, the Reaper minimum airspeed is at the limit of
where VADER is calculated to be able to detect dismounts, and
is therefore a poor candidate for an initial deployment, at
least until more sophisticated versions of VADER are available.
The A160, in contrast, would be an excellent match for VADER,
as it is for FORESTER. The committee therefore urges DOD to
alter any planned reprogramming request to direct funds to an
A160 deployment, as outlined here.
To support a sustained A160 deployment to Afghanistan, DOD
would need to standardize existing SOCOM airframes, and
manufacture new ones. These activities would sustain the
factory and workforce through the end of fiscal year 2010 and,
significantly, through the deployment to SOUTHCOM and part of
the deployment to Afghanistan. The expectation is that, by that
time, the A160 will have accumulated enough flight time to
determine its vitality and utility. At that point, DOD could
make a fully informed decision on transitioning the A160 to a
program of record.
The committee recommends $288.5 million, $86.0 million
above the request, to support the sustained deployment of the
A160 to Afghanistan with the FORESTER and VADER systems,
including the production of five additional aircraft.
Army manufacturing technologies
The budget request included $68.5 million in PE 78045A for
manufacturing technologies. Among the Army's manufacturing
technology program goals are the development of advanced
manufacturing processes, enhancing quality while reducing cost,
and transferring improved manufacturing technologies to the
industrial base. In support of those goals, the committee
recommends increases of $2.0 million for the development of
software-based intelligent manufacturing techniques to reduce
costs of systems production; $2.75 million for manufacturing
metrology research; and $2.5 million for repair technology
development for aging and battle-damaged equipment.
Navy
Navy basic research
The budget request included $531.3 million for Navy basic
research activities. The Navy's survivability and self-defense
science and technology focus area has a specific objective to
develop advanced construction materials for survivable
platforms. In support of that objective, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 61153N for blast
and impact resistant structures, and an increase of $2.0
million for research on nanoscale materials.
In support of efforts to train the next generation of
defense scientists and engineers, the committee recommends an
increase of $1.0 million in PE 61152N for education outreach
programs.
Energetics research
The budget request included $59.8 million in PE 62114N for
applied research on power projection technologies. The
committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research on
advanced energetic materials to support efforts to counter new
types of asymmetric threats such as chemical-biological weapons
as well as increasing capabilities to defeat deeply buried
targets.
Navy force protection research
The budget request included $91.4 million in PE 62123N for
applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy's
power, energy science, and technology focus area has a goal to
develop efficient power conversion technologies with a wide
range of energy sources to provide reliable power to a range of
naval systems. To support this goal, the committee recommends
increases of: $4.0 million for research on integrated power
systems for future platforms that have all-electric propulsion
and weapon loads and $2.5 million for research on
reconfigurable shipboard power systems to increase system
reliability and survivability.
The Navy's survivability and self-defense science and
technology focus area seeks to enhance force protection by
using innovative sensors to help detect and defeat incoming
attacks. In support of that initiative, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.5 million for the development of
port security sensors for under-hull inspection of ships.
Consistent with the Navy's platform mobility technology
objectives to develop new advanced platform designs supporting
new directions in naval warfare, such as increased agility, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for continued
design and development of composite high-speed boats.
Warfighter sustainment technologies
The budget request included $104.2 million in PE 62236N for
applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies.
In support of continuing Navy and Department of Defense
initiatives to reduce corrosion cost, the committee recommends
an additional $4.0 million for efforts on the development of
sustainment and remanufacturing processes, asset health and
logistics management techniques, and materials aging and
corrosion abatement technologies.
The Department of Defense anti-tamper program seeks to
deter the reverse engineering and exploitation of critical
technology in order to impede technology transfer, stop
alteration of system capability, and prevent the development of
countermeasures to U.S. systems. In support of these efforts,
the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
62236N for research on anti-reverse engineering nanodevices, as
well as an increase of $3.0 million in PE 65790D8Z for research
on anti-tamper software.
Advanced antenna technologies
The budget request included $64.8 million in PE 62271N for
applied research on electromagnetic systems. The Navy is
seeking to reduce the number and size of antennae needed on
ships but still maintain all necessary radar, communication,
target tracking, and imaging capabilities. To support these
efforts, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million
for advanced digital radar systems.
Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research
The budget request included $48.8 million in PE 62435N for
applied research on ocean warfighting environments. The Navy's
platform mobility science and technology focus area includes
the goal of development and delivery of system and equipment
technologies to improve the performance of sea platforms to
meet operational requirements. In support of this goal, the
committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for advanced
unmanned undersea vehicle research.
In order to support Navy efforts to enhance the
understanding of optical propagation within challenging ocean
environments in support of mine countermeasures and underwater
autonomous network communications, the committee recommends an
additional $2.0 million for research on extended range
underwater imaging sensors and optical communications networks.
Undersea warfare systems
The budget request included $55.7 million in PE 62747N for
applied research on undersea warfare technologies. The
committee notes that undersea unmanned gliders are being
developed for use in intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare missions. In support
of those efforts, and to promote systems engineering and
prototyping activities, the committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million for littoral glider development.
Low observable platforms
The budget request included $40.9 million in PE 62782N for
applied research on mine and expeditionary warfare
capabilities. To support Navy science and ethnology objectives
to develop multi-spectral low observable technologies to
improve platform stealth, the committee recommends an
additional $2.0 million for the development of electromagnetic
signature assessment systems, and an increase of $750,000 in PE
62747N for quiet, compact power systems for naval platforms.
Mobile intelligence and tracking systems
The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63114N for
advanced technologies for power projection. The Navy has a
science and technology objective to develop data fusion and
analysis technologies for actionable intelligence generation to
defeat adaptive irregular threats in complex environments. In
support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase
of $4.0 million for research on data processing and fusion
technologies to support multiple simultaneous detections,
tracking, identification, and targeting of asymmetric and
mobile threats in combat operations.
Force protection advanced technology
The budget request included $66.0 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology. This program addresses
applied research associated with providing force protection
capability for all naval platforms.
The budget request included no funding to develop advanced
coating process technologies for naval aviation platforms and
components. The committee believes that advancements in
technologies, such as thermal/plasma spraying and physical/
chemical vapor deposition would be suitable for naval aviation
components. For example, these spray and vapor deposition
technologies have the potential to produce thermal barrier
coatings using conventional ceramics/metals or even novel nano-
materials that produce the same or better properties than
currently available exotic materials, while achieving
substantial savings. The committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million for developing and testing the advanced coating
process technologies in manufacturing and remanufacturing naval
aviation components.
The budget request included no funding for development of a
lithium battery technology that could replace one of the three
generators normally in operation or reserve aboard all large
Navy ships. If lithium battery technology could be scaled up to
a capacity of roughly 2.5 megawatts, such a battery would
replace one of the three ship service generators normally in
operation or in reserve aboard all surface combatants. Such a
battery system could provide a lower cost, higher quality
source of electrical power that would replace redundant back-up
power sources dedicated to subsystems throughout the ship. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to enable the
development of such lithium battery technology.
The committee recommends a total authorization of $74.0
million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology.
High-integrity global positioning system
The budget request included $59.1 million in PE 63235N for
the High-Integrity Global Positioning System. The committee
recommends no funding for this program. The committee notes
that there is still no demonstrated user for the concept;
moreover the cost of implementing the concept would be very
high and require additional expensive user equipment. It is
also not clear how the approach is being considered or how the
required hardware modifications are being coordinated with the
Joint Tactical Radio System open architecture approach.
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations
The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 63640M for
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The most
recent Marine Corps Science and Technology Strategic Plan
identifies science and technology objectives related to
development of high information content tactical sensors and
urban-specific situational awareness capabilities. In support
of those objectives, the committee recommends an increase of
$7.5 million for the development of acoustic sensors systems
for ground warfare missions.
The Marine Corps Science and Technology Strategic Plan has
a specific technology objective of developing advanced robotics
systems for ground combat. In support of that objective, the
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the
development of unmanned ground vehicle systems.
Semi-submersible unmanned undersea vehicle
The budget request included $116.1 million in PE 63207N for
air/ocean tactical applications. This program identifies new
state-of-the art government and commercial technologies,
transitions, demonstrates, and integrates them into Navy combat
systems that determine the operational effects of the physical
environment on the performance of combat forces and their new
and emerging platforms, sensors, systems, and munitions.
The budget request included no funding to develop a
semisubmersible unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) that could be
used to evaluate new sensor technologies and reduce risk of
employing them in regular Navy applications.
The committee understands that at least one such vehicle
has been designed and completed development, and with modest
additional funding, could complete launch and recovery
validations and demonstrate UUV performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million in PE
63207N for these purposes.
Sonobuoy wave energy module
The budget request included $16.6 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare systems development, but included no
funding for developing technology that would extend the in-
water life of sonobuoys. One such technology would rely on wave
energy to recharge batteries of operating sonobuoys. The
committee understands that this technology could also yield the
benefit of replacing existing batteries with lighter, and more
environmentally friendly power sources.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63254N for maturing this wave energy application for sonobuoys.
Shipboard system component development
The budget request included $1.7 million in PE 63513N for
shipboard system component development, but included no funding
for developing a hybrid propulsion system for the DDG-51 Aegis
destroyer.
The committee believes that such a system installed on a
DDG-51 would pay back the investment very quickly, as it would
save potentially thousands of barrels of fuel per ship per
year. The committee recommends an increase of $9.3 million to
design, build and test a hybrid electric drive system for DDG-
51 destroyers.
The committee recommends a total authorization of $11.0
million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component
development.
Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project
The budget request included $22.5 million in PE 63563N for
ship concept advanced design activities, but included no
funding for developing and implementing a remote monitoring and
troubleshooting capability that would allow Navy engineers to
provide global remote sustainment support to the fleet by
remotely reading on-board sensors, monitoring shipboard system
status, and providing expert advice to sailors as they maintain
and repair ship systems. The committee believes that such a
capability would yield savings, but, perhaps more importantly,
lead to better readiness levels.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.8
million in PE 63563N for developing and fielding this
capability.
Marine Corps ground combat/support systems
The budget request includes $58.0 million in PE 63635N for
the ongoing development of the joint light tactical vehicle
(JLTV). The committee continues to support the Army and Marine
Corps development of a next generation family of light tactical
vehicles. However, the committee understands that the Army and
Marine Corps lack a long-term tactical wheeled vehicle
strategy. Additionally, the committee is concerned about the
uncertainty in the services' plan to incorporate the sizable
fleet of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAP) and
the MRAP all-terrain-vehicle (M-ATV), which is still in
development. Further, the committee believes that lessons
learned from the eventual deployment of the M-ATV in
Afghanistan will ultimately benefit the JLTV program and that
JLTV should be more appropriately phased to incorporate these
lessons.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.0
million in funding for the JLTV program. This decrease is in
addition to the committee's $10.0 million reduction in the
Army's funding request for the JLTV program.
Model-based management decision tools for ground vehicles
The budget request included $73.8 million in PE 63635M for
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, of Marine Corps
Ground Combat and Support Systems, but no funds for model-based
management decision tools for ground vehicles.
The development of modern ground combat vehicles is more
difficult due to the growing complexity of vehicle armor,
suspension, electronics, and weapons. This complexity increases
development time and expense, including the time to test
components and subsystems. Computer simulation technology,
however, is now robust enough to accurately model and simulate
the behavior of multiple components simultaneously (co-
simulation). Full-vehicle co-simulation could lower costs,
speed development, and improve designs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of
$78.3 million, an increase of $4.5 million for computer
simulation tools for ground vehicle design and evaluation.
Navy energy program
The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63724N for
the Navy energy program. The Navy has indicated that the budget
request is not funding any energy research programs outside
those in science and technology accounts and was unable to
provide additional justification for the projects to be funded
with the money requested in this program element. Therefore,
the committee recommends a reduction of $8.476 million from
this account to reflect a lack of coordination with other Navy
energy research investments.
Navy energy research
The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63724N for
the Navy energy program. This program works to evaluate, adapt,
and demonstrate energy related technologies for Navy aircraft
and ship operations. In support of these goals the committee
recommends an increase of $5.5 million for the development of
fuel cell technologies for naval applications, and an
additional $4.75 million for solar heat reflective materials to
reduce cooling requirements.
Optical interconnect
The budget request included $4.3 million in PE 63739N for
Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but included no
funding to develop low cost, high quality fiber optic
interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The
Department of Defense continues to demand increasing data
processing, communication, and system control capabilities. The
next-generation data and communication management systems
needed for weapons systems will depend upon tightly integrated
optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect.
This solution optimizes space utilization while achieving high
bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic
interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety and
security. The Navy has requirements for next-generation optical
interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems,
and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy
vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million to develop this important technology.
Radio frequency identification technology program
The budget request included $4.3 million in PE 63739N for
Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but included no
funding to develop next-generation logistics management models
that would allow the Department of the Navy and the Department
of Defense to exploit the full potential of radio frequency
identification (RFID) systems. The Department of Defense
continues to field RFID systems, but has yet to exploit the
full potential of the information available from RFID systems
and the contribution such information could make to improving
logistics management information systems. The committee
recommends an increase of $1.0 million to improve the decision
support capability of existing logistics models and develop
better algorithms for these models.
Mobile maritime sensor development
The budget request included $190.0 million in PE 64501N for
development efforts in support of a next-generation cruiser,
CG(X). CG(X) is planned to be the replacement for the CG-47
class cruiser, with primary missions including air and missile
defense. The Navy's last long-range shipbuilding plan proposed
to procure the first ship of the CG(X) program in 2011. That
schedule was clearly too optimistic.
Part of the delay came from questions about the CG(X)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), called the Maritime Air and
Missile Defense of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) AoA. One problem has
been that demanding threat requirements have led to very
demanding sensor requirements, some of which could only be fit
on a cruiser-size vessel by achieving major technology
breakthroughs.
Another cause of the delay was that, as the committee
understands it, the Secretary of the Navy was asking questions
about potential contributions of off-board, networked sensors
and why the MAMDJF vessel had to be self-sufficient for target
acquisition and tracking.
The committee recognizes that there are at least two other
platforms within DOD inventories that could provide the basis
for developing a more robust off-board sensor augmentation.
Such an incremental development approach might not require that
the Navy make such heroic technology improvements in surface
combatant radar technology. These are the Navy's own programs
to develop a Cobra Judy replacement vessel, and the Missile
Defense Agency's Sea-Based X-Band radar.
A mobile maritime sensor could improve upon the performance
of either of these radars by making more modest technology
improvements that could provide requisite capability for radars
that would be less risky, cheaper to acquire and operate, and
potentially available sooner than sensors that must provide
equivalent performance from within the relatively constrained
confines of a surface combatant.
The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to:
(1) develop a radar architecture that would provide full field
of view; (2) design of a partial array prototype; (3) develop,
build, and test components of such an array; and (4) fabricate
and test a partial array prototype. Information resulting from
such an effort could provide valuable information upon which to
base informed decisions about the best way to support the
maritime air and missile defense mission.
Submarine communications at speed and depth
The budget request included $122.7 million in PE 64503N,
including $16.2 million to continue development of capabilities
to communicate with submarines when they are operating at
normal depths and speeds. Such communications capability would
permit submarines to provide better support to other forces in
a battle group, while allowing submarines to maintain their
stealthy posture.
The Navy has embarked on a program to develop this
capability that is divided into two parts: Increment 1 and
Increment 2. The Increment 1 program will bring some currently
available, expendable buoy technologies to the fleet over the
next 2 years.
The Navy plans to begin the Increment 2 program in fiscal
year 2011. This program will include submarine-towed buoy
systems to provide more persistent connectivity to submarines
operating below periscope depth. However, the committee does
not believe that the Navy has provided sufficient funding in
the fiscal year 2010 budget request to develop the advanced
technologies required in order to implement this next phase of
the program.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
develop these technologies.
Mold-in-place coating development
The budget request included $154.8 million in PE 64558N to
support design and development activities for submarines, but
included no funding for developing a mold-in-place technology
for installing or restoring advance submarine hull coatings.
Since current techniques for installing these coatings are
expensive and manpower intensive, having a process available
that would reduce the time and effort to install or replace
these coatings would yield savings to the Navy.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to
develop this capability.
New design SSN
The budget request included $154.8 million in PE 64558N to
support design and development activities for submarines, but
included no funding for developing a common command and control
module for application to Virginia-class submarines or a
potential Trident replacement program.
The committee understands that the Navy could design a new
command and control module for submarines that would enable
rapid reconfiguration of mission equipment in these spaces,
reduce the demands on watch standers, and reduce the total
ownership costs to the Navy for supporting disparate command
and control configurations. Starting such a design now would
permit the Navy to take best advantage of potential savings
from achieving a common configuration in the fleet.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million in PE 64558N to support these development activities.
Submarine tactical warfare system
The budget request included $59.7 million in PE 64562N for
developing enhancements to submarine combat control systems.
The budget request included no funding for developing an
artificial intelligence-based combat systems kernel. Such a
kernel would use expert systems, advanced signal and data
processing, and mission-focused human systems integration to
introduce much higher levels of automation that would optimize
manning and increase command decision and combat system
performance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million to support this development.
The budget request included no funding for developing a
weapon acquisition and firing system (WAFS). Today's weapons
systems are complex and require many manual procedures using
reference documents to determine weapon settings and tactics
while ensuring the safety of ships by employing proper weapon
safety settings. This cumbersome process is too slow and error
prone in many close combat situations. The WAFS provides a data
fusion capability that can automatically develop an accurate
target solution based on acoustic and non-acoustic sensors,
eliminating the need for reference documents and lowering ship
manning requirements. The committee recommends an increase of
$4.0 million to initiate research and development efforts as
well as allowing for at-sea testing and implementation of real-
time algorithms and associated in-board electronics necessary
for installing WAFS on legacy and future classes of submarines.
The budget request included no funding for developing a
submarine environment for evaluation and development. The Naval
Undersea Warfare Center has created a futuristic submarine
attack center to evaluate new command decision aids in a
realistic environment. This facility has provided a low-cost,
easily accessible testbed for small businesses, academia, and
production system developers to create and test innovative
technologies without incurring the expense of creating their
own test facility. This has led to getting better technology to
the fleet more quickly. The committee recommends an increase of
$4.0 million to expand this activity to improve the ability to
perform proof of concept testing and concept of operations
testing with fleet sailors using current submarines systems
augmented by new technologies.
The committee recommends a total increase of $13.0 million
in PE 64562N for the submarine tactical warfare system
programs.
Automated fiber optic manufacturing
The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 64567N for
ship contract design, but included no funding to build on an
Office of Naval Research initiative to provide automated
manufacturing for military-grade fiber optic assemblies for
aircraft carriers and other naval vessels. The committee
believes that such an activity could: (1) improve the quality,
reliability, and cost of such assemblies; and (2) facilitate
field installation and maintenance of such systems for vessels
while they are deployed. The committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million to continue this development.
Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle
The budget request included $35.5 million in PE 64755N for
ship self-defense (detect and control) projects, but included
no funding for the autonomous unmanned surface vehicle (AUSV)
program. The AUSV program supports the U.S. Navy's anti-
terrorism, force protection, and homeland defense missions. The
AUSV can protect commercial harbors, coastal facilities such as
commercial and military airports and nuclear power plants,
inland waterways, and large lakes. The vessel will utilize a
variety of advanced sensing and perimeter monitoring equipment
for surveillance and detection of targets of interest. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to continue
this development.
Next-generation Phalanx
The budget request included $34.2 million in PE 64756N for
ship self-defense (hard kill), but included no funding for
next-generation Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the
Navy's principal close-in weapon system for ship self-defense,
and has proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against
emerging air and surface target sets. The continually evolving
nature of the threat, unique challenges posed by operations in
the littorals, increased emphasis on single ship probability of
raid annihilation, and fact of life technology obsolescence
require a continued development effort to sustain the superior
performance of this critical ship self-defense system. The
committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 64756N
for the continued development of the next-generation Phalanx.
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system
The budget request included $88.9 million for ship self-
defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including
$4.8 million for various development activities related to the
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system.
The Navy has identified a series of development activities
associated with the NULKA system that are required to
understand and deal with emerging threats:
(1) continue to pace anti-ship cruise missile threats
with long pulse capability by incorporating radio
frequency and digital design enhancements;
(2) design an architecture that will ensure flawless
operation with the SPY-3 multi-function radar (MFR);
(3) integrate into NULKA into the Navy's Aegis weapon
control system open architecture; and
(4) provide shipboard test and trial support.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for
the NULKA development program to continue these efforts.
Navy medical research
The budget request included $9.9 million in PE 64771N for
medical systems development. To support efforts to protect
deployed forces from infectious diseases, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research on dengue
fever vaccines. To support efforts to treat injured service
members, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million
for research on composite tissue transplantation techniques for
treatment of traumatic injuries, an additional $3.0 million for
the development of advanced orthopedic surgical
instrumentation, and an additional $2.0 million for the
development of custom body part and prosthetic implants.
Navy information technology programs
The budget request included $69.0 million in PE 65013N for
information technology development. To support initiatives to
improve network centric operations, data fusion, and human
systems interfaces, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million for the development of integrated network-centric
technology systems, and an increase of $7.0 million for
information systems research and technology.
Navy test and evaluation programs
The budget request included $79.6 million in PE 64759N for
major test and evaluation investment. To support effective
interoperability testing and evaluation of complex, emerging
joint systems, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for aviation enterprise interoperability upgrades.
Advanced linear accelerator facility
The budget request included $75.0 million in PE 11221N,
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but
included no funding for the Crane linear accelerator facility
(LINAC). The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million
for the LINAC to simulate the high radiation environment in
space. The committee notes that this will complete the
construction of the LINAC facility. The committee directs the
Navy to develop and use the additional funds in conjunction
with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight
Council.
Expandable rigid wall composite shelter
The budget request included $120.4 million in PE 26623M for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Marine Corps
Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. Current rigid wall
shelters do not have ballistic protection, cannot carry loads
such as sandbags on the roof, are poorly insulated, are subject
to corrosion, and cannot be efficiently stacked on container
ships. New carbon fiber hybrid composite technology will
provide lightweight, rugged, thermally efficient, and
electromagnetic interference-hardened shelters for the Marine
Corps. The committee recommends an authorization of $1.3
million for this initiative.
Marine personnel carrier support system
The budget request included $120.4 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, in PE 26623M for Marine
Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems, but no funds to
initiate the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) Design for
Supportability System. This system, initiated during the
program's design phase, will reduce management and maintenance
costs throughout the program's life cycle using modern modeling
and collaborative software technology. The committee recommends
an authorization of $123.4 million, an increase of $3.0 million
above the request.
Ultrasonic consolidation for smart armor applications
The budget request included $120.4 million in PE 26623M,
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, for Marine
Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems, but insufficient
funds to complete development of Ultrasonic Consolidation for
Armor Applications technology.
Ultrasonic consolidation is a low-temperature process that
enables the production of laminates of dissimilar metals to
achieve properties not possible with conventional casting and
welding techniques. This process can be used to fashion
titanium aluminide, a lighter, cheaper, and more effective
armor.
The committee recommends authorization of $124.3 million,
$3.9 million above the request, to complete development of this
technology.
High performance capabilities for military vehicles
The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 26624M for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Marine Corps
Combat Services Support, but no funds for the high performance
capabilities for military vehicles project. This project is
dedicated to applying the best practices of the motorsports
industry to military vehicles, including engineering expertise,
equipment, and technology. The committee recommends
authorization of $18.1 million, $1.0 million above the request
for this project.
Mobile User Objective System
The Navy is responsible for maintaining narrow band ultra-
high frequency (UHF) satellite communications capability. The
current on-orbit capability is provided through a combination
of leased satellite capability, the Ultra-high frequency
follow-on (UFO) satellites, the last of which was launched in
2003, and two previous generation UHF satellites, which have
long surpassed their design lives. Several of the UFO
satellites have failed early and several others are single
string satellites. As a result, the UHF constellation is very
fragile. If all the satellites continue to operate with no
further failures the Navy expects to see the UHF constellation
degrade to unacceptable levels in May 2010. The first Mobile
User Objective System (MUOS), the next-generation UHF
satellite, is already 11 months behind schedule and continues
to have technical problems.
The committee continues to believe that the Navy should
initiate a UHF backup capability through leased or hosted
payload options. The committee understands that $32.0 million
remains from the brief but cancelled prior effort to look at
this option. The committee recommends a decrease in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 303109N line 192 of
$32.0 million and an increase of $32.0 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy, line 18, for a small UHF payload, of eight
or fewer channels, on an existing small satellite bus. The
committee directs the Navy to explore using a competition for a
fixed price contract for additional UHF capability. In
reviewing this option the Navy should look at utilizing the
Operationally Responsive Space Office as a possible option for
managing the augmentation, if the Navy believes that
augmentation efforts will take program office focus away from
the MUOS program.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report
back to the congressional defense committees no later than
January 1, 2010, with the plans for UHF augmentation and
constellation sustainment.
Navy manufacturing technology
The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 78011N for
Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes
that the Defense Science Board has recommended that investments
in the manufacturing technology program be increased to a level
of 1 percent of the total research, development, test, and
evaluation budget. The Board also found that the manufacturing
technology program has invested in efforts that have reduced
systems cost and improved systems performance. Consistent with
those recommendations and findings, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for integrated manufacturing
enterprise development to streamline manufacturing techniques,
business practices, and practices to reduce costs of Navy
platforms, and an additional $2.5 million for development of
advanced materials processing technologies and lower cost
repair methods for a variety of sea and air systems.
National Shipbuilding Research Program-Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise
The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for
maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research
Program--Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP-ASE) is a
collaborative effort between the Navy and industry which has
yielded significant productivity improvements for Navy ship
construction and repair. Under this program the Navy provides
funding that is matched and exceeded by industry investment.
Using this approach, the Navy has achieved a high return on
investment by providing near-term savings and avoiding
significant future costs. The committee believes that
continuation of the NSRP-ASE effort is a vital element of the
overarching objective of improving the affordability of naval
warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative
shipbuilding industrial base.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
78730N for the NSRP-ASE. The committee expects that the Navy
will allocate funds directly to this program in future budget
requests.
Air Force
Air Force basic research
The budget request included $321.0 million in PE 61102F for
defense research sciences activities. To support efforts in the
development of next generation energy sources for military
applications, the committee recommends an additional $1.0
million for research supporting liquid fuel production
processes and an additional $1.5 million for research on
wireless beamed power systems.
The National Research Council's 2006 study on ``Basic
Research in Information Science and Technology for Air Force
Needs'' recommended that the Air Force invest in research in
information security ``in support of the goal of measurable,
available, secure, trustworthy, and sustainable network-enabled
systems.'' Consistent with that recommendation the committee
recommends increases of: $4.0 million for development of cyber
security related educational programs; $4.0 million for
research on security for critical and vulnerable control
networks; and $2.0 million for software engineering research to
develop secure embedded software systems.
The report also highlighted the significant challenges that
the Air Force will face in managing ever-larger volumes of
data. To support the development of enhanced information
management capabilities, the committee recommends an additional
$1.5 million for informatics research.
Finally, consistent with the committee's efforts to enhance
systems engineering capabilities in the Department of Defense,
the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for
research on integrated design and manufacturing technologies
and systems.
Air Force materials research
The budget request included $128.0 million in PE 62102F for
applied materials research. The committee notes that advanced
tactical aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 are facing critical
thermal management issues which are forcing operational
adjustments and potentially costly design and engineering
changes. To help address these issues, the committee recommends
an additional $3.0 million for research on advanced thermal
management structures.
The Air Force Research Laboratory has found that 3.9
percent (or nearly $1.5 billion) of the Air Force's fiscal year
2004 operations and maintenance budget went toward addressing
the costs of corrosion on Air Force platforms and weapon
systems. To address corrosion issues in the Air Force, the
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 62102F
for corrosion protection materials, and $1.0 million to address
corrosion issues in light alloy aerospace and automotive parts.
The Air Force's Energy Program Policy has a stated
objective of developing renewable resources on Air Force bases.
In support of that objective, the committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million for efforts to design, implement, and
test systems and processes capable of producing renewable
energy at large scales for military installations, and an
additional $4.0 million for research to refine, as well as
develop novel, energy bioconversion technologies to support
defense needs.
The committee notes that the 2003 National Research Council
study ``Materials Research to Meet 21st Century Defense Needs''
identified a number of high priority research areas in advanced
materials in order to address defense requirements. The study
recommended investing in technologies that would integrate
nondestructive inspection and evaluation into the original
design of both materials and structures. Consistent with this
recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for the development of health monitoring sensors for
aerospace components. The National Research Council recommended
that the Department of Defense ``make investments in research
leading to new strategies for the processing, manufacture,
inspection, and maintenance of materials and systems.''
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million
for research on intelligent manufacturing models, analyses, and
controls to develop the next generation of manufacturing
processes and systems.
Finally, the committee recommends an additional $2.75
million for the development of infrared laser media materials
to support the development of laser communications,
countermeasure, and sensing systems.
Aerospace vehicle technologies
The budget request included $127.1 million in PE 62201F for
aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee recommends an
additional $2.5 million for unmanned aerial system (UAS)
collaboration technologies to support the development of
advanced UAS and enhance the ability to integrate UAS pilots,
sensor operators, and information analysts, as well as to
better coordinate and collaborate their activities.
Air Force propulsion research
The budget request included $196.5 million in PE 62203F for
applied research in aerospace propulsion. Advanced aircraft
engines require high reliability components that survive high
vibrations, temperature, and speeds. In support of component
development for the F-35, the committee recommends an increase
of $1.0 million for high speed bearing research.
In support of efforts to meet onboard electrical power
requirements of engines and airborne weapon systems, the
committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for materials
research and development via prototype fabrication and
developmental testing of novel electric power technologies for
propulsion applications. The committee also recommends an
additional $7.0 million for the development of lithium ion
batteries for aviation applications.
To support efforts to develop hypersonics technology for
missile, aircraft, and space access missions, the committee
recommends an additional $3.5 million for scramjet research.
Finally, to support efforts to reduce operating
temperatures of turbine engines and improve their efficiency,
the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the
development of thermally efficient engine fuel pumping systems.
Reconfigurable electronics and software
The budget request included $104.1 million in PE 62601F for
space technologies. The Department of Defense's January 2007
``Response to Findings and Recommendations of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply''
highlighted the Department's need for microelectronic systems,
local field programmable gate arrays, with functions that could
be changed to support different types of systems. In support of
meeting that need, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million for research on reconfigurable electronics.
The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million
in PE 63203F for the development of secure reconfigurable
computing systems that would support development of protection
technologies with sensors to meet the requirement for critical
weapon systems technology to be tamperproof and uncompromised.
Seismic research program
The budget request included $104.1 million in PE 62601F for
space technologies. The committee recommends an additional $7.5
million for the Air Force seismic research program. The
committee notes that this program has and will continue to
enable the United States to monitor compliance with the current
moratorium on nuclear testing.
Chemical laser research
The committee notes that the 2008 Air Force Scientific
Advisory Board study on advanced tactical lasers highlighted
the fact that chemical lasers would be unsuitable for tactical
applications ``due to the atmospheric propagation of its
operational wavelength, its weight and volume, its logistical
requirements, and its limited magazine.'' The committee notes
that the Department of Defense is moving towards the
development and eventual fielding of solid state, fiber, and
free electron lasers for a variety of missions that require
high energy lasers, but has no such similar plans for chemical
lasers. Therefore the committee recommends a reduction of $5.75
million in PE 62605F and $6.1 million in PE 62890F for
activities related to chemical laser research and development.
High energy laser research
The budget request included $52.8 million in PE 62890F for
applied research on high energy lasers. The Department of
Defense's report ``Adaptive Optics for Military Applications:
Laser Weapons and Space Surveillance'' identified the
development of deformable mirrors as a technical challenge to
achieving laser weapon systems. The committee recommends an
additional $2.0 million to support research on advanced
deformable mirrors for high energy laser weapons systems.
Air Force advanced materials research
The budget request included $37.9 million in PE 63112F for
the development of advanced materials for weapon systems. The
committee recommends an additional $7.0 million to support the
Metals Affordability Initiative, a joint government and
industry consortium aimed at strengthening the metals
industrial base through collaborative technology development
and transition projects. The overall program helps improve
current processing technologies and develop novel techniques
for primary metal production, part manufacturing, and weapon
system support.
To support Air Force efforts to develop cheaper,
alternative sources of aviation fuel, the committee recommends
an increase of $5.0 million for sewage-derived biofuels
research. Finally, to support efforts to improve the readiness
and maintainability of airframes, the committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for research on nondestructive testing
technologies.
Air Force advanced propulsion systems
The budget request included $175.7 million in PE 63126F for
aerospace propulsion and power technology. To support efforts
under the High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstrator project as
part of the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine
program, the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million
to develop supersonic turbine engines that can support the
development of a long-range high-speed strike missile. The
committee notes that the Department of Defense is continuing
its investments in the development of unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) capabilities for intelligence, strike, logistics, and
other missions. In support of those efforts, the committee
recommends an additional $3.5 million for the development of
scalable UAV engines.
Finally, to support continued development of high-
temperature power electronics to meet critical needs of the
Joint Strike Fighter and other aircraft platform systems, the
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for research
on silicon carbide electronics.
Air Force manufacturing technology
The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 63680F for
the Air Force manufacturing technology program. The committee
recommends an additional $3.25 million for research on casting
technology to support efforts to provide the Department of
Defense an integrated approach to metal castings used in
defense systems to improve component performance and
affordability.
Optical interconnect technologies
The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63788F for
development and demonstration of battlespace knowledge
technologies. The Defense Research and Engineering's 2007
strategic plan highlights networks and communications,
including technologies to address airborne networks, as an
enabling technology that should receive the highest level of
corporate attention and coordination. To support these efforts,
the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for
development of optical interconnects to support data
communications onboard unmanned aircraft systems and
satellites.
Space Protection Program
The budget request included $97.7 million for Space Control
Technology in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air
Force, in line 40 including $6.5 million for the Space
Protection Program (SPP). The committee recommends an
additional $6.5 million for the SPP.
Improving space situational awareness and protecting space
assets is a high priority for the intelligence community and
the Department of Defense as well as for the civilian
community. A recent ``day without space'' exercise made clear
that not only military systems but a broad array of civilian
systems are dependent on military and intelligence space
systems. Even such simple tasks such as getting money from an
ATM or using a credit card to fill up a gas tank become
impossible without space assets.
The SPP is a joint Air Force-National Reconnaissance Office
program to bring in-depth analytic capacity to the problem of
protecting space assets from natural occurring events,
accidental events, and intentional actions of adversaries. The
committee supports this collaborative approach to protect U.S.
space interests and commends the Air Force and the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) for establishing this unique
effort. Having established this needed effort the committee
expects both the Air Force and the NRO to support the effort.
The committee expects the SPP to execute an integrated
strategy to review threats identified by the intelligence
community to ascertain risks and vulnerabilities to space
capabilities and then recommend solutions leading to
comprehensive space protection capabilities. Specifically, the
SPP office should focus on developing space protection
architectures, identifying national capabilities and
interdependencies, delivering tailored decision aids to
operations centers, develop methodologies to address
vulnerabilities in multiple orbit regimes, integrate cyber
risks and threats into the National Infrastructure Protection
Framework, and continue with the specific tasks currently
assigned.
Space situational awareness
The budget request included $97.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 63438F
for Space Control Technology but no funds to integrate data
from the Missile Defense X-band radar on the Sea-based X-band
platform to integrate into the space surveillance network. The
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to develop a
prototype to import this sensor capability into the space
surveillance network.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Demonstration/Validation
The budget request included $66.1 million for
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Demonstration
Validation in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air
Force, PE 63851F line 46. The committee notes that the various
ICBM modernization programs will be coming to a close and will
need to focus on sustainment. ICBM Demonstration Validation is
focused on future ICBM concepts some of which, such as guidance
systems, could be common to the Air Force and the Navy. The
committee notes that the Navy is working on common concepts and
urges the two services to work together to determine the full
range of common applications for ballistic missile sustainment
and modernization if needed. As a result the committee
recommends a reduction of $5.0 million.
Operationally Responsive Space
The budget request included $112.9 million for
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) in Air Force Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation PE 64857 including $31.9
million for ORS-1, a small satellite being built at the request
of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to satisfy the Command's
urgent need number 3. The budget request does not keep the
manufacture of the ORS-1 on schedule to meet the CENTCOM
schedule. The committee notes that the Air Force intends to
reprogram some additional funds to support ORS-1 but more is
needed. The committee recommends an additional $40.0 million
for ORS-1.
On May 18, 2009, the ORS Office successfully launched
another small satellite, which is in the process of completing
its on-orbit check out. The committee expects the ORS Office to
keep it informed as to the progress and operational utility of
this most recent satellite.
ORS continues to make progress in all of its three tiers
and in continuing to assess the value of small satellites to
the warfighter, including the ability to rapidly configure and
launch small satellites to meet need not otherwise met by
airborne platforms. One of the ORS efforts could have
applicability to the general space community approach to
command satellites thorough multi-purpose systems rather than
stove-piped ground systems.
The committee commends the ORS Office and other agencies
and military services for participating in this innovative
approach to space. The committee is concerned, however, that
the ORS Office has not been able to take full advantage of
various streamlined acquisition approaches and directs the Air
Force to assist ORS in identifying areas where improvement is
needed and to grant ORS the necessary authorities. ORS has been
ably supported in its acquisition by the Air Force Space
Development and Test Wing and the committee believes that this
is a productive partnership.
One of the areas that the ORS Office has not focused on is
next-generation launch capabilities. At the present there is
adequate launch capability but it is expensive. The committee
is aware of a different approach to designing launch vehicles
that might reduce in the long run the cost of launch, and that
might be suitable for small and medium (Delta II) class and
below launch. The committee recommends $15.0 million for the
radially segmented launch vehicle for ORS and the Space Test
Program to continue concept development and determine the
technical validity of the approach.
Small imaging satellite competitive prototyping
The budget request included $112.9 million in PE 64857F for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. Elsewhere in this
report, the committee recommends that the Department of Defense
acquire the equivalent of one 1.5-meter commercial-class
electro-optical imaging satellite, along with acquisition of
the equivalent of one additional 1.1-meter commercial imaging
satellite. These actions are recommended to mitigate risks in
the collection capabilities of the intelligence community, to
enhance the availability and utility of unclassified imagery
for the warfighter, to increase the frequency of satellite
coverage, and to also enhance the survivability of space-based
imaging in wartime.
For the longer-term, however, the committee believes the
time has come to try a different approach to moderate-
resolution imagery collection from space. The committee is
persuaded that the technology exists to build very small and
very inexpensive medium resolution (approximately .5 meter
ground resolution) imaging satellites. A large constellation of
very small satellites would provide frequent revisit, inherent
survivability, graceful degradation, broad-area coverage and
faster upgrades. The costs should not exceed $100.0 million per
satellite, including launch, with the ultimate goal being fixed
pricing. If achievable, this concept would open up important
new opportunities for the commercial data providers and
government consumers alike.
The committee believes that the time is right to establish
a competitive prototyping program to test the industry's cost
claims and to demonstrate performance levels.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $227.9 million,
$115.0 million above the request, to initiate a competitive
proof-of-concept demonstration involving at least two credible
industry teams. The committee expects that the Department of
Defense will require each vendor to deliver at least two
satellites, with a goal of spacecraft in orbit within 36 months
of award. The satellites should be limited to a small mass and
volume, with low development and recurring costs. The program
should be guided by the Joint Staff, U.S. Strategic Command,
the Air Force A2, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence.
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
The budget request includes $396.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 35178F
for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
satellite system (NPOESS). As a result of a recent review, the
Department of Defense has determined that the program is not
adequately funded in fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends
an additional $80.0 million for NPOESS.
Internet routing in space
The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, to support the
demonstration, evaluation, and use of a commercial Internet
Router in Space (IRIS) for military communications on a
commercial satellite for 1 year. The IRIS program, a joint
concept technology demonstrator (JCTD) sponsored by U.S.
Strategic Command, was funded as a demonstration project and
will be launched later this year. Funding for the JCTD,
however, only supports a 3 month demonstration of the
capability. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 604xxxF to continue the demonstration and to
provide operational capability for an additional year. To
address this and other new communications technologies for
military communications satellites the committee recommends a
new program element (PE) designed to reduce technological risk
and mature technologies for potential future applications. This
PE is discussed more fully elsewhere in this report.
The committee notes that IRIS is not useful for protected,
secure, survivable communications such as had been envisioned
for the transformational communications satellite program
because the router is not designed to be radiation hardened. On
the other hand, the router could be useful for other satellite
applications, such as the Wide-band Global System (WGS) that do
not have a requirement for radiation hardening.
Next-generation military satellite communications
The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDTEF), for next-generation
military satellite communications to identify technologies that
could be used on future military communications satellites.
When the transformational communications satellite (T-Sat) was
cancelled, several risk reduction efforts that could have
application on future satellites were also cancelled. In
addition, work on military unique radiation hardening
requirements was also cancelled.
The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in a
new program element, PE 604xxxF. This new PE would be created
to explore communications technologies that could be utilized
on future blocks of current communications satellite or
eventually on next-generation communications satellite. This
program would be similar in concept to the Third Generation
Infrared Satellite System (3GIRS), which is conducting risk
reduction efforts for next-generation overhead persistent
infrared technologies. These risk reduction efforts should
include continued efforts to reduce the cost, weight, and
complexity of current radiation hardening techniques.
One of the many problems with the T-Sat program was that it
was started with very immature technologies. In the future if
there are to be new or evolved communications satellites, the
committee wants to ensure that the technologies are
sufficiently mature to be fielded with low cost and schedule
risk.
B-1B bomber active electronically scanned array radar
The budget request included no funds in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF) in PE
64226F for the B-1B bomber. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million to design, install, and test an active
electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on a B-1B bomber to
evaluate the utility of an AESA to bomber operations. The AESA
was developed for use on fighter and other aircraft and should
require minimum modification for application and evaluation on
the B-1B.
Space-based Infrared System
The budget request included $512.6 million for the Space-
based Infrared system (SBIRS) for Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64441 including $62.6 million for
ground systems development. The committee recommends an
additional $15.0 million for Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)
ground integration and data exploitation.
The SBIRS program is a missile early warning, technical
intelligence, and battlespace awareness system. Currently,
there are two of the HEO sensors on orbit. The Geosynchronous
Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites continue to be plagued by schedule
delays and cost overruns. The GEO-1 satellite has slipped an
additional year since last year as it continues to have
software problems. Additional funds were reprogrammed into
SBIRS in fiscal year 2009 but the problems continue with the
GEO-1 satellite. As a result, funds needed to resolve ground
issues and HEO data exploitation have not been sufficient. The
committee is very concerned that the performance capability of
the two HEO sensors be fully understood and exploited including
the benefits from HEO stereo applications.
Notwithstanding the continuing GEO-1 problems the Air Force
will continue the SBIRS program through GEO-4 and most likely
to GEO-5, -6, and even beyond. In looking ahead the committee
is concerned that the Air Force is not buying the future GEO
satellites in the most cost effective way possible. To reduce
the cost of future GEO satellites, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to determine the number of GEO
satellites that will be needed beyond GEO-4 and the possibility
of buying these satellites using fixed pricing. The committee
notes that the overhead persistent infrared architecture study
will be completed later this summer and that this study will
inform the future requirements for SBIRS satellites and
sensors.
Joint Strike Fighter
The budget request included $1,741.3 million in PE 64800N,
and $1,858.1 million in PE 64800F for continued development of
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, including $476.0
million for management reserves to cover unforeseen problems
that may arise during the system development and demonstration
(SDD) phase of the program.
The Department conducted a review of JSF program costs and
schedules last year. The group conducting the review, called
the Joint Estimating Team (JET), recommended, among other
things, that the management reserves available to the program
executive officer (PEO) be increased throughout the remainder
of SDD program. As a result of the JET recommendations, the
Department increased management reserves to the level requested
in the budget.
The Department has informed the committee that the PEO now
believes that he can fully execute the fiscal year 2010 SDD
program with only $320.0 million, or $156.0 million less than
was included in the request.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $78.0
million in PE 64800N and a decrease of $78.0 million in PE
64800F to eliminate these excess management reserves.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
The budget request included $26.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64853F for the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) but no funds to
continue the Global Positioning System (GPS) based metric
tracking effort. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
million for GPS metric tracking. The committee understands that
the Air Force will be reprogramming fiscal year 2009 funds for
EELV GPS metric tracking and funds are needed in fiscal year
2010 to continue this important effort need to support the east
and west coast launch ranges. The long-term plan is to have all
launches utilize GPS and reduce the amount of radar support for
launches.
Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft
The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 65277F for
development of the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement
Aircraft (CSAR-X). These fund various activities, including
program support and purchasing helicopters for replacing
operational losses.
The Air Force anticipated awarding the development contract
for the CSAR-X in the spring of 2008, but the award was delayed
twice by successful protests, and Secretary Gates has
recommended terminating the current effort while the Department
reviews the entire combat search and rescue mission area as
part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
The committee believes that funds available within this
program from prior years is sufficient to support all of these
fiscal year 2010 activities, and therefore, recommends a
reduction of $90.0 million in PE 65277F for CSAR-X. The
committee strongly supports modernizing the combat search and
rescue capability, but sees no need to authorize more funds
than are required to support these activities in the interim
while the Department conducts the QDR review.
Air Force test and evaluation
The budget request included $60.8 million in PE 64759F for
major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that
the Director of the Test Resource Management Center has
expressed concern over the reductions in funding for government
and contractor personnel at the Air Force's test ranges. The
committee is also concerned that Air Force underinvestment will
prevent the test ranges from fully meeting the workload
projected for the ranges, putting developmental and operational
testing of critical programs at risk. Cost growth and
potentially insufficiently tested equipment may then be
deployed to operational forces given insufficient testing.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to work more closely with the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center to ensure that Air Force investment in its
test ranges is sufficient to meet the workload requirements of
its joint users. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in PE 65807F to address the shortfall in the Air Force
budget request and alleviate the risk to operational users of
equipment to be tested.
The committee also notes the importance to preserve the
capability to test missiles and their sub-systems, such as
sensors and structures, at very high speeds. To support the
enhancement of these capabilities the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for upgrades to the high speed test
track at Holloman Air Force Base.
Multi-platform radar technology insertion program
The budget request included $140.7 million in PE 27581F for
research and development projects for the E-8 joint
surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS).
The cancelled E-10 aircraft program was supposed to be a
test bed for the multi-platform radar technology insertion
program (MP-RTIP). The Air Force, however, intends to field
this MP-RTIP sensor suite on a number of other air vehicles,
including the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
The committee believes that the Air Force should pursue
another path, whether that would be the E-8 JSTARS or some
other platform, and field the better capability than can be
achieved with the Global Hawk. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $92.0 million in PE 27581F for
maturing the MP-RTIP sensor suite.
Wide-area airborne surveillance
The budget request included $46.0 million in PE 35206F for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of the
Gorgon Stare wide-area airborne surveillance system (WAAS);
$19.9 million in Aircraft Procurement Air Force, Line 25, and
$13.0 million in Operations and Maintenance, Air Force.
The committee recommends no funds to continue Gorgon Stare
development, following the action of the appropriations
conference on the fiscal year 2009 supplemental to deny funding
for additional quick-reaction capability (QRC) systems. The
committee recommends this action for multiple reasons.
WAAS requirements remain murky, despite the fact that the
Gorgon Stare program passed through the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) process. The Air Force and the Marine
Corps canceled delivery of five Angel Fire WAAS systems that
had already been largely paid for even though the first
increment of Gorgon Stare would provide similar performance. If
current systems are not useful, there is little point in
spending large sums and waiting an additional 1-2 years for a
similar capability, even if it is to be deployed on a longer-
endurance platform.
Data-driven studies by the Joint Staff, Program Analysis
and Evaluation (PA&E), and the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence (USDI), raise serious questions about
the utility of moderate resolution wide-area motion imagery.
Increasing the resolution of these cameras to the levels that
these studies suggest are needed leads to a dramatic reduction
in the size of the area imaged. This reduction, in turn, leads
to a large increase in the number of orbiting combat air
patrols (CAPs), which casts doubt on the affordability of the
capability.
Furthermore, the studies referenced above, so far, have not
produced sufficient evidence that forensic analysis of
moderate-resolution, wide-area motion imagery is productive
enough to justify a large investment in sensors and platforms--
especially in the absence of effective automated analytic
tools.
The committee is also concerned that the Air Force has not
demonstrated that it is prepared to optimize its ability to
perform the joint WAAS mission. The Air Force insists that the
Reaper platform, even when conducting WAAS missions, must carry
a large weapons load as well as ancillary sensors, which limits
the weight, space and power available for the WAAS sensor.
The committee's recommendation to terminate the Gorgon
Stare program does not reflect lack of support for vigorous
efforts to determine the potential value of, and requirements
for, WAAS motion imagery. The committee fully supports
sustaining the Army Constant Hawk program and fully examining
the value of forensic analysis based on all sources of geo-
referenced intelligence data. The committee urges the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task
Force, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency's Office of
Counterterrorism, the Joint Staff, USDI, PA&E, and the Counter-
improvised explosive device(IED) Operations Integration Center
(COIC) of the Joint IED Defeat organization (JIEDDO) to
rigorously assess the current and potential utility of the
analysis of layered geo-referenced intelligence data, including
WAAS and ground moving target indicator radar data.
The committee also strongly supports the ISR Task Force
recommendation to accept delivery of the Angel Fire WAAS
systems, narrow the sensor field of view for higher resolution,
and pair the system with high-resolution motion video and other
sensors.
These activities should assist the Department of Defense
(DOD) in defining WAAS requirements. Meanwhile, DOD should
sustain the vibrant WAAS technology industrial base to provide
solutions to future QRC and program-of-record initiatives. The
committee recommends authorization of $10.0 million in PE
64400D8Z, Unmanned Systems Common Development, RDT&E Defense-
Wide, line 101, for WAAS technology development broadly across
the industrial base. The committee also recommends $5.0 million
in the same account to sustain the innovative processing
activities planned in the Gorgon Stare program, and to develop
automated WAAS motion imagery exploitation tools to support
forensic analysis.
Multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid
The Department of Defense faces a serious challenge in
working with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop
capabilities and procedures to enable unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) to operate safely within the national airspace. One
element of these capabilities is sense and avoid technology for
collision avoidance. The committee recommends authorization of
$4.0 million in PE 35219F, for the continued development of
multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid capabilities that will
help achieve the goal of permitting UAV pilots/operators to
file a flight plan, obtain an air traffic control clearance,
and fly in domestic and international airspace.
Joint Space Operation Center System
The budget request included $131.3 million for the Joint
Space Operation Center (JSpOC) system in Air Force Research,
Development, Testing, and Evaluation PE 35614F line 210. This
is a new program element that results from a consolidation of
several previous separate space situational awareness programs.
The JSpOC system is focused on upgrading the ability of the
JSpOC to track, monitor, predict, and to respond in real time
to events in space. The committee recommends an additional $6.0
million to continue the Karnac study, which is a joint Air
Force and Department of Energy National Laboratory effort to
utilize and modify existing capabilities developed to support
the nuclear weapons program to improve the JSpOC capabilities,
including using nontraditional data and three dimensional
modeling and simulation capability.
Biometric signature and passive physiological monitoring
The budget request included $6.4 million in PE 91202F for
research and development projects for Joint Personnel Recovery
Agency, but included no funding to develop personnel
identification technologies based on biometric sensors.
Passive biometric sensors show promise as a way of uniquely
identifying personnel prior to deploying air rescue and
evacuation forces to extract them.
The committee believes that the Department should pursue
these technologies to avoid exposing search and rescue forces
to needless risk. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 91202F for developing biometric
signature and passive physiological monitoring systems.
Defense-wide
Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
The budget request included no funding in PE 61114D8Z for
the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (DEPSCoR). This program was established by Congress to
enhance the capabilities of universities in eligible States to
perform defense science and engineering research by
competitively funding defense basic research programs and
investing in research infrastructure. The committee notes that
the recent Institute for Defense Analyses' study on DEPSCoR
found that the program has led to successful transition of
research innovations into Department acquisition programs and
operational use. The study also found that participating States
have increased the number and value of non-DEPSCOR research
awards they have received from the Department of Defense. To
support these successes and continue the congressionally
mandated program, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million for DEPSCoR.
In-vitro models for bio-defense vaccines
The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 61384BP for
chemical and biological defense basic research, but included no
funds for development of lung models to improve vaccine
development. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 61384BP for development of an in-vitro lung model
to support bio-defense vaccines against aerosolized pathogens.
This research will improve understanding of the interaction
between human lung immune cells and aerosolized biological
agents, thus improving the effectiveness of future vaccines.
Information and communications technology
The budget request included $282.3 million in PE 62303E for
information and communications technology development. The
committee recommends a reduction of $4.5 million for the
content distribution program. The committee recommends a
reduction of $7.5 million for the next generation core optical
networks program. The committee is concerned that these
activities are not well coordinated with the well funded
enterprise services and network communications programs in the
military services and the Defense Information Systems Agency.
Cognitive computing
The budget request included $142.8 million in PE 62304E for
development of cognitive computing systems. The committee
recommends a reduction of $25.0 million for cognitive computing
activities, including cognitive networking and computer
learning programs such as Local Area Network droids, Situation-
Aware Protocols in Edge Network Technologies, and Brood of
Spectrum Supremacy. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency has been funding a number of these efforts in parallel
for a number of years with limited transition success. The
committee believes that some of these activities are redundant
with extensive investments being made in the private sector and
have unclear transition pathways to operational systems.
Biological decontamination research
The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP
for chemical and biological defense applied research. The
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62384BP
for research of improved decontamination capabilities against
spores of anthrax and Clostridium difficile, two agents of
considerable concern to the Department of Defense. Such
capabilities could be used to improve both protection and
treatment of military service members.
Chemical and biological infrared detector
The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but
included no funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection
technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 62384BP to continue development and
miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for
chemical and biological agents. The objective is to demonstrate
a functional prototype that operates at high speed and
sensitivity with low false alarm rates. Such a system could
reduce the logistical burden compared to other technologies.
Funding for meritorious bio-defense projects
The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP
for chemical and biological defense applied research, including
$21.0 million for the Transformational Medical Technologies
Initiative (TMTI) program. The TMTI program is intended to
develop new technologies to reduce risk from the likely
emergence of genetically engineered or manipulated biological
agents. A recent Broad Agency Announcement for the TMTI program
stated that ``the Government reserves the right to create and
maintain a reserve list of proposals for potential funding, in
the event that sufficient funding becomes available.'' The
committee is aware that there are eight such proposed TMTI
projects that have been judged meritorious of funding, for a
total of $9.9 million. The committee believes that it is
important for the Department to acknowledge when there are
proposed projects that would advance our military capabilities
if funding were available, and encourages the Department to
make this information known to the congressional defense
committees, to help guide an assessment of the adequacy of
resources and in the authorization of new investment
activities.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.9 million in PE
62384BP for the eight proposals that have been judged by the
Department to be meritorious of funding, if funding becomes
available.
Tactical technology
The budget request included $276.1 million in PE 62702E for
applied research on tactical technologies. The committee
recommends a reduction of $3.0 million from this account to
delay the Submersible Aircraft new start program. The committee
further recommends a reduction of $10.0 million from the
Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance program. The committee
believes that there are higher priority Army technologies on
which the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the
Army could be collaborating.
Blast mitigation and protection
The budget request included $219.1 million in PE 62718BR
for the development of technologies to defeat weapons of mass
destruction. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 62718BR to continue blast mitigation and
protection analysis and software development to improve the
Vulnerability Assessment and Protection Option analytic tool
used by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to predict the
effects of high-explosive blasts on buildings, and to design
protection and mitigation options for military and government
facilities.
Combating terrorism technologies
The budget request included $81.9 million in PE 63122D8Z
for combating terrorism technology support. The committee notes
that urgent operational need statements have called for
improved intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance tools.
To support efforts to fulfill these operational needs, the
committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for advanced
reconnaissance and data exploitation systems. In order to
support the development of advanced blast resistant
construction materials and buildings, the committee recommends
an increase of $2.5 million for impact and blast loading
laboratory testing technologies.
Advanced aerospace systems
The budget request included $338.4 million in PE 63286E for
advanced aerospace systems. The committee recommends a
reduction of $4.0 million for the Heliplane program. The
committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for the Disc-
Rotor Compound Helicopter program. The transition pathway for
these demonstrator programs to a Service is largely unclear at
this time. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.0 million
for the Triple Target Terminator program. The committee
believes that there are higher priority threats that can be
addressed with technology development activities than engaging
counter air, countering cruise missile, and destroying enemy
air defense targets.
Integrated Sensor is Structure
The budget request included $338.4 million in PE 63286E for
Advanced Aerospace Systems. Of that amount, $180.5 million
supports persistent or responsive intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) programs, including Rapid Eye,
Vulture, and Integrated Sensor is Structure (ISIS). The
committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the
military departments have numerous persistent or responsive ISR
capabilities in development. The committee recommends a
decrease in PE 63286E of $90.0 million for these efforts at
DARPA. The committee directs the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, with assistance from the Director of DARPA and
the military department science and technology acquisition
executives, to review the portfolio of programs across the
Department to ensure that the highest priority science and
technology challenges in persistent unmanned capability are
being addressed with limited available resources.
The committee further recommends a reduction of $35.0
million in PE 35205F for activities related to the support of
the ISIS program. The committee notes that ISIS is a science
and technology program and its funding should be derived from
such accounts, and also that there is no clear indication of an
Air Force transition strategy for the ISIS capability.
Joint capability technology demonstrations
The budget request included $198.4 million in PE 63648D8Z
for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD). The
committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million from JCTD new
starts. The committee is concerned that the JCTD program record
of transitioning technologies to operational forces or programs
of record is limited. Often, a large investment of resources in
a JCTD program results in only the delivery of a limited
residual capability to a Service, defense agency, or
operational unit, and no formal transition into a program of
record or procurement for operational use. The committee
believes that limited JCTD resources should be focused on
fewer, higher priority concept and technology demonstration and
development efforts, which have stronger support and greater
cost-share from sponsoring Services or defense agencies, in
order to increase the effectiveness of the program.
High performance defense manufacturing technology program
The budget request included $14.6 million in PE 63680D8Z
for manufacturing science and technology programs. In title II,
subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee established the
High Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology Program to
promote the use of information technologies, enhance
manufacturing efficiency, undertake technology roadmapping
efforts to coordinate research and manufacturing efforts, and
to accelerate the dissemination of manufacturing innovations
into the defense industrial base. To continue efforts under the
program, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million
for the High Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology
Program.
Defense Logistics Agency energy research
The budget request included $19.0 million in PE 63712S for
generic logistics technology demonstrations. The Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) is responsible for acquiring and
managing all of the fuel required by the military. The DLA
energy readiness research and development program has thrust
areas that include research on alternative energy, including
fuel cells and the conversion of waste and biomass into fuels.
In support of these objectives, the committee recommends an
additional: $4.0 million for biofuels research; $2.5 million on
research on the conversion of biomass into logistics fuels;
$8.0 million to continue the vehicle fuel cell and logistics
program; $3.0 million for development and demonstrations of
microgrids at forward operating bases; and $3.75 million for
research on the manufacturing of fuel cells for defense
missions.
High performance computing
The budget request included $221.3 million in PE 63755D8Z
for the high performance computing modernization program. The
2007 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology recommended that a plan be developed to support
the use of high-end computing assets to conduct long-term
research on important national problems. Consistent with that
recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for research on high performance computational design
of novel materials for defense applications.
Deep green
The budget request included $293.5 million in PE 63760E for
command, control, and communications systems. The committee
recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for the Deep Green
program. The program's technologies are intended to transition
into Army command and control systems. The committee notes that
Army current and future command and control systems, such as
the Global Command and Control Systems-Army and the Net Enabled
Command Capability, are undergoing significant restructuring,
thereby reducing the priority of this research investment.
Small unmanned aerial vehicle detection system
The budget request included $243.1 million in PE 63767E for
sensor technology development. The committee recommends a
reduction of $7.5 million for the development of the small
unmanned aerial vehicle detection system. The committee
believes that these funds can be better used addressing high
priority threats.
Quick Reaction Fund
The budget request included $29.2 million in PE 63826D8Z
for the Quick Reaction Fund. The committee recommends a
reduction of $15.0 million for this effort. The committee
commends efforts of the Department of Defense to transition
promising technologies into programs of record and deploying
them into operational use. The committee is concerned that the
funds appropriated for the Quick Reaction Fund have been
invested in technologies which are not close to transitioning,
as well as to support studies and analyses efforts that are
more properly supported by other accounts. Further, the
committee is concerned about the lack of coordination between
the activities of the Quick Reaction Fund and those of the
Services and defense agencies. The Services and defense
agencies should be encouraged to leverage the fund in order to
accelerate the transition of promising technologies into their
programs or into the hands of their operational organizations.
Special warfare situational awareness systems
The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63826D8Z
for Quick Reaction Special Projects. The committee supports the
Navy's efforts to integrate advanced threat awareness
technology into all facets of small craft operations. To
continue these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of
$1.8 million for development of integrated situational
awareness systems for special warfare missions.
Joint Forces Command activities
The budget request included $124.5 million in PE 63828D8Z
for joint experimentation. The committee recommends a reduction
of $5.0 million for efforts related to space control and global
positioning system experimentation. The committee believes
these are redundant to activities underway in both the Air
Force and United States Strategic Command.
Lithium ion battery safety research
The budget request included $31.7 million in PE 1160402BB
for the demonstration and evaluation of advanced technologies
that, among other things, enhance the performance of mobility
platforms. Lithium ion technology has shown promise for
reducing the size of batteries while also improving their
performance characteristics. The committee recommends an
increase of $1.6 million for the development of monitoring
techniques and battery management systems that will allow early
detection and control of impending failures in lithium ion
batteries.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution issues
The budget request included $3,248.1 million for the
research and management activities of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee notes that
DARPA has had significant difficulty over the last few fiscal
years in executing all of its authorized funds in a timely
fashion. The committee also notes that, on average, since
fiscal year 2005, DARPA has executed over $300.0 million less
per year than the agency's annual appropriated budget. The
funds have either been used as sources for reprogramming
actions, Congressional rescissions, or have expired. The
committee believes that this slow execution of funds reflects a
combination of DARPA's program management style and a shortage
of program managers within the agency. The committee recommends
a reduction of $150.0 million from DARPA's overall budget to
reflect continuing concerns about timely and effective
execution of funds by the agency.
Real-time non-specific viral agent detector
The budget request included $206.0 million in PE 63884BP
for chemical and biological defense advanced component
development and prototypes, but included no funds for
development of a mobile non-specific viral agent detector. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63884BP
for development of a mobile real-time non-specific viral agent
detector that would improve current detection capabilities.
This could be a significant upgrade to the Joint Biological
Agent Identification and Diagnostic System.
Airborne infrared surveillance technology
The budget request included $636.9 million in PE 63884C for
ballistic missile defense sensors. The Missile Defense Agency
has initiated an ascent-phase intercept program that will
benefit from improved infrared sensor technology. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63884C for
airborne infrared surveillance technology development to
improve the capability for precision tracking data on ballistic
missiles, particularly in their ascent phase.
Aegis ballistic missile defense
The budget request included $1.7 billion in PE 63892C for
research and development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) program and its Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor.
The committee notes with satisfaction that the budget
request would increase substantially the planned inventory of
SM-3 interceptors, from a previously planned inventory of 147
to 329, and would increase by six the number of Aegis BMD ship
conversions. As indicated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates,
this increase in planned capability represents a fundamental
shift in focus of the ballistic missile defense program to
capabilities for protecting our forward-deployed forces,
allies, and other friendly nations against the large number of
existing short- and medium-range theater missile threats.
This shift is consistent with the guidance provided by
Congress over the last few years and with the findings of the
Joint Capabilities Mix studies conducted by the Joint Staff
over the last 3 years. Those studies concluded that the
Department of Defense was planning to procure fewer than half
of the minimum inventory of SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors that would be needed to meet
the operational requirements of the regional combatant
commanders against existing and expected short- and medium-
range missile threats.
In the report to accompany the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
the committee stated the following: ``The committee notes that
the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) study, conducted by the Joint
Staff, concluded that U.S. combatant commanders need about
twice as many SM-3 and THAAD interceptors as currently planned
to meet just their minimum operational requirements for
defending against the many hundreds of existing short- and
medium-range ballistic missiles. The committee is deeply
disappointed that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not
planned or budgeted to acquire more than a fraction of the SM-3
interceptors needed to meet the warfighters' minimum
operational needs. The committee believes that achieving at
least the JCM levels of upper tier interceptors in a timely
manner should be the highest priority for MDA, and expects the
Agency to modify its plans and budgets to meet our combatant
commanders' current operational needs.''
The committee welcomes the shift in focus toward providing
effective near-term capabilities against existing regional
missile threats, and commends the Department of Defense for
this shift.
The budget request would also begin the development of a
land-based variant of the SM-3 missile. The committee believes
such a capability could provide a significant enhancement to
U.S. missile defense capabilities in a number of circumstances.
It is being developed, in part, as a relatively low-risk and
near-term option as a component of an Israeli upper tier
missile defense system, as a risk mitigation path for the
possibility that the development of the Arrow-3 interceptor
will take longer than planned, or might not achieve technical
success. A land-based SM-3 could also provide regional defense
capability in Europe and Asia, and could be a crucial element
of the ascent-phase/early intercept capability initiative
included in the budget request. In this regard, a land-based
SM-3 has the potential, if deployed in the European theater, to
defend Europe and the United States from a potential future
long-range Iranian ballistic missile threat. The committee
commends the Department for initiating this land-based SM-3
development effort. The committee sees this program as a high
priority, and considers it an item of special interest to the
committee.
The budget request of $1.7 billion in PE 63892C for the
Aegis BMD system is nearly $600.0 million more than the level
of funding provided in fiscal year 2009, a 34 percent increase.
Although the committee strongly supports the Aegis BMD program,
and the Department's shift in focus toward meeting the current
needs of the regional combatant commanders against the
thousands of existing short- and medium-range ballistic
missiles, the committee believes that the proposed level of
increased funding will be too high to execute. The committee
therefore recommends, without prejudice, a reduction of $30.0
million to PE 63892C for the Aegis BMD program.
Short-range ballistic missile defense
The budget request included $119.7 million in PE 63913C for
cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, including
$45.8 million for joint development of a short-range ballistic
missile defense system known as ``David's Sling.'' This system
is intended to defend Israel against short-range missiles and
rockets of the type fired from Lebanon. The United States is
sharing the development of the system to ensure that it is
compatible with U.S. missile defense systems, and to provide an
option for the U.S. military to procure the system in the
future, if needed. The committee recommends an increase of
$25.0 million in PE 63913C to accelerate the development of the
David's Sling short-range ballistic missile defense system.
Corrosion control research
The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 64400D8Z for
corrosion programs. In support of Department of Defense efforts
to reduce maintenance costs due to corrosion, the committee
recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE 64400D8Z for
corrosion research activities.
Systems engineering and prototyping program
The budget request included $19.7 million in PE 64787D8Z
for the Joint Systems Integration Command. The committee notes
that the budget request is inconsistent with the Department's
rhetoric on encouraging systems engineering and prototyping
activities. The budget request reduces funding for advanced
component development and prototype programs by 12.8 percent
(more than $1.5 billion) relative to the fiscal year 2009
budget request. To encourage more prototyping where warranted
and more robust systems engineering activities, the committee
recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 64787D8Z to be
managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to initiate the systems engineering
and prototyping program established elsewhere in this Act.
Test and evaluation programs
The budget request included $145.1 million in PE 64940D8Z
for test and evaluation investments. The 2007 Strategic Plan
for Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Resources noted,
``Outdated threat missile fly-out models reduced the
effectiveness of both active and passive countermeasures
testing.'' To help address this shortfall, the committee
recommends an additional $4.0 million for development of
surface-to-air missile hardware simulators.
Cyber test range
The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 35103E for
the Cyber Security Initiative. The committee recommends a
reduction of $19.6 million for investment related development
of a cyber test range. The committee notes that the Department
of Defense is investing in the development of a number of cyber
security related developmental and operational test ranges, in
addition to currently operating a number of advanced ranges in
this area. The committee also notes that the Director of the
Test Resource Management Center is currently assessing the
Department's overall capabilities for network systems testing,
including for cyber security capabilities. The committee
believes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's
investment in this area should be limited to developing
advanced tools for testing cyber security technologies, and
should not expand into the wholesale development of operational
test ranges or the management of such capabilities.
Technology applications for security enhancement
The budget request for PE 35884L, Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, for the Defense Intelligence Agency's
Intelligence Planning and Review Activities is classified. An
effective national bio-security plan must address prevention,
preparedness, response, and attribution. The committee
recommends an authorization of $4.0 million for the Center for
the Mitigation of Evolving Threats for research and development
of early detection capabilities, impact mitigation, and
forensic analysis.
Policy decision point technology
The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 33140N for
the Information Systems Security Program (ISSP), but no funds
for the development of a policy decision point capability for
the Navy's Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services
(CANES).
The secure discovery function of CANES requires a policy
decision point capability for access control that cannot be
satisfied with available commercial or government-owned
technology. The committee recommends an authorization of $27.7
million for the Navy's ISSP, an increase of $3.5 million above
the request.
Software assurance courseware development
The budget request included $408.3 million in PE 33140G for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for
the Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for the
continued development of information assurance instructional
materials, curricula, and courseware reflecting best practices
for institutes of higher education. Such instructional
materials are essential for community colleges, colleges, and
universities to educate students to produce secure software to
protect government and commercial information systems from
attack.
The National Security Agency has conducted this activity at
a designated National Center of Academic Excellence in
Information Assurance Education for 2 years. An additional $1.8
million will allow the completion of this capability.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of
$410.1 million, an increase of $1.8 million above the request.
Policy research, development, test, and evaluation
The budget request included $6.9 million in PE 35186D8Z for
policy research and development. The committee recommends a
reduction of $6.0 million for this account. The committee is
concerned that many of the international cooperation,
linguistics, and wargaming activities that are planned for this
funding are already being undertaken by other organizations
within the Department of Defense, including the United States
Joint Forces Command, service laboratories, and defense
agencies. Further, the justification materials provided to
Congress for the account are unclear and inconsistent. The
committee directs that policy research and development
activities be more closely coordinated with efforts in
research, development, and acquisition programs under the
oversight of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Logistics manufacturing research
The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 78011S for
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manufacturing technology
efforts. The DLA Advanced Microcircuit Emulation program
develops continuing technical capability for providing military
specification equivalent integrated circuits to mitigate
electronic parts obsolescence in new and legacy defense
systems. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an
additional $4.5 million for microcircuit emulation efforts.
DLA has a stated research thrust to improve casting
procurement processes at its Defense Supply Centers in order to
reduce lead times, improve reliability, and strengthen the
defense supply chain. To enhance these efforts the committee
recommends an additional $3.0 million for castings research.
The Department of Defense has established a policy of
increasing the use of insensitive munitions in all weapons
applications. To support the production of these systems, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for
insensitive munitions manufacturing research.
Finally, the committee recommends an additional $30.0
million to continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund
program. The committee directs that DLA, jointly with the
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Industrial Policy,
continue to make investments in manufacturing research that
address defense industrial base shortfalls especially related
to surge production requirements and diminishing sources of
defense material.
Long endurance unattended ground sensor technologies
The budget request included $21.2 million in PE 1160405BB
for identification, development, and testing of intelligence
equipment for special operators to provide timely exchange of
intelligence and threat warning to all organizational echelons.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the
development of long endurance unattended ground sensor
technologies to provide special operators with enhanced
situational awareness; target detection, imaging, tagging and
tracking; and high bandwidth communication of data, voice, and
video.
Items of Special Interest
Ballistic missile defense overview
The budget request included $7.8 billion for Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) missile defense programs, including
research, development, test and evaluation, procurement, and
military construction funds. The committee notes a number of
positive developments with the ballistic missile defense
program of MDA included in the budget request.
The budget request includes a shift in focus on increasing
capabilities needed by regional combatant commanders to defend
our forward deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations
against the many existing short- and medium-range threats. As
announced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the budget
would increase funding by $900.0 million to increase the
inventory of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors, and to convert an
additional six Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ships for
deployment in the Atlantic Fleet. In accordance with the budget
request, the Department of Defense would plan to increase the
SM-3 interceptor inventory from 147 to 329, and increase the
THAAD interceptor inventory from 96 to 289. These numbers are
consistent with the level of THAAD and SM-3 interceptors
recommended by the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) studies
conducted by the Joint Staff, and are consistent with the
guidance of the committee and Congress.
For the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the
budget request would continue to procure all 44 Ground-Based
Interceptors (GBIs), with 14 of them planned for testing and
spares. The budget request would cap the deployment of GBIs in
Alaska and California at 30, and focus on further development
and robust testing to improve the capability of this system to
defend against the limited threat to our country from nations
such as North Korea and possibly Iran in the future. This
decision was supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
relevant combatant commanders. Senior Department of Defense
officials explained that the Department conducted an
assessment, involving the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
combatant commands, of the long-range missile threat to the
United States and determined that, according to Secretary
Gates, 30 GBIs ``are fully adequate to protect us against a
North Korean threat for a number of years.''
The committee welcomes the emphasis on improving the
capability of the GMD system, including through robust and
operationally realistic testing and evaluation. In December
2008, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)
reported that ``GMD flight testing to date will not support a
high degree of confidence in its limited capabilities.'' In
January 2009, DOT&E issued an annual assessment of the
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), which included a
number of concerns about the GMD system. The committee notes
that MDA has worked for half a year with DOT&E and the
operational test elements of the military departments to
establish a comprehensive test and evaluation plan for the
BMDS, and expects that plan to be completed by the end of the
summer. The committee expects that plan to guide a long-term
test plan for GMD, including operationally realistic tests that
provide a high degree of confidence in the capability of the
system, including its ability to perform its mission for the
duration of its operational life. If such testing requires
additional interceptors, the committee notes that senior
Department officials testified that it would be possible to buy
more GBIs in the future if they are needed.
The budget request includes an initiative to develop a new
capability for ascent-phase (or early) intercepts, relying on
improved use of existing and new sensors and interceptors such
as the SM-3, whether on ships or on land. According to senior
Department officials, such a capability would allow U.S. forces
to engage threat missiles early in their flight, including
long-range missiles, thus providing multiple opportunities to
destroy the missiles in flight. In the case of long-range
threat missiles, such a capability could also permit
destruction of the threat missile before the GMD system would
be needed to defend the Nation. If the initiative proves
successful, such a capability could, if deployed in the
European theater, provide defense of Europe and the United
States against a potential future long-range missile threat
from Iran. The committee supports this initiative, and commends
the Department for conceiving of the concept for a cost-
effective and operationally effective system that relies, to a
large extent, on existing or near-term technologies.
The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Gates decided
to terminate a number of long-term research and development
programs for missile defense that had technical, conceptual,
cost, or operational problems. These decisions include the
termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, the Kinetic
Energy Interceptor program, and cancelation of the second
Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft, and shifting the ABL program to
a research and development effort. The Director of MDA
testified that he recommended these changes, and Secretary
Gates' decision was supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the combatant commanders. The committee supports the
Secretary's decision.
Finally, the committee notes that MDA has initiated a
number of significant acquisition reform initiatives that are
consistent with the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-124), and are intended to increase the
accountability and effectiveness of MDA acquisition programs.
The committee welcomes these acquisition initiatives, and
believes they are long overdue.
Federally funded research and development centers
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's
federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC) play
an important role undertaking studies, analyses, research, and
systems engineering projects to support defense missions. The
committee believes that the requirement to make use of defense
FFRDCs will be increased by the initiatives being undertaken by
the Department to reform the acquisition process, and also by
the urgent demands for technical and analytic support related
to current operations. The committee urges the Department to
maintain a stable and consistent investment in defense FFRDCs,
including in core programs funded directly by research,
development, test, and evaluation appropriations.
Ground/air task oriented radar
The budget request included $63.9 million in PE 26313M,
Marine Corps Communications Systems, for Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, for the Ground/Air Task oriented Radar
(GATOR). The committee understands that this program is being
restructured, and has been designated as an item of special
interest by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, who will retain milestone decision
authority. The committee further understands that the Marine
Corps leadership is reviewing the program for affordability and
for possible joint development of a mobile ground multi-mode
radar capability with the Army. The committee expects to be
kept informed as these deliberations progress. In particular,
the committee expects to be informed of any decision affecting
fiscal year 2010 program plans or budgets prior to conference
on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Israeli upper tier missile defense
The budget request included $119.7 million in PE 63913C for
cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, including
$37.5 million for joint development of an upper tier
interceptor to replace the Arrow-2 interceptor, known as the
Arrow-3. The committee supports the joint U.S.-Israeli
development of the Arrow-3 interceptor, but is concerned that
the program has risks that may take significantly longer to
resolve than the timeline envisioned, and not in time to meet
Israel's required schedule.
According to the testimony of Lieutenant General Patrick
O'Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, the Arrow-3
development program is ``deemed to have very high schedule and
technical risk.'' The Missile Defense Agency is currently
negotiating an Upper Tier Project Agreement that is intended to
ensure that the Arrow-3 program is managed according to sound
acquisition and management principles, including a requirement
for accomplishing technology knowledge points according to a
schedule.
According to Lieutenant General O'Reilly, to ``mitigate the
Arrow-3 development schedule risk, we are ensuring that the
development of a land-based variant of the proven Aegis SM-3
missile is available to meet Israel's upper tier
requirements.'' The committee agrees with this management and
risk mitigation approach, and commends the Department for
ensuring there will be a relatively low-risk and near-term
upper tier option, based on the operationally effective SM-3,
to meet Israel's upper tier missile defense needs in a timely
manner. The committee requests that the Missile Defense Agency
keep the congressional defense committees apprised of
developments in the Israeli upper tier missile defense program,
including both the Arrow-3 and land-based SM-3 development
programs.
KC-X tanker replacement program
The committee regards the need to modernize the current
fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tanker aircraft as a vital
national security priority and supports the KC-X tanker
recapitalization program, as well as efforts by the Air Force
both to maintain the existing fleet and augment capability with
aerial fee-for-service, if it proves cost-effective under the
pending pilot program. Given the troubled history of the
program, the committee expects that the Department of Defense
will pursue a process of procuring replacement tankers that
will ensure that the joint warfighter receives the best
capability at the best price. The committee believes that this
can only be achieved by an acquisition strategy that does not
pre-determine the outcome of the competition and a competition
that is fair and open. In addition, the committee believes
that, in accordance with the principles of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and as a
means of improving contractor performance, the Department of
Defense must ensure that the acquisition strategy of the KC-X
program includes measures that ensure competition, or the
option of competition, throughout the life cycle of the
program, where appropriate and cost-effective.
Laboratory recapitalization and sustainment issues
The committee is aware that Department of Defense
laboratories have chronically been underfunded for upgrade and
modernization requirements that use military construction and
facility sustainment funds. The unique mission of Department
laboratories requires an aggressive and proactive investment
strategy to support emerging technologies and state-of-the art
systems and equipment. The average rate of investment for
recapitalization, as well as for sustainment restoration and
modernization (SRM) funding, has been appreciably below
industry standards and other governmental laboratories, despite
special authorities provided by Congress in recent years to use
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation funds for
military construction activities at higher thresholds than
other types of facilities. In addition, the committee is
concerned that the military departments do not have processes
in place to obtain quantitative data to assess the overall
ability of the laboratory infrastructure to support existing
missions and emerging requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
through the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment, to report to the congressional defense committees,
not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the
health of the Department's laboratory infrastructure. The
report should include a list and description of unfunded
laboratory military construction and major repair projects for
the Army, Navy, and Air Force research labs, including the Army
research, development and engineering command laboratories,
corps of engineers laboratory facilities, and naval warfare
centers, and an investment plan required to modernize defense
laboratories to meet current mission and known future mission
requirements, as well as data on funding for military
construction projects and SRM at the defense laboratories from
fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Net-Enabled Command Capability
The committee is deeply disappointed that the Department
has been unable to come to grips with ongoing dissent within
the Department regarding sorely needed modernization in the
area of joint command and control. It is apparent that the
Department's management and governance construct for the Net-
Enabled Command Capability (NECC) program has delayed the
Department's ability to develop and field the next generation
of joint command and control capabilities.
Due to the unwillingness of the Services and others to
agree to a joint command and control modernization that is
centrally managed, the committee directs the termination of the
NECC system. The committee directs that any remaining Service
NECC funds be moved into their respective Global Command and
Control System (GCCS) programs, while the Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA) funding programmed for NECC should be
aligned to Global Command and Control System-Joint program.
The committee supports the need for a joint command and
control architecture and standards to be used in the
development of the Department's command and control
modernization effort. The committee further expects the GCCS
program to be modernized into a Department-wide joint command
and control program and expects the Department to appropriately
fund this activity so that it will transform and incorporate
the most advanced technologies and capabilities possible. The
committee expects that the Services, DISA, and the Assistant
Secretary for Network and Information Integration will jointly
work together to determine the best governance and funding
structure to achieve these results efficiently and effectively.
Test and evaluation workforce
The committee directs the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center (TRMC) to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees within 120 days of enactment
of this Act on the extent to which contractor positions in the
Major Range and Test Facility Base should be converted to
Department of Defense civilian employee positions. The report
should identify any actions the military departments and
defense agencies plan to take to convert such positions between
fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015, including any funding and
manpower adjustments needed to make the conversions. The report
should also make an assessment of the impact that the
conversion process will have on acquisition programs that
require the use of affected test facilities. To assist in the
development of this report, the committee directs the
secretaries of the military departments and the heads of the
appropriate defense agencies to provide TRMC with any
information required for this report within 90 days of
enactment of this Act.
Third Generation Infrared Surveillance
The budget request included $143.2 million for Third
Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS). The committee
supports technology risk reduction and demonstration efforts to
develop the next generation infrared capability to enable the
Air Force to launch a successor to the Spaced-based Infrared
Satellite (SBIRS) when needed. At the same time the committee
recognizes that the program of record, SBIRS, continues to
struggle. While the first two highly elliptical orbit sensors
are on orbit and are performing the first of the geosynchronous
earth orbit (GEO), SBIRS has slipped yet another year due to
continuing software issues. The committee urges the Air Force
to continue to improve the wide field of view focal plane array
technology, including the digital focal plane arrays, so that
when the technology is sufficiently mature the Air Force can
make the transition to a less costly, more capable infrared
satellite system. The committee notes that the plan for next-
generation overhead persistent infrared architecture is due to
Congress in July 2009.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in
connection with the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site,
Suffolk, Virginia (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to pay not more than $68,623 as the
final payment to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency
for costs incurred in overseeing the removal action performed
by the Department of Defense under the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program for ordnance and explosive safety hazards
at the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia.
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues
Modification of authority for Army industrial facilities to engage in
cooperative activities with non-Army entities (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision to clarify the
authority for the Army to enter into cooperative agreements
with non-Army entities.
Improvement of inventory management practices (sec. 322)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for
improving its inventory management systems with the objective
of reducing costs incurred to acquire and store secondary
inventory that is excess to requirements.
The Government Accountability Office has recommended that
the Department of Defense improve its management of secondary
inventory by improving demand forecasting procedures and
providing better information to item managers. The military
departments have adopted improved spare parts demand
forecasting and life cycle cost analysis methodologies for
selected programs. The committee encourages the Department to
expand these efforts and adopt advanced predictive modeling and
simulation methodology that incorporates asset demand-
influencing factors such as time, usage, aging of parts,
maintenance, and logistics support.
Temporary suspension of authority for public-private competitions (sec.
323)
The committee recommends a provision that would place a
moratorium on the initiation of public-private competitions
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 until the
Department of Defense (DOD) implements the requirements of
section 2330a of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2330a requires DOD to develop an inventory of
activities performed for the Department by service contractors.
The required inventory will provide critical information needed
for DOD to rationalize its supplier base, develop effective
human capital plans, and identify functions that should be
considered for public-private competition.
Section 2330a required that the first inventory be
submitted to Congress by not later than July 1, 2008. Instead
of collecting the data required to meet this requirement, the
Department submitted what it called a ``prototype inventory
list,'' consisting of limited data available from existing
sources. Further, the Department developed a ``phased
implementation'' plan which does not provide for full
compliance until July 1, 2011--a full 3 years after the
statutory deadline.
The committee notes that DOD and other federal agencies
complied with a requirement imposed by the Federal Activities
Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270) to inventory
functions performed by federal employees within 1 year of the
date of enactment. The committee concludes that the Department
is capable of producing the inventory required by section 2330a
within a comparable period of time.
Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 324)
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008
(Public Law 110-181) extended the Arsenal Support Program
Initiative (ASPI) for 2 years and is currently set to expire at
the end of fiscal year 2010. A report to accompany the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) directed a comprehensive depot study to
assess a wide range of manufacturing and depot maintenance
activities to include ASPI.
The committee remains concerned regarding the cost savings
to the Army and encourages other authorities to be explored
which will accomplish the same goals as ASPI.
Accordingly, the committee extends ASPI authority for 1
fiscal year and awaits the findings of the comprehensive depot
study.
Modification of date for submittal to Congress of annual report on
funding for public and private performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads (sec. 325)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
date for the report required by section 2466 of title 10,
United States Code, as requested by the Department of Defense.
Subtitle D--Energy Provisions
Energy security on Department of Defense installations (sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for
identifying and addressing areas in which electricity needed to
carry out critical missions on Department of Defense
installations is vulnerable to disruption. The provision would:
(1) direct the Secretary of Defense to work with federal, State
and local regulatory authorities to address areas of
vulnerability; and (2) authorize the Secretary to award
contracts, grants, or other agreements to reimburse private
parties for actions taken to address areas of vulnerability.
Extension and expansion of reporting requirements regarding Department
of Defense energy efficiency programs (sec. 332)
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
lacks a comprehensive and organized policy regarding energy. It
appears that each service operates irrespective of each other
due to lack of Department guidance, resulting in uneven
accomplishments with respect to energy efficiencies. The
committee recommends a provision that will also gain visibility
on installation renewable energy projects, determine if
existing funding mechanisms are sufficient, enhance
installation energy security, and provide a cost and
feasibility response for implementing the recommendations of
the 2008 Defense Science Board study ``More Fight--Less Fuel''.
Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 333)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
goals for the alternative aviation fuel initiative of the Air
Force. The provision would also require the submission of
reports by the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Defense
Science Board.
Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational Energy
(sec. 334)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for the Director of Operational Energy Plans and
Programs authorized in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
Subtitle E--Reports
Study on Army modularity (sec. 341)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent study on
the current and planned modularity structures of the Army.
Modularity refers to the Army's fundamental reconfiguration
of its force from a large division-based to a brigade-based
structure. The new modular brigade combat team (BCT) is
intended to have an increased capability to operate
independently based upon embedded combat support capabilities
such as military intelligence, reconnaissance, and logistics.
Although somewhat smaller in size, the new modular brigades are
supposed to be just as or more capable than the divisional
brigades they replace because they will have a more capable mix
of equipment-such as advanced communications, intelligence, and
surveillance systems.
At its inception in 2004, the conversion of Army divisional
combat brigades to this new modular structure were projected to
be accomplished in 3 years, without the need for additional
end-strength, and at a cost of $21 billion. Since then,
however, the modularity initiative has grown in scope,
duration, and cost. Through fiscal year 2008, the Army has
established over 80 percent of its planned modular units,
however, estimates on how long it will take to equip this force
as required in authorization documents has slipped from 2011 to
2019.
A June 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found
that the modularity program has cost more and yielded fewer
benefits than were originally estimated. The Army has had to
add personnel to support the additional units created within
the BCTs. Planned increases in personnel end-strength were
unlikely to be sufficient to fully support the force structure
of the Army's originally planned growth to 76 brigade combat
teams (BCT). For this reason and others, Secretary Gates has
announced that Army active component growth would be limited to
45 instead of 48 BCTs. The CBO also found that although modular
BCTs might require less time to prepare to respond to an
overseas contingency than the divisional brigades they
replaced, they require roughly the same amount of time to
transport their equipment overseas. Finally, the CBO noted that
costs to carry out the initiative have grown beyond the initial
estimate of $21.0 billion and may total more than $140.0
billion through 2013.
In its November 2008 study of Army modularity, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed that the Army
is making progress in fielding its modular units but does not
have an objective, results oriented, fully funded plan to equip
and man this new structure to documented authorization levels.
Despite assuming increased modular unit capabilities based on
new or soon to be available technologies, Army projections to
achieve its aggregate equipping requirements are based partly
on the indefinite use of some older equipment. The GAO also
found that the Army does not have a comprehensive plan to
evaluate the modular force.
The Army argues that they will have completed conversion to
the initial modular force by fiscal year 2013 and that plans
upon which the conversion is based must be flexible to reflect
the changing requirements and timelines of an Army at war.
Modular transformation, the Army argues, is a ``process''
rather than an end-state. The Army must constantly adapt to
evolving threats and capture these requirement changes in
structure and equipment. The Army uses the Army Force
Generation (ARFORGEN) model and equipment substitution to
manage the prioritization, fill, and cost of equipment and
personnel to modular units. With respect to evaluation of its
modular designs, the Army says that initial modeling revealed
that modular units would be at least as good as the units it
replaced and that comprehensive and continuous evaluations have
yielded over 130 design updates since 2004.
The committee is concerned by these wide differences
between the CBO, GAO, and Army and their assessments of the
analytical basis, performance, and cost of the Army's modular
unit transformation. Measureable, stable, and documented
requirements and then unit fill for personnel and equipment are
a fundamental starting point to an assessment of any unit's
readiness and evaluation of its capability to conduct the
missions for which it is designed. Modular BCTs have been
rotating into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. Based
on this combat experience, the Army notes it has made over 130
design updates. However, none of these updates appear to
challenge or change the core structural design of the modular
combat brigade. For example, the heavy and light modular combat
brigades each have two maneuver battalions (typically infantry
or armor) assigned. Yet many BCT commanders in Iraq or
Afghanistan will use the reconnaissance squadron as a third
maneuver unit instead of the mission for which it is designed.
At a hearing on military land power in March this year, the
Subcommittee on Airland received testimony from a former BCT
commander in Iraq arguing that the modular heavy and light
brigades should add a third maneuver battalion.
The committee notes that unresolved questions about the
operational capabilities and personnel and equipment
requirements of the Army's modular unit structure makes it
difficult to reliably estimate requirements for end-strength
and equipment modernization and procurement. Accordingly, the
committee believes a comprehensive study by an independent,
federally funded research and development center is merited.
Budget Items
Army
Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System
The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for land forces readiness, but included
no funds for the Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing
System (ECWCS). The Generation III ECWCS weighs 25 percent less
than previous clothing systems, uses 33 percent less space in a
soldier's pack, and integrates near infrared technologies into
the garments reducing detection at night. The committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million in OMA for Generation
III ECWCS.
Funding for strategic planning and implementation of interagency
training, education, and research in support of rule of law
operations
The committee recognizes that in current stability
operations abroad, training, education, and implementation of
methods to support adherence to the rule of law within emerging
governmental systems has been a goal assigned the highest
priority. Currently, there is no adequate means to facilitate
training, research, and collaboration across interagency and
non-governmental lines. Designation of a properly qualified and
resourced site is quickly needed for the development of
strategic plans and updated training in collaborative, rule of
law efforts to develop an understanding of potential new,
broad-based approaches. Accordingly, the committee authorizes
$0.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, to support
strategic planning and interagency training in rule of law
efforts.
Navy
Naval aviation depot maintenance
The budget request included $35.0 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $1.0 billion for aviation
maintenance. The Navy identified risk and a shortage in its
unfunded requirements for aviation depot maintenance for fiscal
year 2010. The Navy has stated this unfulfilled maintenance
requirement is executable. The committee recommends an increase
of $195.0 million in OMN for aviation depot maintenance.
Naval ship depot maintenance
The budget request included $35.0 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $4.2 billion for ship depot
maintenance. The Navy identified risk and unfunded requirements
for ship depot maintenance for fiscal year 2010. The Navy has
stated this unfunded maintenance requirement is executable. The
committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in OMN for
ship depot maintenance.
Transfer of funding from overseas contingency operations to base budget
The committee observed that the Navy had to cancel ship
maintenance availabilities during the last fiscal year due to a
shortage of Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), funding. The
committee believes funding needs to be transferred from
overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding to the base
budget to avoid underfunding ship maintenance in fiscal year
2010. Accordingly, the committee recommends a transfer of
$568.8 million to OMN from the OCO to the base budget.
United States Joint Forces Command National Program for Small Unit
Excellence
The budget request included $8.75 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for the creation of the National
Program for Small Unit Excellence. The committee is encouraged
by the United States Joint Forces Command's (JFCOM) intent to
develop a comprehensive approach to small unit excellence by
drawing upon academia, lessons learned from Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the conferences held to date. However, the
committee is concerned that additional steps must first be
taken to evaluate small unit training doctrine in order to
ensure the most efficient and effective training is developed
by the appropriate agencies. The committee believes training
standards, established irregular warfare doctrine, and
integrated requirements are currently lacking. Additionally,
the committee is not yet convinced the Center's focus is not
already an established training focus within the individual
Services, and that the center may be duplicative rather than
complementary.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0
million in OMN and $3.0 of Other Procurement, Navy for the
National Small Unit Center for Excellence. The committee
authorizes $10.0 million in research, development, test, and
evaluation for efforts related to the proposed National Program
for Small Unit Excellence. The committee directs that none of
these funds be used for the establishment of a center. The
committee directs that the funds be used by the Commander of
JFCOM to invest in initiatives that will support the
development of small unit capabilities in the services, and
that the priority for funding shall be initiatives that are
cost-shared with a service or defense agency.
Gun depot overhauls
The budget request included $448.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy, (OMN) for weapons maintenance, but provided
no funds for Mk 45 Mod 5,, gun depot overhauls. The committee
recommends an increase of $12.0 million in OMN for Mk 45 Mod
5,, gun depot overhauls.
Naval Strike Air Warfare Center training
The budget request included $477.3 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for specialized skill training, but
provided no funds for the Naval Strike Air Warfare Center
(NSAWC). Additional funding will provide equipment, survey
data, simulator support, range development, curriculum
development, and computer technician support to the NSAWC for
direct training of joint terminal attack controllers and pilots
in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom. The committee recommends an increase of $850,000 in
OMN for the NSAWC.
Marine Corps
Advanced load bearing equipment
The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but
provided no funds for the advanced load bearing equipment
(ALBE). The load bearing system assists marines in carrying
large amounts of equipment, ammunition, and weapons needed in
training and combat. Increased operational tempo in Afghanistan
often causes equipment to wear out faster than anticipated. The
ALBE upgrades the load bearing system with more rugged pouches,
packs, and slings. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in OMMC for ALBE.
Marine Corps shelters
The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but
provided no funds for the Family of Shelters and Tents (FST).
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMMC
for FST.
Cold Weather Layering System
The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but
included no funds for the Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS).
The CWLS is a unique system, is often consumed by use during a
single deployment, and is an urgent operational need in
theater. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
in OMMC for CWLS.
Air Force
Mission essential airfield operations equipment
The budget request included $2.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for base operations, but provided
no funds for the equipping and replacement of mission essential
airfield operations equipment. The committee recommends a $3.5
million increase in OMAF to provide mission essential equipment
and replacement equipment.
National Security Space Institute
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
the National Security Space Institute (NSSI) in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), line 090. The committee supports
the National Security Space Institute as the center for space
professional and educational training for all the military
services. Currently the NSSI is not able to accommodate all
those who need to take these classes. The committee is also
concerned that that the joint focus of the space education
might be lost as a result of the recent decision to split up
the NSSI. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force,
in consultation with the Secretaries of the other military
services, to report back to the committee on the impacts of the
division of the NSSI and whether all space training and
education requirements are being met. The committee will
continue to review the management of the space cadres in each
service.
Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements
Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office
based on the services' civilian personnel end strength data as
of April 2009, projects that the Department of the Air Force's
civilian personnel costs is overstated for fiscal year 2010 by
$588.1 million. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $538.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force for overstatement of civilian personnel pay.
Defense-wide
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative
The budget request included $36.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). This represents a
decrease from the $39.8 million requested for fiscal year 2009.
The committee believes the military departments should
continue to pursue the voluntary agreements with other public
and private entities as authorized under section 2684a of title
10, United States Code, to prevent the development or use of
property that would be incompatible with the mission of an
installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with
environmental requirements that might otherwise result in
current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military
bases.
Since Congress provided the authority in 2003, over 130
projects have been initiated conserving more than 76,000 acres
at 53 military installations in 23 states. More can be done to
protect important military test and training assets and to
preserve the land around installations.
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in
OMDW for REPI and directs that the military departments give
priority to projects that benefit critical mission training
sites that have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce
encroachment through the creation of compatible use buffer
zones.
Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational Energy
The committee created the Director of Operational Energy
Plans and Programs in the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
The committee therefore authorizes $5.0 million of Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Director of Operational
Energy Plans and Programs.
Defense readiness reporting system
The budget request included $7.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Defense Readiness Reporting
System (DRRS). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for the acceleration of the development and deployment
of DRRS. The committee remains aware of the challenges
associated with the accurate, reliable, timely measurement, and
reporting of the readiness of military forces. The current
readiness reporting system, Global Status of Resources and
Training System (GSORTS), is inadequate to meet the demands of
the force rotation strategy that supports operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and around the world. The Department of Defense
(DOD), Joint Staff, and the United States Joint Forces Command
continue to lack the visibility of deployed and non-deployed
forces' capabilities and readiness required to manage global
military commitments.
In June 2002, DOD issued a directive establishing the DRRS,
a capabilities-based, adaptive, near-term readiness reporting
system. The directive requires all components to align their
readiness reporting processes with DRRS. Since then, we
understand DOD and the services have taken a number of steps
but that DRRS is not yet fully operational and aligned with the
services' reporting processes.
The committee supports the Department's development of DRRS
as an important management modernization and replacement for
GSORTS. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reports that significant shortfalls remain in the
implementation of DRRS, stability of requirements, adequacy of
testing, and overall management and oversight of the program.
The committee remains concerned that the Department has yet to
successfully plan, organize, resource, execute tests, and full
deployment for DRRS within the Global Command and Control
System.
Additionally, the committee is aware that GAO has not
reported the technology readiness of DRRS. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Networks & Information Integration) and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Personnel & Readiness, to jointly
undertake a review of the technological maturity of the
critical technology elements and systems integration issues
related to DRRS. A report to the defense committees shall be
delivered no later than 120 days after enactment of this act.
Commercial imagery acquisition
The budget request included classified amounts in Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, in the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency budget to initiate the competitive
acquisition through the commercial data providers (CDPs) of the
equivalent capacity of two 1.1-meter electro-optical (EO)
imaging satellites to augment the capacity currently under
contract. This decision was made because the Department of
Defense (DOD) wants to ensure that at least moderate resolution
EO capability is available to the warfighter from multiple
satellites with minimum risk. In deliberations within the
administration on the broad national and defense reconnaissance
architecture, DOD had proposed building satellites with 1.5-
meter apertures, on the grounds that these would be adequate to
meet DOD needs, would be more affordable, and, by buying more
of them, would be more survivable and sustainable from a space
protection and industrial base perspective.
The Secretary of Defense recently testified to the Senate
that the Department made the decision to acquire more 1.1-meter
imagery rather than higher quality 1.5-meter imagery due to
concerns about schedule and technology risk with the ``upper
tier'' of capability that the Director of National Intelligence
recently decided to acquire. After careful consideration of the
schedule and risks involved, the committee concludes that DOD
can prudently substitute one 1.5-meter commercial-class
satellite for one of the 1.1-meter satellite equivalents
proposed in the budget request.
The committee believes that it is within the capacity of
the commercial imagery industry to produce one or more 1.5-
meter satellites before the period of risk identified by the
Secretary. The committee believes furthermore that, by
acquiring the capability of a 1.5-meter satellite, DOD will
substantially reduce the consequences to the Nation in the
event that the schedule and technical risks identified by the
Secretary are realized.
The committee, therefore, directs the Director of the
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to competitively
acquire the equivalent capacity of at least one 1.5-meter
commercial imagery satellite on a schedule keyed to the risks
identified by the Secretary. The committee will leave it to DOD
to decide whether to buy the satellite outright or to acquire
capacity through the CDPs. The committee recommends, however,
that DOD operate the acquired satellite or capacity through one
or more of the CDPs, on mutually agreeable terms. The committee
encourages the Department to structure these commercial imagery
acquisitions to minimize cost and technical and schedule risk.
The committee fully supports the administration's decision
to build a secure and responsive tasking, processing, and
dissemination capability, enabling for the first time routine
use of commercial imagery for time-sensitive operational
support and intelligence analysis, as opposed to mapping,
charting, and geodesy.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense
provide to the congressional intelligence and defense
committees prior to conference on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 an estimate of any
additional funds that may be required to acquire 1.5-meter
imagery.
Department of Defense Education Activity Operation & Maintenance
funding
The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of Defense Education Activity Operation and Maintenance account
includes the following changes from the budget request. The
provisions underlying these changes in funding levels are
discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee
report.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent 30.0
students.............................................
Assistance for schools with military students due to 10.0
rebasing.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities...... 5.0
Military community support for autism................. 5.0
-----------------
Total............................................. 50.0
Undistributed bulk fuel savings
Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office
shows that the Department of Defense overstated its funding
requirements for refined oil for fiscal year 2010 by $611.0
million, based on updated economic assumptions for the cost of
refined oil as of May 2009. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $596.2 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, undistributed, for fuel savings.
Software licenses
The committee recommends a general reduction of $50.0
million from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for funds
intended for payment of new software license fees. Elsewhere in
this report, the committee highlights a number of concerns
about the Department's coordination and management of software
license purchases, and directs a review of the issue.
Army Reserve
Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve
The budget request included $106.5 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces system
readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million
in OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and abatement.
Army National Guard
Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard
The budget request included $99.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces
systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an
increase of $3.6 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion
protection and abatement.
Controlled humidity protection
The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for air operations, but
provided no funds for controlled humidity protection. The
Government Accountability Office has found that the readiness
and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded by
corrosion. The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars
annually to address corrosion damage that could be avoided with
increased prevention and mitigation technology such as
controlled humidity protection. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.7 million in OMANG for controlled humidity
protection.
Unobligated Balances
Unobligated balances decrease in funding
The committee is aware that the challenges associated with
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan create a difficult fiscal
management situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps.
However, the Department of Defense continues to under-execute
its Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the
active and reserve components. According to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the military departments had $1.2
billion in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years
2004 through 2008.
The committee recalls that 4 years ago the Department began
to reduce the O&M portion of its annual funding request and
future-years defense program before submission to Congress
based, in part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances.
The Department also underfunds important maintenance and
activities in its annual request in anticipation of
supplemental appropriations. Whether made available in annual
or supplemental appropriations, the Department and services
must ensure that taxpayer dollars are appropriately managed to
provide the best possible readiness for the force and avoid the
expiration of obligating authority. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease to the Department's O&M accounts, as
follows: Operation and Maintenance, Army, $350.0 million,
Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $150.0 million, Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force, $150.0 million, and Operation and
Maintenance, defense wide, $150.0 million.
Items of Special Interest
Army organizational structure and personnel requirements
The committee has over the years expressed its concern with
the limited dwell time for members of the United States Armed
Forces committed to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee is especially
concerned with the limited dwell time for the soldiers of the
Army's active component. In hearing testimony earlier this year
before the Subcommittee on Airland, witnesses raised questions
about whether or not the Army was appropriately large enough or
organized for the types of conflicts in which it is currently
engaged or may become engaged in the future.
The Secretary of Defense recently recommended capping the
growth of the active Army at 45 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs),
rather than the previously planned goal of 48 BCTs as part of
the end strength growth begun in 2007. The Secretary
essentially argues that the Army is over-structured and
undermanned or that there are more units than there are
soldiers to fill them. Rather than increase end strength beyond
the 547,400 planned, the Secretary has chosen to limit the
growth of unit structure. The committee requires additional
information from the Department of Defense in order to more
comprehensively assess the manning, readiness, operational
implications, and risk of this decision.
The committee therefore directs that the Secretary of the
Army, not later than March 1, 2010, shall submit to the
congressional defense committees an unclassified report, with a
classified annex as appropriate, that provides an analysis,
comparison, and projected impacts of limiting the Army's active
component to 45 rather than 48 BCTs through 2012. This analysis
shall include an assessment of how the decision to keep the
Army's active component at 45 combat brigades would impact unit
time-deployed to time-at-home ratios for the Army's BCTs, as
well as the time-deployed to time-at-home ratios by officer and
enlisted grade for the 30 military occupational specialties in
highest demand to support OEF and OIF. In making these
analyses, the report shall discuss the risks associated with
these time-deployed to time-at-home ratios and requirements
projections in the event that demand for U.S. forces does not
significantly diminish through 2012.
The committee is also concerned that the demand for non-
standard units, such as security assistance training teams and
headquarters staffs, puts additional stress on standard unit
readiness and high demand military skills. Accordingly, the
committee directs that the report shall include an analysis and
projected impacts of personnel requirements for ad hoc units
and individual augmentees through 2012 to meet requirements to
support OEF and OIF, including:
Individual Army augmentees deployed to support
staff requirements at higher headquarters echelons such as
Multinational Forces-Iraq, Multinational Corps-Iraq, the
International Security Assistance Force, U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan, and other relevant echelons above brigade of U.S.
forces supporting OEF and OIF.
Specialized organizations that have been created
to meet theater-specific requirements in OEF and OIF, such as
Task Force ODIN, Multinational Security Transition Assistance
Command, Provincial Reconstruction teams, and other ad hoc
organizations created for specific theater requirements in OEF
and OIF. This would also include units tasked with a security
force assistance mission or other non-standard task-organized
units such as military transition teams, advisory and
assistance brigades, and other units uniquely organized,
equipped, trained, and deployed for OEF and OIF.
The impact on BCTs of junior and mid-grade
officer and non-commissioned officers demand to fill ad hoc
staff or unit requirements in theater.
Within 30 days of the completion of this report, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report describing steps that the Department of
Defense has taken and plans to implement that will improve the
time-deployed to time-at-home ratios for the Army active
component.
Continued assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant
command operational plans
The report to accompany the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct
an assessment of the implementation of the directives contained
in the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 3133.03C.
The assessment was to evaluate the contracting support plans
for combatant command operations plans as reported in the
Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) as required by
section 482 of title 10, United States Code.
However, preliminary indications from GAO suggest that
combatant command planning related to contracting support for
contingency operations has been slow to start and applied
unevenly.
The committee continues to believe that contingency plans
must have comprehensive, detailed, and realistic contracting
support plans that meet the operational requirements of the
force before, during, and after combat operations.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include
with each QRRC submitted in 2010 and 2011 an identification of
the operational plans that require a contracting annex, for
which plans the contracting annex has been drafted, and for
which plans the contracting annex has been approved.
The GAO assessment, as originally required by the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417), is due to congressional defense
committees not later than September 30, 2009. The committee
extends the deadline to March 30, 2010. The committee expects
the Department will cooperate with GAO's review of the
contracting annexes of these plans.
Cost-benefit analysis of depot maintenance workload associated with AV-
8B Harrier weapons system
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives identifying each alternative the
Secretary is considering for the performance of AV-8B planned
maintenance interval events and concurrent aircraft
modifications. The report shall include a justification for the
alternative selected or recommended by the Secretary, including
a cost-benefit analysis and an explanation of how the
alternative is consistent with the requirements of chapter 146
of title 10, United States Code (including the requirement for
the Department of Defense to identify and maintain core
logistics capabilities).
Depot-level maintenance and repair
Depot maintenance is a key part of the total Department of
Defense (DOD) logistics system that helps to support the
readiness and sustainability of major weapon systems. Section
2466 of title 10, United States Code, states that not more than
50 percent of the funds made available to a military department
or defense agency for depot-level maintenance and repair may be
used to contract for performance by the private sector.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics has explained the Department's interpretation and
application of this requirement as follows:
``Although the current section 2460 excludes the
procurement of major modifications or upgrades of
weapon systems that are designed to improve program
performance from the definition of depot maintenance
and repair, DOD depot maintenance, repair, and
modification of weapon systems are typically done in an
integrated manner. Under these circumstances, it is
difficult to separately account for and track
individual labor elements, although there can be a
clear accounting between labor and parts. For this
reason, in reporting 50/50 compliance since 1998, DOD
has included the installation of all modification and
upgrades, while excluding the acquisition of associated
parts.''
The committee directs the Department to coordinate with the
committee before implementing any significant change to the
interpretation and application of the requirements of section
2466.
Pollution Prevention Program
The committee believes it is important for the Department
of Defense and the military departments to continue to pursue
pollution prevention strategies and technologies that will
further reduce waste streams, protect people and the
environment, meet regulatory requirements, and, ultimately,
save money in terms of conservation, compliance, and cleanup.
The committee notes that the President's budget request
includes a substantial decrease in pollution prevention funding
in fiscal year 2010 as compared to the previous few years.
While some of the costs associated with pollution prevention
can be absorbed in the Department's environmental compliance
program, and some of the onus for developing pollution
prevention strategies can be passed to the acquisition programs
through green procurement initiatives, it is important to
maintain a robust pollution prevention program that will
identify strategies, technologies and techniques, and that
maintains clear lines of responsibility and accountability for
program management. The committee urges the Department to
develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the Department:
(1) funds pollution prevention projects that are likely to
result in significant savings or significantly improve the
Department's environmental performance; and (2) can track
investments in pollution prevention and the payback from such
investments, regardless of the source of funding for such
investments.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2010, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010
authorization 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army................................................... 532,400 547,400 547,400
Navy................................................... 326,323 328,800 328,800
Marine Corps........................................... 194,000 202,100 202,100
Air Force.............................................. 317,050 331,700 331,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) authorized an active-duty
end strength for the Army of 532,400 and for the Marine Corps
of 194,000. Additional authority was provided in section 403 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) to increase active-duty end strength for fiscal
years 2009 and 2010 to 547,400 for the Army and 202,000 for the
Marine Corps.
The committee has supported the growth in the Army and
Marine Corps over the past several years, and commends those
services for achieving their planned growth almost 3 years
ahead of schedule. With demand for forces unlikely to lessen in
2010, the higher end strengths are essential, especially in
view of the growing number of individuals who are unable to
deploy due to injuries, disease, or for other reasons. The
committee remains concerned about the level of stress on the
force that repeated and lengthy deployments are causing. In
recent years, all of the services have seen their suicide rates
increase, and the Army in particular has seen a troubling rise
in the number of suicides this year. Meanwhile, the Secretary
of Defense announced that the Army will cease its use of stop-
loss by January 2010. While the committee applauds this change
in policy, it recognizes that additional personnel may be
required to continue to ensure the cohesiveness and readiness
of units preparing to deploy. The active component dwell time
target of 2 years home for each year deployed is still not
being met, even with the increased forces. The committee urges
the Department of Defense to implement personnel policies that
will improve dwell time and the quality-of-life of military
members and their families.
Meanwhile, the Air Force and the Navy have been reducing
their active-duty end strengths in recent years. Both services
announced this year a halt to the planned decline of the size
of their active forces, and the Administration's 2010 budget
submission reflects this decision. The committee supports the
higher end strengths of the Air Force and Navy requested in the
budget that more accurately reflect what those services require
to accomplish their missions.
The committee supports the Administration's request and
recommends active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2010 for
the Army of 547,400, the Marine Corps of 202,100, the Navy of
328,800, and the Air Force of 331,700.
Additional authority for increases of Army active duty end strengths
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 (sec. 402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army active-duty end
strength by 30,000 over 2010 levels in fiscal years 2011 and
2012, provided the Secretary requests the necessary funding in
the fiscal year 2011 and 2012 budget requests.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2010, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010
authorization 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 352,600 358,200 358,200
The Army Reserve....................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000
The Navy Reserve....................................... 66,700 65,500 65,500
The Marine Corps Reserve............................... 39,600 39,600 39,600
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 106,756 106,700 106,700
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 67,400 69,500 69,500
The Coast Guard Reserve................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2010, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010
authorization 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 32,060 32,060 32,060
The Army Reserve....................................... 16,170 16,261 16,261
The Navy Reserve....................................... 11,099 10,818 10,818
The Marine Corps Reserve............................... 2,261 2,261 2,261
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 14,360 14,555 14,555
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 2,733 2,896 2,896
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee recommends Active Guard and Reserve end
strength increases of 91 in the Army Reserve, 195 in the Air
National Guard, and 163 in the Air Force Reserve over levels
approved for fiscal year 2009. The committee supports increases
in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels
to increase readiness in the reserve components.
The committee also recommends a decrease of 281 from the
fiscal year 2009 level in the Navy Reserve, consistent with
reductions in the overall Navy Reserve end strength. The
committee recommends end strengths for the Army National Guard
and the Marine Corps Reserve equal to the fiscal year 2009
level, consistent with the budget request.
End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
end strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal
year 2010, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010
authorization 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve....................................... 8,395 8,154 8,395
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 27,210 26,901 27,210
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 10,003 10,417 10,417
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 22,452 22,313 22,313
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians
(sec. 414)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2010,
as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010
authorization 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 1,600 2,500 1,600
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 350 350 350
The Army Reserve....................................... 595 836 595
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 90 90 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support (sec. 415)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2010, as
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010
authorization 2010 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 17,000 17,000 17,000
The Army Reserve....................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000
The Navy Reserve....................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200
The Marine Corps Reserve............................... 3,000 3,000 3,000
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 16,000 16,000 16,000
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 14,000 14,000 14,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report on trainee account for the Army National Guard (sec. 416)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report assessing the need to establish a trainees,
transients, holdees, and students account within the Army
National Guard. The report would be due no later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Military personnel (sec. 421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funds to be appropriated for military personnel accounts of the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010. The provision would
also authorize funds to be contributed to the Medicare-Eligible
Retiree Health Fund.
Budget Item
Military personnel funding changes
The amount authorized to be appropriated for military
personnel programs in section 421 of this Act includes the
following changes from the budget request:
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Increase in military pay raise........................ 350.0
Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program.. 59.0
Travel reimbursement for suspended training........... 5.0
Mental health assessments............................. 3.0
Substance abuse study................................. 1.5
Reduction of unobligated military personnel balances.. -818.5
-----------------
Total............................................. -400.0
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Modification of limitations on general and flag officers on active duty
(sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 525, 526, and 721 of title 10, United States Code, to
implement section 506 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
modify the distribution and authorized end strengths of general
and flag officers on active duty.
Revisions to annual report requirement on joint officer management
(sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 667 of title 10, United States Code, to align the
reporting requirement on joint officer management with joint
programs and policies of the Department of Defense, and delete
the requirements to report on the joint qualifications of
critical occupational specialty officers and the analysis of
assignments of officers after designation as joint qualified
officers.
Grade of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 156(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require that
an officer appointed to serve as Legal Counsel to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be appointed in the regular grade
of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half).
Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 805 of title 10, United States Code, to establish in
statute the positions of Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains in
the Air Force. The Chief of Chaplains will be appointed in the
grade of major general, and the Deputy Chief of Chaplains will
be appointed in the grade of brigadier general. Both officers
will be appointed for a term of 3 years.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Report on requirements of the National Guard for non-dual status
technicians (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
regarding the Department's utilization of National Guard non-
dual status technicians. The report would be due no later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Education and Training
Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs
(sec. 521)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences and students participating in
the armed forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
Assistance Programs who have prior commissioned service to
serve, while on active duty, in pay grade O-1, or in pay grade
O-2 if they meet specified promotion criteria prescribed by the
service secretary. The provision would also amend section 2004a
of title 10, United States Code, to provide that an officer
detailed as a student at a medical school would serve on active
duty in the same grade with the same entitlement to pay as
specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United States Code.
Expansion of criteria for appointment as member of the Board of Regents
of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(sec. 522)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2113a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize appointment of individuals with experience in the
fields of health care, higher education administration, and
public policy as members of the Board of Regents of the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
Detail of commissioned officers as students at schools of psychology
(sec. 523)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of each military department to detail up to 25
commissioned officers each year as students at accredited
schools of psychology for training leading to the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in clinical psychology. To be eligible for
such training, an officer must agree to serve on active duty
for 2 years or in the reserves for three years for each year of
training.
The committee recommends this provision in response to
testimony of senior military and civilian leaders in the
Department of Defense that there is a significant shortfall in
military behavioral health personnel.
Subtitle D--Defense Dependents' Education Matters
Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense
assistance program to local educational agencies that are
impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military
members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
The committee also recommends authorization of $10.0 million in
OMDW, for assistance to local educational agencies with
significant changes in enrollment of military and civilian
school-aged dependent children due to base closures, force
structure changes, or force relocations.
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
for continuation of the Department of Defense's assistance to
local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe
disabilities.
Two-year extension of authority for assistance to local educational
agencies with enrollment changes due to base closures, force
structure changes, or force relocations (sec. 533)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 7703b(b)(4) of title 20, United States Code, to extend
for 2 years, from September 30, 2010, to September 30, 2012,
the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide financial
assistance to local educational agencies with enrollment
changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or force
relocations.
Permanent authority for enrollment in defense dependents' education
system of dependents of foreign military members assigned to
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (sec. 534)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 923a of title 20, United States Code, to make permanent
the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense in
section 571 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to enroll on a
space-required, tuition-free basis a limited number of
dependents of foreign military members who are assigned to the
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe, in the Department
of Defense dependents' education system in Mons, Belgium.
The provision would also provide that the Secretary of
Defense, in determining the methodology for the proper number
of foreign students, would do so with the advice and assistance
of the geographic combatant commander with jurisdiction over
Mons, Belgium.
Study on options for educational opportunities for dependent children
of members of the armed forces who do not attend Department of
Defense dependents schools (sec. 535)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, to conduct a study on options for educational
opportunities that are, or may be, available for dependent
children of members of the armed forces who do not attend
Department of Defense dependents' schools when the public
elementary and secondary schools are determined to be in need
of improvement pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(Public Law 110-117). The study would examine such options as
vouchers, education using the internet, Charter schools, and
other options considered appropriate by the Secretary of
Defense and Secretary of Education.
Sense of Senate on the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity
for Military Children (sec. 536)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate to: commend the 21 States that have
successfully enacted the Interstate Compact on Educational
Opportunity for Military Children; encourage all remaining
States to enact the Interstate Compact; recognize the
importance of the components of the Interstate Compact, such as
improved transfer of educational records; recalculation of
grades to consider the weights of different educational
institutions; waiver of specific courses required for
graduation if similar course work has been satisfactorily
completed in another educational institution; recognition of an
appointed guardian as a custodial parent while the child's
parent or parents are deployed; and express support for States
to develop a State Council to help coordinate the participation
of local government agencies, local education agencies, and
military installations in implementing the Interstate Compact.
The committee notes that the Interstate Compact can help
ease the burdens placed on military families by permanent
change of station moves, and that military personnel have
stated that their childrens' education is a major factor in
overall force readiness.
Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters
Independent review of judge advocate requirements of the Department of
the Navy (sec. 541)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
an independent panel to review the judge advocate requirements
for the Department of the Navy. The provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to appoint a panel of five private
citizens to conduct a study of judge advocate responsibilities,
assignment and career development policies, and management and
organizational practices of the Navy and Marine Corps, with the
objective of determining the required number of judge advocates
needed to fulfill the Department's legal mission.
The committee has noted with concern the increasing demands
being placed upon judge advocates in the Navy and Marine Corps
to fulfill critically important wartime legal roles with
minimal or no commensurate increases in judge advocate manning
or billets. In the Navy, the committee believes that the level
of risk associated with ``doing more with less'' has reached
its limit. The committee applauds the Navy's initiative to
conduct a Center for Naval Analyses study in 2008 to examine
this issue and believes this study will be highly useful to the
independent review panel.
The Marine Corps has not conducted a similar study, and the
committee expects the independent panel to address Marine Corps
manpower requirements issues. The committee has questioned the
Marine Corps' decision not to create additional judge advocate
billets or increase judge advocate manning as part of its
overall growth in active-duty end strength of 27,000 since
2007. The committee is concerned that proposed near-term
solutions, such as immediate termination of assignments of
judge advocates to career enhancing, non-legal billets, will
adversely affect the professional development and promotions of
mid-level Marine Corps judge advocates, and urges a more
deliberate response.
The committee believes that it is essential for the legal
arm of the Navy-Marine Corps team, with the full support of
senior line leaders, to work more cooperatively to address the
legal requirements for judge advocates in the Department of the
Navy. The committee will look to the independent panel, the
Secretary of Defense, and Navy leadership to provide positive
recommendations and planning for implementation in this regard.
Subtitle F--Military Family Readiness Matters
Additional members on the Department of Defense Military Family
Readiness Council (sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1781a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to mandate
the addition of two members to the Department of Defense
Military Family Readiness Council. One representative would be
from the National Guard, and the other representative would be
from a reserve component other than the National Guard. Both
representatives would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
The committee recognizes the important roles played by
members of the Guard and reserve components and their families
and believes it is critical that their views be represented on
the Council.
Comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance
use disorders and disposition of substance abuse offenders in
the armed forces (sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the
programs and activities of the Department of Defense for the
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance use disorders
and the policies of the Department relating to the disposition
of substance abuse offenders and to submit a report of this
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act. After completion of this review,
the provision would require a study by an independent entity on
substance use disorder programs for members of the armed
forces. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a comprehensive plan to improve these
programs, activities, and policies to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Military community support for children with autism and their families
(sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a policy and
program to provide broad-based community support to military
children with autism and their families. The provision would
also require the Secretary to conduct one or more pilot
projects to evaluate the effectiveness of various programmatic
approaches that include research, early intervention, evidence-
based therapeutic services, education and training for family
members, coordination with local educational programs,
vocational training, and family counseling.
The committee expects this program to be carried out by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and
Family Policy, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs. The intent of this provision is to
provide a broad base of support services to military families
who face the challenge of meeting the needs of family members
with autism. Medical and therapeutic services available under
TRICARE represent an important part of that support, but
families' needs are even greater.
To further this effort to increase military community
support for children with autism and their families, the
committee expects the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs to ensure that military and civilian health care
providers have access to current information on evidence-based
practices for early diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum
disorders, to enable families to receive diagnoses and begin
therapy, treatment, and education elements as early as
possible.
Reports on effects of deployments on military children and the
availability of mental health care and counseling services for
military children (sec. 554)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the impacts of military deployment on dependent children of
service members, to include separate assessments on preschool-
age children, elementary-school age children, and teenage or
adolescent children. The Secretary would be required to submit
a report of the findings and recommendations stemming from the
assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
The committee notes that to date, the Department of Defense
has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of
deployments on military children, and believes that the
Department needs such an assessment in order to create
relevant, effective counseling and resiliency programs for
military children.
The committee is also concerned that military families cite
lack of timely access to health care, and specifically to
mental health care, for military children as a major family
readiness issue. Therefore, the provision would also require
the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive review of the mental
health care and counseling services available to children of
service members, to include: the access to, quality, and
effectiveness of such services in military treatment
facilities, family assistance centers, under TRICARE, and in
Department of Defense dependents' schools; whether the status
of a service member as active duty or reserve affects the
access of a military child to such services; and whether and to
what extent waiting lists, geographic distance, and other
factors may obstruct military childrens' receipt of such
services. The Secretary would be required to submit a report on
the findings of the review to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, and to utilize
those findings to develop a comprehensive plan to improve
access to quality mental health care and counseling services
for military children and adolescents.
Report on child custody litigation involving service of members of the
armed forces (sec. 555)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on judicial cases involving child custody disputes in
which the service of a deployed or deploying member of the
armed forces, active or reserve, was an issue in a child
custody dispute.
The committee is aware of concerns that have been raised
about the vulnerability of single parent service members who
have custody of minor children to litigation by non-custodial
parents seeking a change in custody in connection with an
operational deployment. The committee believes that
comprehensive factual information regarding State courts'
actual experience with this issue and an assessment of the
scope and nature of this problem is essential before any
federal preemption of State legislation would be warranted.
This is particularly true in view of the resolution by the
American Bar Association issued in February 2009, strongly
recommending against federal legislation regulating child
custody disputes.
A separate provision contained elsewhere in this Bill would
express the sense of the Senate that a properly prepared and
coordinated family care plan is necessary for members of the
armed forces who have custody of a child pursuant to a court
order or separation agreement.
Sense of Senate on preparation and coordination of family care plans
(sec. 556)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that a properly prepared and coordinated
family care plan is essential for service members who have
custody of a child pursuant to a court order or separation
agreement.
A separate provision contained elsewhere in this Bill would
require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on reported cases involving child custody disputes in which the
service of a member of the armed forces, active or reserve, was
an issue in the child custody dispute.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Deadline for report on sexual assault in the armed forces by Defense
Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (sec.
571)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 576(e)(1) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) to
require the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the
Military Services to submit its report to the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force
not later than December 1, 2009.
Under section 576 of Public Law 108-375, the Defense Task
Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service
Academies was renamed as the Defense Task Force on Sexual
Assault in the Military Services upon completion of its work on
June 30, 2005. This renamed task force was required to conduct
an examination of matters relating to sexual assault in cases
in which members of the armed forces are either victims or
commit acts of sexual assault. However, the task force did not
initiate this examination until August, 2008, more than 3 years
later.
While significant advances have been made by the Department
in responding to the problem of sexual assaults in the armed
forces, the committee remains concerned about continuing
reports of lack of uniformity by the military departments in
implementing Department of Defense sexual assault policies,
inadequate data collection, and the inability of the Department
of Defense to develop standardized reports of incidents of
sexual assault which can be used to measure progress.
The committee looks forward to receipt of the report of the
Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services
and encourages expedited review of the findings and
recommendations of this task force and implementation of
appropriate recommendations. Further delays in completing this
important work must be avoided.
Clarification of performance policies for military musical units and
musicians (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
restrictions on performances in competition with local
musicians and the authority of military musical units and
musicians to support official events that are funded, in whole
or in part, by appropriated or non-appropriated funds. The
provision would also authorize military musical units and
musicians to provide musical requirements for official military
events, including events held off a military installation,
performances that foster cooperative relationships with other
nations, and events sponsored by or for a military welfare
society.
Items of Special Interest
Alaska Territorial Guard
In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-259), Congress appropriately recognized service
by Alaska Territorial Guard members during World War II and
required that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard be
credited toward eligibility for veteran benefits. The committee
is aware that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
credited some Alaska Territorial Guard members' service toward
retired pay, only to later inform them that the service credit
was contrary to law. The committee agrees with the decision of
the Secretary of the Army to waive recoupment of amounts
erroneously paid, and urges the Secretary to explore other ways
to honor and recognize the service of members of the Alaska
Territorial Guard.
Cultural and language proficiency
The committee supports efforts to improve the foreign
language and cultural proficiency of our servicemen and women.
Reports from the 9/11 Commission and the Government
Accountability Office have found that shortages in foreign
language and cultural capabilities exist across the U.S.
Government. The committee believes it is critical to the
missions of the Department's geographic combatant commands and
intelligence components that U.S. service members and the
Department's civilian employees understand the cultures in
which they may operate and are capable of engaging individuals
in their native language. As the Department works to increase
these skill sets to meet the requirements of current and
potential future engagements, the committee urges the
Department to consider existing language and cultural
curriculum at universities and colleges throughout the Nation
as an opportunity to augment existing Department operated
programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act on any plans to leverage these programs in a manner that
compliments the Department's organic language and cultural
training programs.
Inspector General review of post-trial processes for court-martial
record preparation and appellate review within the Department
of the Navy
The committee believes that action is long overdue to
analyze and correct longstanding problems with the post-trial
processes for preparation of records of courts-martial and for
appellate review of court-martial convictions within the
Department of the Navy. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) in the case of Toohey v. United
States, 60 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2004), established standards for
assessing whether convicted service members had been denied due
process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as a
result of denial of reasonable appellate processing of their
cases. Since then, a succession of Navy and Marine Corps cases,
including, but not limited to, United States v. Jones, 61 M.J.
80 (C.A.A.F. 2005); United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365
(C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.
2006); United States v. Dearing, 63 M.J. 478 (C.A.A.F. 2006);
and, most recently, the unpublished case of United States v.
Foster have addressed extremely lengthy delays in appellate
review. In the Foster case, the conviction of a Marine was set
aside because his conviction for rape ``could not withstand the
test for legal and factual sufficiency.'' This Marine had been
confined for more than 9 years awaiting appellate review of his
case. These cases demonstrate that cognizant legal authorities
in the Department of the Navy have not taken necessary and
appropriate steps to ensure that the resources, command
attention, and necessary supervision have been devoted to the
task of ensuring that the Navy and Marine Corps post-trial
military justice system functions properly in all cases.
The committee recognizes that a series of Navy Judge
Advocates General have attempted to overcome the systemic
challenges associated with preparing, authenticating, tracking,
and forwarding records of trial from numerous commands
entrusted with court-martial convening authority and ensuring
that the appellate review process comports with all legal
standards. The committee is convinced, however, that
intervention is needed by departmental civilian and military
leaders to definitively resolve these chronic administrative
problems and that action should be taken immediately to resolve
these issues.
The committee directs the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Navy, to review the systems, policies, and procedures
currently in use to ensure timely and legally sufficient post-
trial reviews of courts-martial within the Department of the
Navy. The review shall discuss and summarize the history of
problems experienced by the Navy and Marine Corps since 1990 in
ensuring appropriate appellate review of general and special
courts-martial and curative measures.
The principal focus of the review shall be to determine
whether the resources dedicated to post-trial processes, the
information and tracking systems in use, the applicable
procedures and policies, and the monitoring and supervision of
actions of participants in the military justice system aimed at
ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of law are
adequate to accomplish the requirements for due process of law
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and applicable case
law. This review should be provided to the Secretary of the
Navy no later than January 1, 2010.
The committee further directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, no later than March 1, 2010, to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a written report on the findings
and recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector
General and actions taken or planned to address these findings
and recommendations. The Secretary shall include in the report
his assessment of the adequacy of (1) the Department of the
Navy's processes and resources dedicated to affording legally
sufficient post-trial review of all Navy and Marine Corps
cases, (2) the systems in place to track courts-martial cases,
and (3) means to ensure accountability and compliance with the
requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and
applicable case law.
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
The committee applauds the Department of Defense's request
for funding of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for
National Guard and reserve members and their families, as
required by section 582 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for 2008 (Public Law 110-181), in both the request for
supplemental funding for fiscal year 2009 and the base budget
request for fiscal year 2010.
The committee seeks assurance that the funds, although
requested in multiple component accounts, support robust joint
programs that provide reintegration and support services to
members and their families regardless of military affiliation.
The committee also seeks assurance that required activities are
occurring in all phases of the deployment cycle: pre-
deployment, deployment, demobilization, and post-deployment-
reconstitution.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than October 1, 2009 on the initial
implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in
fiscal year 2009 and plans for further implementation in fiscal
year 2010.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Fiscal year 2010 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 3.4 percent,
0.5 percent above the pay raise recommended in the budget
request, to become effective January 1, 2010.
Comptroller General of the United States comparative assessment of
military and private-sector pay and benefits (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study
comparing military pay and benefits with comparable private-
sector pay and benefits. The provision would also direct the
Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense
committees on the study by no later than April 1, 2010.
The committee remains committed to ensuring that the pay
and benefits of military members provide appropriate
compensation for military service recognizing the demands on
military personnel in wartime and the sacrifices they and their
families make. One metric for assessing the sufficiency of pay
and benefits is pay comparability between military members and
similarly situated private-sector employees, accounting for
age, education, and experience. As the military services
compete with the private sector for the most talented personnel
in the workforce with unique skills and qualifications,
military pay and benefits must be at levels necessary to
attract and retain outstanding individuals for military
service. Over the past 9 years, Congress has significantly
enhanced the pay and benefits of military members, and the
committee looks to the Comptroller General to provide a pay
comparability analysis in light of these enhancements.
Increase in maximum monthly amount of supplemental subsistence
allowance for low-income members with dependents (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 402a of title 37, United States Code, to increase the
maximum monthly amount of the supplemental subsistence
allowance from $500 to $1,100 per month. The provision would
also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees by September 1, 2010, a plan,
in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to ensure
members of the armed forces and their dependents need not rely
on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under
chapter 51 of title 7, United States Code, for nutritional
assistance.
The committee remains concerned about reports that a number
of service members and their dependents still receive
assistance under SNAP to meet their basic nutritional needs.
The supplemental subsistence allowance was designed to
alleviate the need for service members and their households to
rely on SNAP. The committee is troubled that the Department and
the services do not track members receiving assistance under
SNAP, even as the number of members receiving the supplemental
subsistence allowance remains low. The committee hopes that the
plan submitted under this section will provide a path for
eliminating all service members and their households from
eligibility for assistance under SNAP.
Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program for
certain periods before implementation of program (sec. 604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, to provide any member or former member of
the Armed Forces up to $200 for each day of administrative
absence that such member would have earned between January 19,
2007 and the date of their respective service's implementation
of the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program,
had the program been implemented during that time. The
authority would expire 1 year from the date of enactment.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for Reserve
forces (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment
bonus; the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus;
the special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high
priority units; the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons
without prior service; the Ready Reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; the Selected
Reserve enlistment bonus for persons with prior service; and
income replacement payments for certain reserve component
members.
Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care
professionals (sec. 612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate
accession bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain
health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve;
accession and retention bonuses for psychologists; the
accession bonus for registered nurses; incentive special pay
for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Selected Reserve health
professionals in critically short wartime specialties; the
accession bonus for dental officers; the accession bonus for
pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in
critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime
specialties.
Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers
(sec. 613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending their period of active service;
the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career
annual incentive bonus.
Extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay,
incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members; the
general bonus authority for officers; the special bonus and
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers; the special
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities; and the special
health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities. The
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay
hazardous duty pay; assignment pay or special duty pay; the
skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus; and the retention
bonus for members with critical military skills or assigned to
high priority units.
Extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 bonuses
and special pays (sec. 615)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention
bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for
active members; the enlistment bonus; the accession bonus for
new officers in critical skills; the incentive bonus for
conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel
shortage; the incentive bonus for transfer between armed
forces; and the accession bonus for officer candidates.
Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec.
616)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the health professions referral
bonus and the Army referral bonus under sections 1030 and 3252
of title 10, United States Code, respectively.
Special compensation for members of the uniformed services with combat-
related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance
in everyday living (sec. 617)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 439 to title 37, United States Code, to authorize
special compensation for members of the uniformed services with
combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses who have been
certified by a licensed physician to be in need of assistance
from another person to perform the personal functions required
in everyday living. The amount of the special compensation
would not exceed the amount of aid and attendance authorized by
section 1114(r) of title 38, United States Code.
The committee remains concerned about spouses and other
family members who continue to shoulder an extraordinary burden
in caring for catastrophically injured service members, many of
whom will survive their injuries but will require a lifetime of
special care. Many spouses and family caregivers give up their
jobs and careers to care for service members under these
circumstances. The special monthly compensation that would be
authorized by this section is intended to compensate designated
family caregivers for the dedicated time and assistance they
provide to catastrophically injured service members. Further,
the committee recognizes that caregivers who leave employment
to care for a wounded or ill service member may as a result
forgo health care coverage, and encourages the secretaries of
the military departments to utilize existing legal authority
under the Secretarial Designee program to provide urgent
medical and dental care for caregivers during any period in
which the service member is receiving special compensation
authorized by this section.
Temporary authority for monthly special pay for members of the armed
forces subject to continuing active duty or service under stop-
loss authorities (sec. 618)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to pay, until June 30, 2011, stop-loss
special pay in an amount not to exceed $500 per month for
service members on active-duty whose enlistment or period of
obligated service is extended, or whose retirement is
suspended, pursuant to sections 123 or 12305 of title 10,
United States Code, or any other authority that permits the
involuntary extension of an enlistment period or period of
obligated service, or the suspension of retirement eligibility.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Travel and transportation allowances for designated individuals of
wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed services for
duration of inpatient treatment (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 411h of title 37, United States Code, to authorize
travel and transportation allowances for up to three designated
individuals to be provided, at government expense, up to three
roundtrips in any 60-day period to visit certain wounded, ill,
or injured service members for the duration of their inpatient
treatment. The provision would also clarify the definition of
``seriously injured'' to include serious mental disorders.
Travel and transportation allowances for non-medical attendants of
seriously wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed
services (sec. 632)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 411h-1 to title 37, United States Code, to authorize
travel and transportation allowances for designated non-medical
attendants of very seriously wounded, ill, or injured service
members.
Travel and transportation allowances for members of the Reserve
components of the armed forces on leave for suspension of
training (sec. 633)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 411k to title 37, United States Code, to authorize
travel and transportation allowances for reserve component
service members on active duty for more than 30 days to travel
from a temporary duty station to their permanent duty station
and back again during times when training is suspended at the
temporary duty station for a period of 5 days or more under
circumstances where training of reserve component members is
suspended.
The committee believes that this authority is necessary to
provide flexibility to service leaders responsible for
mobilization training of reservists when circumstances call for
suspension of training for the benefit of all military
personnel involved.
Reimbursement of travel expenses of members of the armed forces on
active duty and their dependents for travel for specialty care
under exceptional circumstances (sec. 634)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to provide, in exceptional circumstances,
reimbursement for the travel expenses of active-duty
beneficiaries and their dependents otherwise ineligible for
reimbursement.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Authority to continue provision of incentives after termination of
temporary Army authority to provide additional recruitment
incentives (sec. 651)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (i) of section 681 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to
authorize the continuation of payment of a recruitment
incentive for 3 years from the date the recruitment incentive
is first provided under the temporary Army authority to provide
additional recruitment incentives.
Items of Special Interest
Patriot Express
The committee commends Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)
for its continued commitment to the Patriot Express charter
flight program. Patriot Express provides a predictable and cost
effective travel option for official travel to the United
States from overseas locations, and also supports and raises
the morale of service members and their dependents by providing
space available seats for non-official travel at nominal cost.
The committee believes that the program should continue to be
run on a cost-neutral basis at the programmatic level, and
encourages TRANSCOM to continue to explore ways to improve the
program, including by adding routes, that can further improve
the service and the morale of service members and their
dependents while ensuring overall programmatic cost-neutrality.
Travel for active-duty personnel receiving treatment at Department of
Veteran Affairs facilities
The committee remains committed to ensuring that active-
duty service members receive the very best health care
available, including receiving care at medical facilities under
the control of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The
committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to ensure
that active-duty service members receiving treatment at VA
medical facilities are provided adequate access to care,
including necessary transportation, when treatment at a VA
facility is required or in the best interests of the service
member. The committee believes the Department of Defense is
responsible for ensuring injured service members unable to
transport themselves receive transportation for medical
appointments even when they are receiving care at a VA medical
facility.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program
TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the Retired Reserve,
and family members, who are qualified for a non-regular
retirement but are not yet age 60 (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 1076e to chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to
extend eligibility for TRICARE Standard to members of the
Retired Reserve, who are qualified for non-regular retirement
but who are not yet age 60 and their dependents. Eligibility
would terminate when the member becomes eligible for TRICARE
coverage as a retiree at age 60. Members would be responsible
for paying a premium equal to the total cost of coverage as
determined by the Secretary of Defense based on actual program
costs.
Expansion of eligibility of survivors under the TRICARE Dental Program
(sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1076a(k)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to expand
the eligibility of surviving children under the TRICARE Dental
Program. Current law allows survivors to keep this dental
coverage for a period of 3 years after the service member's
death. The provision would increase the eligibility for
surviving dependent children from 3 years to the longer of the
following periods: (1) 3 years; (2) until they reach age 21; or
(3) until age 23 if the dependent is a full-time student at age
21 and is or was dependent on the member for at least half of
their support. The provision would make the dental benefit
provided to surviving children consistent with the medical
benefit for which they are already eligible.
Constructive eligibility for TRICARE benefits of certain persons
otherwise ineligible under retroactive determination of
entitlement to Medicare Part A hospital insurance benefits
(sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, to exempt
TRICARE beneficiaries under the age of 65 who become disabled
from the requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B for the
retroactive months of entitlement to Medicare Part A in order
to maintain TRICARE coverage.
Eligible beneficiaries would still be required to enroll in
Medicare Part B in order to maintain TRICARE coverage for
future months, but would be considered to have coverage under
the TRICARE program for the months retroactive to their
entitlement to Medicare Part A. TRICARE would remain the first
payer for any claims filed during these retroactive months.
Under current law, if a disabled beneficiary under the age
of 65 receives a determination from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) that they are retroactively eligible for
Medicare Part A, the beneficiary is also awarded eligibility
for Medicare Part B in the month of the SSA's determination,
unless they opt out. The beneficiary is then given the option
to retroactively enroll and pay the applicable premiums for
Medicare Part B back to the Medicare Part A effective date in
order to obtain an effective Part B eligibility as of the
retroactive date. Failure of the eligible TRICARE beneficiary
to enroll in and pay the premiums for Medicare Part B
retroactively to the Medicare Part A effective date results in
loss of TRICARE eligibility as of the Medicare Part A effective
date, leaving the beneficiary liable for any health care costs
paid by the Department of Defense for care received during the
retroactive months.
The committee is concerned that inadequate communication
with disabled service members has lead to circumstances in
which some have lost health care coverage under TRICARE as a
result of declining coverage under Medicare Part B. The
committee hopes that this provision, coupled with improved
communication efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, the Social Security Administration, and TRICARE will
mitigate the risk of any beneficiary opting out of Medicare
Part B without a full appreciation of the consequences of such
action.
Reform and improvement of the TRICARE program (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to initiate a process of reform and
improvement of the TRICARE health care system.
The committee is aware that the cost of the Defense Health
Program will be a focus of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
and believes that such focus is appropriate. However, of
greater concern is testimony received from key military and
civilian leaders which indicates that satisfaction with TRICARE
is declining. Too much attention has been paid to increasing
out-of-pocket payments by retirees, and not enough to repairing
persistent operational problems that prevent beneficiaries from
getting the care that they need, such as the lack of
availability of TRICARE providers and cumbersome requirements
for preauthorization and referral to specialty care. Moreover,
the fundamental goal of TRICARE to maximize use of military
hospitals and clinics is not being achieved, as more and more
care is being purchased in the private sector. Problems with
access to care in both military facilities and from civilian
providers needlessly compound the difficulties that military
families face during extended periods of deployment.
The committee believes that Department of Defense
beneficiaries should receive care that achieves the highest
possible levels of quality and access, and that the
administration of these benefits should be on a path of
continuous improvement.
The intent of this provision is to ensure that the
Department's focus is not on cost alone, but also achieves the
goals of quality and access so critical to military personnel
and their families.
In addition, the committee directs the Department to
examine the costs and levels of coverage available to active-
duty and reserve members and their families under the TRICARE
Dental Program, and to consult with beneficiary organizations
on needed improvements to the plan. The Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
April 1, 2010 on any prospective changes to coverage under the
dental plan, and in particular, coverage for orthodontics.
Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation of
requirements on the relationship between the TRICARE program
and employer-sponsored group health plans (sec. 705)
The committee recommends a provision that requires the
Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than March 31, 2010, on the implementation of the
requirements of section 1097c of title 10, United States Code,
relating to the relationship between the TRICARE program and
employer-sponsored group health plans.
Section 1097c of title 10, United States Code, prohibits
employers or other entities from offering financial or other
incentives to retired TRICARE beneficiaries to discourage
enrollment in employer-sponsored group health plans. This
provision is intended to assess the effectiveness of this
prohibition in reducing TRICARE costs.
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits
Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces deployed in
connection with a contingency operation (sec. 711)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance for the provision of a
person-to-person mental health assessment for each service
member deployed in connection with a contingency operation
during the 60-day period before deployment, between 90 and 180
days after deployment, and not later than 6 months, 12 months,
and 24 months after return from deployment. A mental health
assessment would not be required by this provision for service
members who are not subjected or exposed to operational risk
factors during deployment.
Enhancement of transitional dental care for members of the reserve
components on active duty for more than 30 days in support of a
contingency operation (sec. 712)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1145(a) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the
transitional health care benefit for reservists who separate
after more than 30 days of active duty in support of a
contingency operation, giving them the same priority for dental
care in a military treatment facility as an active-duty member.
While dental care is currently authorized under the
transitional benefit, the priority for reservists is that of a
dependent. In the case of dental care, dependents have access
to military dental care only on a space available basis. The
provision would address the concern that many who have served
in a contingency operation for a year or more have received
little or no dental treatment, and ensure that the Department
of Defense provides any needed dental care that was not
provided during deployment prior to their separation.
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration
Comprehensive policy on pain management by the military health care
system (sec. 721)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive
policy on pain management.
The committee recognizes that chronic pain, whether as a
result of war-related injury or other physical and neurological
condition, can significantly impact the quality-of-life of
service members and other military health system beneficiaries.
Broader access to high quality, evidence-based pain management
is needed, based on a comprehensive policy which incorporates
standards of care, research, outcome measures, technology, and
patient and health care provider education.
The committee expects the Secretary to consult with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the development of the policy
required by this section and to build on the work of the
Surgeon General of the Army's initiative on pain management.
Plan to increase the behavioral health capabilities of the Department
of Defense (sec. 722)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to
significantly increase the number of military and civilian
behavioral health personnel of the Department of Defense by
September 30, 2013. The provision would also require the
Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees not
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
report setting forth an assessment of the feasibility and
advisability of establishing one or more military specialties
for officers or enlisted members of the armed forces as
counselors with behavioral health expertise.
The committee recommends this provision in response to
testimony of senior military and civilian leaders in the
Department of Defense that there is a significant shortfall in
behavioral health personnel available to meet the mental health
care needs of service members and their families. The
significant increase in the number of military and civilian
behavioral health personnel should be based on a realistic
assessment of the actual requirements for such personnel.
Department of Defense study on management of medications for physically
and psychologically wounded members of the armed forces (sec.
723)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the management of
medications for physically and psychologically wounded service
members, and to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the
study by April 1, 2010.
Subtitle D--Wounded Warrior Matters
Report on cognitive rehabilitation for members of the armed forces with
traumatic brain injury (sec. 731)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report setting forth the evidence to be required from a long-
term, integrated study on treatment strategies for cognitive
rehabilitation for service members who have sustained traumatic
brain injuries (TBI) in order to permit the Department of
Defense to determine how receipt of cognitive rehabilitation
for TBI of a service member could be reimbursed as a health
care benefit.
The committee notes that the Brain Injury Association of
America has recognized the benefits of cognitive rehabilitation
therapy for brain injuries, and that there is a growing body of
scientific evidence to support its efficacy. Additionally,
cognitive behavioral therapy is provided by the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Because of the potentially large and
continuing demand for services for moderate to severe TBI for
wounded warriors, research on the evidence necessary for the
Department of Defense to determine whether cognitive
rehabilitation should be covered under the TRICARE benefit is
justified and necessary.
Department of Defense task force on the care, management, and
transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured members of
the armed forces (sec. 732)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a task force to assess the
effectiveness of the policies and programs developed and
implemented by the Department of Defense and each of the
military departments to assist and support the care,
management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and
injured service members.
The task force would submit a report to the Secretary of
Defense on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, to
include identification of ways in which the Department and the
services may more effectively address matters relating to the
care, management, and transition of wounded warriors, and
support for their families. Elements of the report would
include review and assessment of: case management;
effectiveness of the Interagency Program Office in achieving
fully interoperable electronic health records; staffing of
wounded warrior transition units; support and assistance to
navigate the disability evaluation system; effectiveness of the
Senior Oversight Committee; effectiveness of various centers of
excellence; support for family caregivers; availability of
vocational training to aid in transition to civilian life;
availability of services for traumatic brain injury and post
traumatic stress disorder; and overall coordination between the
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in these efforts.
The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit the
task force report, together with an evaluation of the report,
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives within 90 days after receiving it.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of the military
departments, to develop a plan to implement the recommendations
of the task force and to submit the plan to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than 6 months after receipt of the task force report.
The committee urges the task force to examine the unique
characteristics of the United States Special Operations
Command's Care Coalition as well as similar programs to
identify best practices that can be shared throughout the
Department, and to examine the extent to which the Department
of Defense, in collaboration with the Department of Veterans
Affairs, has established public and private partnerships to
assist in the training of medical case management personnel
needed to support returning wounded, ill, and injured service
members, as noted in Senate Report 110-335 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
Items of Special Interest
Comptroller General study on Department of Defense efforts to minimize
and track military service hearing loss
The committee notes with concern that according to the
National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, hearing
loss is the single most common individual disability among the
veteran population, and tinnitus is the third most common.
While the nature of military service can make exposure to
excessive noise unavoidable, hearing loss that may result from
such exposure is preventable.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
conduct a study on Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to
minimize and track hearing loss that occurs, or may occur, as a
result of military service. The study shall include an
assessment of:
(1) DOD efforts to protect service members against
disabling hearing loss, including efforts to identify
service members' exposure levels; provide service
members with hearing loss protection devices and
provide the training and oversight of their use; and
monitor for potential hearing loss;
(2) DOD efforts to analyze its hearing-related injury
and illness data to detect whether, and where, better
prevention is needed;
(3) the role of the DOD Hearing Conservation Program
in these efforts;
(4) the status of DOD's compliance with section 721
of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), which
required the Secretary of Defense to establish a center
of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation,
treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss and
auditory system injury; and
(5) the nature and extent of information sharing between
DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs to help inform DOD's
hearing loss prevention efforts.
The Comptroller General shall submit a report on the
findings of the study to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
September 30, 2010.
Continued Department of Defense and military department support for
suicide prevention
At its Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on March 18, 2009,
the committee received testimony from senior military leaders
from each of the services on efforts to prevent military
suicides. The committee commends the leadership of the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the military departments for
their efforts to increase awareness of the risks of suicide by
military members. Despite these efforts, however, rates of
military suicide do not appear to be decreasing. The number of
soldiers who have committed suicide through May 2009 surpasses
the Army's numbers at this same point last year.
The committee understands that it will take time to see
results from these programs, but maintains that DOD and the
services must intensify their efforts, especially those aimed
at reducing the stigma associated with seeking mental health
care. Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a
provision that would require DOD to substantially increase the
number of behavioral health personnel available to treat mental
health conditions using both existing and new authority for
accession and retention of mental health personnel. The
Department must continue to consider and explore new ideas and
approaches to prevent military suicides. In doing so, the
committee encourages DOD and the services to continue their
work with national and other federal partners in order to
mitigate this national public health problem.
Congress has been supportive of national suicide prevention
efforts for many years, establishing the national Suicide
Prevention Resource Center, providing federal funding for youth
suicide prevention programs and early intervention, and
establishing the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. A
witness from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
testified to the Subcommittee on Personnel that the Lifeline is
being utilized by veterans and service members alike.
The committee urges DOD and the services to continue to
work with these congressionally funded suicide prevention
initiatives to assist in their efforts to prevent suicide and
suicidal behavior in the military. The committee also
encourages continued, and if appropriate, increased,
collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in suicide
prevention activities, such as the National Institute of Mental
Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Help for wounded, ill, and injured service members
More than a year ago, Congress enacted changes in law to
improve care and support for America's wounded, ill, and
injured service members. The Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181)) provided broad new authorities for
treatment of and research in traumatic brain injury and post
traumatic stress disorder, support for families, and
improvements to the decades-old disability evaluation system.
The legislation sought to ensure that the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) worked
collaboratively to support wounded service members in their
transition to civilian life.
The committee commends the President and the Secretary of
Defense for including funding for wounded warrior programs in
the base budget request for fiscal year 2010 and believes that
while much progress has been achieved since enactment of the
Wounded Warrior Act, more needs to be done.
The committee has received testimony from extraordinary
American heroes who have suffered wounds such as multiple
amputations and severe traumatic brain injury, and from their
spouses. We have learned that multiple programs created to
manage health care and benefits for the wounded often lead to
frustration for those they are intended to help, and to
diffusion of responsibility for results. It is clear that for
the seriously ill and injured, the continuum of care remains
difficult to navigate, the disability evaluation system remains
an intimidating and at times adversarial process, and treatment
options for traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress
disorder, and other psychological health conditions remain
limited.
Elsewhere in this bill the committee recommends the
establishment of a Department of Defense task force to assess
the effectiveness of DOD, VA, and service policies and programs
now in place to assist and support the wounded. The committee
has also recommended legislation requested by the President to
provide supplemental income to service members to assist
caregivers of seriously injured and ill service members, and to
enhance transportation for those supporting wounded warriors,
as well as provisions to increase the number of military and
civilian behavioral health providers.
The committee expects the DOD/VA Strategic Oversight
Committee to immediately address other issues identified by
wounded service members and their families:
(1) Establish performance and accountability
standards for warrior transition units;
(2) Streamline the assignment of case managers so
that there is clear accountability and a single point
of contact for the complex needs of the seriously ill
and injured;
(3) Provide temporary internship programs for wounded
warriors similar to the Operation Warfighter Program in
non-federal entities to assist in learning new skills
for future civilian employment;
(4) Ensure equitable access to veterans benefits for
seriously injured service members who remain on active
duty;
(5) Expand or combine screening for traumatic brain
injury and post traumatic stress disorder prior to
deployment;
(6) Ensure that VA medical facilities have access to
electronic medical and demographic data for service
members who transition to the VA for care;
(7) Modernize the antiquated disability evaluation
system;
(8) Increase combat-related medical research and
rapidly apply its findings to life-saving diagnosis,
treatment, and rehabilitation;
(9) Rapidly implement the programs and research
mandated for the Vision Center of Excellence;
(10) Examine and make recommendations on means to
facilitate in-vitro fertilization services for severely
wounded service members, including how such services
may fall under Department of Defense regulations
implementing section 1631 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181); and
(11) Examine the feasibility of ensuring bi-
directional sharing between DOD and the VA of clinical
information regarding mental health screenings.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report no
later than September 30, 2009 on the status of completion of
these actions, and to identify any area in which additional
legislation would be required in order to effect these or
additional improvements in the care, management, and transition
of wounded, ill, and injured service members. The committee
further directs the Secretary to report by September 30, 2009,
on the capabilities for electronic exchange of medical data,
identifying each DOD and VA facility that has such capability
as of that date and the types of data that are electronically
shared.
Report on case management services for TRICARE beneficiaries with
severe mental health conditions
The committee is aware that case managers can play an
important role in the coordination of complex medical and
dental care for TRICARE beneficiaries. Case management is a
feature in public mental health systems, typically involving
coordination of client services by a professional case manager
to ensure continuity of care and accountability for service
provision. The committee recognizes that case management may
improve the effectiveness of mental health care in terms of:
reduced cost of care; fewer crisis and hospital admissions;
reduced length of hospital stay; improved mental health
symptoms; better continuity of care from hospitalization to
community services; improved ability of patients to function in
the community; and increased patient and family satisfaction
with care. The committee notes that for behavioral health
patients, case management is in many cases not a covered
TRICARE benefit.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
the efficacy and cost of case management services for TRICARE
behavioral health clients with serious mental health problems,
and to examine such variables as cost of care, crisis and
hospital admissions, length of stay for hospitalizations,
change in mental health symptoms and functioning, use of
community behavioral health services, community service drop-
out rate, and patient and family satisfaction with care. The
committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a report
on this assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than April 1,
2010.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Contract authority for advanced development of prototype units (sec.
801)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense (DOD) to include a contract line item
or an option to extend a contract for advanced research for a
limited period of time, or for the production of a limited
number of prototype units. This authority, which was requested
by DOD, would provide a temporary ``bridge'' between the time
that a program is no longer eligible to receive science and
technology funding and the time that a new contract can be
awarded for advanced component development, or production, on
the basis of full and open competition.
Justification and approval of sole-source contracts (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that prohibits the
Department of Defense (DOD) from awarding a sole-source
contract for an amount exceeding $20.0 million, unless the
contracting officer has determined in writing that the use of a
sole-source contract is in the best interest of DOD and the
written justification on which such determination is based has
been approved by an appropriate reviewing official.
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management
Reporting requirements for programs that qualify as both major
automated information system programs and major defense
acquisition programs (sec. 811)
The committee recommends a provision that would give the
Department of Defense flexibility to address programs that
qualify as both major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs)
under chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, and as major
automated information system (MAIS) programs under chapter 144A
of title 10, United States Code.
Under the provision recommended by the committee, the
Secretary of Defense could designate such a program to be
treated only as a MDAP or only as a MAIS program. As a general
rule, programs that require the development of customized
hardware would be designated as MDAPs, while programs that do
not require the development of such hardware would be
designated as MAIS programs.
Funding of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
(sec. 812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
funding mechanism established for the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) in section 1705 of title 10,
United States Code, to: (1) require that credits to the DAWDF
be based on amounts expended for contract services from amounts
available for operation and maintenance funds; (2) authorize
the transfer of certain unobligated balances to the DAWDF, to
the extent provided in appropriations Acts; (3) reduce the
amount of required credits to the DAWDF by the amount of any
direct appropriations or unobligated balances transferred to
the DAWDF; (4) make the remittance of amounts to the DAWDF
subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose;
and (5) adjust the amounts required to be credited to the DAWDF
to reflect the funding requirements of the hiring plan
announced by the Secretary of Defense.
Enhancement of expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition
workforce positions (sec. 813)
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1)
clarify the expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition
workforce positions enacted in section 833 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), as requested by the Department of Defense; and
(2) extend the expedited hiring authority through 2015, to help
meet the goal announced by the Secretary of Defense to increase
the size of the acquisition workforce by 20,000 government
acquisition professionals by 2015.
Treatment of non-defense agency procurements under joint programs with
the Department of Defense under limitations on non-defense
agency procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense
(sec. 814)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that a contract entered by a non-defense agency for the
performance of a joint program conducted to meet the needs of
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the non-defense agency
shall not be considered a procurement of property or services
for the Department of Defense through a non-defense agency, for
the purposes of section 801(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 101-181),
which limits the authority for such procurements. Section
801(b) of Public Law 101-181 is intended to address DOD use of
contracts entered by other agencies to place orders for
products or services needed by DOD. It is not intended to
address cases in which DOD and another agency engage in joint
programs to achieve purposes common to both agencies.
Comptroller General of the United States report on training of
acquisition and audit personnel of the Department of Defense
(sec. 815)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General to report to Congress on the effectiveness
of Department of Defense training for acquisition and audit
personnel.
Subtitle C--Contractor Matters
Authority for government support contractors to have access to
technical data belonging to prime contractors (sec. 821)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide access to technical
data delivered under a DOD contract to a support contractor, to
enable the support contractor to furnish independent and
impartial advice or technical assistance to DOD in support of
DOD's management and oversight of the contract. The provision
requires the support contractor to make a series of
commitments, including exposure to criminal, civil,
administrative, and contractual penalties, to ensure that such
access is not abused.
Extension and enhancement of authorities on the Commission on Wartime
Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide a
1-year extension for the Commission on Wartime Contracting in
Iraq and Afghanistan, established pursuant to section 841 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), in order to achieve expanded review and
investigation into wartime contracting consistent with the
Commission's charter.
The Commission shall continue to receive administrative
support from the Washington Headquarters Service of the
Department of Defense and may continue to receive support from
other federal agencies to facilitate its work. The Department
of Defense is directed to provide support to the Commission, on
a non-reimbursable basis, for its investigatory work conducted
in combat theaters including travel and lodging.
Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec.
823)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue regulations providing that the
interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath of
hostilities is an inherently governmental function that cannot
be transferred to private sector contractors. The regulations
would become effective 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, to provide the Department of Defense time to
comply.
The interrogation of detainees entails the exercise of
substantial discretion in applying government authority and has
frequently had a significant impact on the life and liberty of
the individuals questioned. The committee concludes that the
conduct of such interrogations is an inherently governmental
function that should be performed exclusively by military or
civilian employees of the Department.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Central
Asia, Pakistan, and the South Caucasus (sec. 831)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for the
acquisition of products and services that are produced in
Central Asia, Pakistan, and the South Caucasus. The provision
would require that to exercise the authority the Secretary must
determine that: (1) the product or service is to be used by
military forces, police, or other security personnel of
Afghanistan; or (2) the preference is in the U.S. national
interest because it is necessary to improve the local market
and transportation infrastructure or encourage the states of
Central Asia, Pakistan, or the South Caucasus to cooperate in
expanding supply routes to Afghanistan, and will not adversely
affect U.S. military operations or the U.S. industrial base.
Small arms production industrial base matters (sec. 832)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review the manufacturing capability and
capacity of the small arms industrial base and make a
determination whether or not to add, modify, or eliminate
covered small arms makers or weapons as identified in section
2473 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also
require the Secretary to provide to the congressional defense
committees by March 31, 2010 a report on the Department's
findings and recommendations.
The committee notes that small arms makers and weapons
covered by section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, were
based upon a 1994 Army Science Board plan entitled
``Preservation of Critical Elements of the Small Arms
Industrial Base.'' The industrial conditions and capabilities
related to the manufacture and parts supply for military small
arms have strengthened since 1994, meriting a review by the
Secretary of Defense.
Extension of SBIR and STTR programs of the Department of Defense (sec.
833)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Department of Defense to execute the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR), and other associated programs until September
30, 2023. The committee notes that the SBIR and STTR programs
have successfully invested in a number of innovative small
businesses and funded research and technologies that have
contributed significantly to the development and deployment of
new military systems and capabilities.
The committee believes that a long-term extension of these
programs will provide program stability and enable participants
in both the government and the small business community to
better plan budgets and programs and enhance overall program
effectiveness and efficiency.
Expansion and permanent authority for small business innovation
research commercialization program (sec. 834)
The committee recommends a provision that would make the
Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR)
Commercialization Pilot Program permanent and expand its
activities to include the Small Business Technology Transfer
program. The committee notes that this program was originally
established by section 252 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
has successfully accelerated the transition of a number of SBIR
technologies into programs of record and deployed systems.
Measures to ensure the safety of facilities, infrastructure, and
equipment for military operations (sec. 835)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to establish appropriate safety
standards for incorporation into contracts for the
construction, installation, repair, maintenance, and operation
of expeditionary facilities for use by military or civilian
personnel of the Department in current and future military
operations overseas.
Over the last 5 years a number of service members have died
as a result of faulty electrical wiring in facilities in Iraq.
In January 2008, this problem came to the public's attention
when a staff sergeant was electrocuted in the shower. Since
that time, the committee has learned of extensive problems with
electrical wiring in contractor-provided facilities in Iraq.
Some of these problems are the result of DOD's failure to
conform to a single standard in wiring buildings; some are the
result of poor workmanship; and others are the result of the
use of flawed pre-war electrical systems.
The Army is working to address these problems by developing
a common standard for wiring in U.S. facilities in Iraq;
bringing on a new team of inspectors, master electricians, and
fire safety specialists to help assess the scope of the problem
with existing wiring; and directing the contractor to correct
the deficiencies identified.
The committee believes that many of the electrical hazards
that the U.S. military has experienced in Iraq could have been
avoided if the Department had addressed this issue more
systematically from the outset.
Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item
breakout list (sec. 836)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), which requires the
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the
congressional defense committees listing essential items,
assemblies, and components of military systems and identifying
where they are produced. The committee has been unable to
identify a purpose for this reporting requirement.
Defense Science Board report on rare earth materials in the defense
supply chain (sec. 837)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Defense Science Board to report to Congress on the usage of
rare earth materials in the supply chain of the Department of
Defense. The report would address the extent to which weapon
systems may become dependent on rare earth materials supplied
by sources that could be interrupted.
Items of Special Interest
Contractor reimbursement for environmental remediation costs
The committee is aware that certain Department of Defense
(DOD) contractors are reimbursed for the remediation of
environmental damage resulting from Cold-War era programs
through indirect cost accounts (such as overhead accounts). The
contractors contend that this funding approach results in
substantially higher indirect cost rates for some contractors
than for others, undermining the ability of contractors with
substantial clean-up obligations to compete for future
contracts.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to review this issue and
report to the congressional defense committees by no later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on whether
the current reimbursement approach is in the best interest of
DOD, or whether the Department would be better served by direct
funding of allowable environmental remediation costs.
Knowledge management and decision support systems
Section 851 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Department
of Defense (DOD) to develop a human capital plan for the
acquisition workforce. Section 852 of that Act established the
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to provide funding
needed to implement this plan.
The committee has received testimony on many of the
challenges that DOD faces in restoring the acquisition
workforce to the levels that will be required to conduct
effective implementation and oversight of DOD acquisition
programs. Just as it is said that the services cannot hire a
seasoned non-commissioned officer off the street, DOD will be
similarly challenged to either hire an experienced workforce or
grow entry level personnel into journeymen acquisition
professionals.
That challenge places a premium on doing business as
intelligently as we can and relying on available technologies
to enable personnel to operate as efficiently and effectively
as possible, and to train new personnel in the operations of
the DOD acquisition system.
Knowledge management is a discipline of management science
that comprises a range of practices used in an organization to
identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of
insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences
comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded
in organizational processes or practice. Knowledge management
improvements typically focus on organizational objectives such
as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the
sharing of lessons learned, and continuous improvement of the
organization. Knowledge management efforts can help individuals
and groups to: (1) share valuable organizational insights; (2)
reduce redundant work; (3) reduce training time for new
employees; and (4) retain intellectual capital as employees
turnover in an organization.
The committee is aware that there are commercial providers
who can support such organizational challenges as DOD is facing
in rebuilding the acquisition workforce. The committee does not
see such systems as replacing workforce personnel, but as a
potential complement to and enhancement of DOD's implementation
of its human capital plan.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget request on how such
knowledge management and decision support systems could
contribute to implementing DOD's human capital plan and
improving the effectiveness of the acquisition workforce.
Licensing fees for enterprise resource planning software
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is currently acquiring enterprise resource planning (ERP)
software and other software programs for numerous business
applications. DOD's operation and maintenance accounts reflect
the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing
fees for the use of such software programs. The committee is
concerned that the Department may be acquiring the rights to
the use of this software on a piecemeal basis, paying for the
same software over and over again.
In other similar circumstances, DOD and its components have
negotiated enterprise-wide agreements to ensure that the
Department leverages its purchasing power to reduce costs and
achieve better results for the taxpayers. A similar approach
may be appropriate in the case of licensing fees for ERP
software and other software programs for business applications.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review this issue in
consultation with the Director of the Business Transformation
Agency and to report the findings and results of the review,
including any steps that the Department plans to take to
negotiate enterprise-wide agreements, by no later than March 1,
2010.
Performance by private security contractors of certain functions in an
area of combat operations
In April 30, 2009, testimony before the Armed Services
Committee, the Executive Director of the Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments explained the problems that may be
caused by the use of contractors to perform security functions
in a combat environment as follows:
``There's . . . a principle in the business world
that you don't outsource your core capabilities. . . .
What's concerned me most is the outsourcing to some of
these security firms of core military capabilities,
which is the providing of security, the conducting of
security operations. . . . [Contractor personnel]
weren't under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
They move around the battlefield. You're obligated to
share intelligence with them on where the enemy might
be. If they run into trouble, should you take your
rapid response force and dedicate [it] to their
support, when some of your uniformed people could be
getting in trouble?
``They don't operate under the same standards of
discipline that soldiers do. Obviously, there have been
a number of very unpleasant incidents that are
associated with contractors sort of operating in poor
discipline. If the goal is to save money, it's not
clear, over the long term that we do save money. . . .
In a sense . . . the U.S. government was competing
against itself for the services of these people . . .
engaging in bidding wars with Blackwater, up to
$150,000 to get a Special Forces NCO [noncommissioned
officer] to reenlist. . . . It's not like their motives
are the same as the U.S. military's.
``[F]inally, a lot of the people who seem to be
recruited for these sorts of positions . . . are people
that were rejected by the military. . . . Or
foreigners. And these are not draftees that . . . once
the job's over, they go back home, whether it's a
fellow from Chile or Ukraine or somewhere else. These
people, in a sense, are mercenaries, and they're
looking for the next war. And, again, it's not clear to
me that that's the sort of capability that we want to
have after a war is over . . . looking for something
else. So it was done . . . out of the stress of the
moment, the necessity of the moment, but I really have
grave questions about whether this is an approach you
want to take when it comes to core military
capabilities and functions.''
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
these issues and report to the Armed Services Committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act on the steps the
Department has taken and plans to take to address these issues.
Requirements management for weapon system acquisitions before milestone
B
Section 201 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to make trade-
offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives at the
time that requirements are first established for DOD
acquisition programs. Section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 requires the
Department to establish Configuration Steering Boards to
prevent unnecessary and costly changes to program requirements
for Major Defense Acquisition Programs.
The committee is aware that there may be a gap between the
time when program requirements are first established and the
time when those program requirements are formally incorporated
into a Major Defense Acquisition Program. For this reason, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take appropriate
steps to monitor and manage changes to requirements during this
period to ensure that changes are not made without appropriate
consideration of cost impact. The committee further directs the
Under Secretary to report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the steps
taken or to be taken in this regard not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and Assistant Secretaries of
Defense (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
five Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense (DUSDs), each of whom
would serve as the first assistant to an Under Secretary of
Defense, and each of whom would be subject to confirmation by
the Senate. These would be the only DUSDs. The provision would
also authorize six new Assistant Secretaries of Defense,
subject to Senate confirmation, to fill positions currently
filled by other DUSDs.
At present, there are 28 DUSDs in the Department of
Defense. Only four DUSDs are Senate confirmed, and only two
serve as first assistants to their respective Under
Secretaries. The remaining DUSDs serve in Tier 2 or Tier 3 of
the Senior Executive Service. The Department's organizational
charts even show multiple layers of DUSDs reporting to each
other. The committee does not believe that the Department is
well served by the proliferation of DUSD positions or by
inconsistency in the reporting relationships, pay, precedence,
and succession among personnel occupying such positions.
Repeal of certain limitations on personnel and consolidation of reports
on major Department of Defense headquarters activities (sec.
902)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal caps
on the number of personnel employed in headquarters activities
of the military departments and defense agencies, as requested
by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Department has
determined that these caps have prevented it from managing its
workforce based on workload requirements and considerations of
cost-effectiveness and have resulted in the use of contractor
personnel to perform functions that would be more appropriately
performed by DOD employees.
Sense of Senate on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation (sec. 903)
This committee recommends a provision that would express
the sense of Senate that the Western Hemispheric Institute for
Security Cooperation (WHINSEC): (1) offers professional
military bilingual instruction that promotes democracy,
subordination to civilian authority, and respect for human
rights; (2) builds partner capacity which enhances regional and
global security while encouraging respect for human rights and
promoting democratic principles among eligible military
personnel, law enforcement officials, and civilians of nations
in the western hemisphere; (3) provides a valuable education
and training facility whose curriculum is not duplicated in any
of the military departments; and (4) is an essential tool to
educate future Latin American leaders and improve relationships
with partner nations that are working with the United States to
promote democracy, prosperity, and stability in the western
hemisphere.
Subtitle B--Space Matters
Provision of space situational awareness services and information to
non-United States Government entities (sec. 911)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 2274 of title 10, United States Code, to make the
program known as the commercial and foreign entities (CFE)
program a permanent program. The CFE program was originally
started as a pilot program to allow the Department of Defense
(DOD), working through the Air Force, to provide non-United
States Government entities, including commercial entities,
State and local government, and foreign governments and
entities, space situational awareness data so that damage to
satellites in space could be avoided. This program, which also
allows participants to supply data for their satellites to DOD,
has proved to be very useful to all aspects of the space
community.
The recent collision of an Iridium communications satellite
and a non-functioning Russian satellite has once again brought
home the consequences of such collisions. The thousands of
debris generated by this collision together with the debris
generated when China shot down an old weather satellite, and
the debris already in orbit, has increased the risk of damage
to satellites and to manned space flight. Increasing space
situational awareness is a high priority program for DOD and
the Air Force. The committee commends the Air Force for
providing additional attention and money in the fiscal year
2010 budget to improve space situational awareness.
Plan for management and funding of National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Environmental satellite system program (sec. 912)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
jointly develop a plan for the management and funding of the
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite
system (NPOESS). The plan would include the NPOESS
requirements, the management structure, and the funding profile
for each participating agency.
The provision would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense
from spending more than 50 percent of the Air Force funds
available for the NPOESS program until the plan has been
submitted.
The provision would also set forth a sense of the Senate
that the NPOESS program should be maintained. This includes all
the sensors and satellites included as part of the program, and
as included on each satellite, following the Nunn-McCurdy
breach and recertification in June 2006. In addition, all
agreed to orbits for satellites C1-4 should be maintained as
planned as well as the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP).
It is also the sense of the Senate that the NPP should be
managed and treated as an operational satellite; that the
milestone decision authority for the Department of Defense
(DOD) should be delegated to the DOD Executive Agent (EA) for
space; that the EA for space should be the DOD member of the
NPOESS Tri-Agency Executive Committee (EXCOM); that the Program
Executive Office (PEO) should report directly to and take
direction exclusively from the EXCOM; that the Administrator of
NASA and the Secretary of the Air Force should take support
from the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Space and Missile
Systems Center, respectively; that the budget for NPOESS should
not be less than the estimate of the DOD Cost Analysis
Improvement Group (CAIG); that NPOESS should continue to be
managed by a single manager; that NPOES should be managed as a
long-term operational program; and that all requirements should
be agreed to by the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce and the
NASA Administrator and that the program should be executed with
no modifications to those agreed-upon requirements that would
increase the cost of schedule.
The committee is deeply concerned about the current status
of the NPOESS program, a technically complex expensive program
that is behind schedule and over budget, with a complicated
management structure and funding split between two agencies,
DOD and the Department of Commerce. The EXCOM recognized these
many difficulties and chartered an independent review team
(IRT) to look at the program. As expected, the IRT found NPOESS
to be a disjointed, barely functioning program with little
chance of meeting its goals.
The committee agrees with many of the findings of the June
2009 IRT report. Key among the findings is that ``the current
NPOESS program has an extraordinarily low probability of
success'', that ``NPOESS is being managed with cost as the most
important parameter and not Mission Success'' and that the
current EXCOM process is ``ineffective and must be fixed.''
The committee also notes that the IRT believes that the
NPOESS program will need additional funding in fiscal year 2010
and over the future-years defense program (FYDP). The committee
agrees with this finding as well and recommends additional
funding for NPOESS in the Air Force elsewhere in this report,
which the committee expects the Department of Commerce to
match.
In December 2008, the three parties to the NPOESS program
signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that set out their
respective roles and responsibilities to implement the
President's directive for the NPOESS program. This MOA modifies
an earlier MOA and was put in place to address the problems
that led to the June 2006 Nunn-McCurdy breach. It is not at all
clear that any of the three parties have followed the MOA, even
though it took 18 months to negotiate. It would appear that the
various disagreements that have been ongoing in this program
have continued unabated. At best the MOA may have been a speed
bump.
The IRT observed the discord in the program and noted that
because the priorities of the parties are misaligned ``the
differences are straining interagency relationships and are
impacting how people do their jobs, even down to the lowest
levels of the IPO [Integrated Program Office].'' The IRT
concluded that ``this program will not survive if this
particular problem is not addressed immediately.''
Unfortunately, NPOESS is a critically important national
priority for national security, space weather, weather
forecasting, climate research, and emergency response. Given
the age of the satellites that the five NPOESS program
satellites will replace and the limited options available to
the parties, there is no alternative but to proceed with the
program.
The committee believes that the NPOESS program is in such
chaos that the President needs to assist the parties with the
resolution of their differences. Once this happens, the
committee is adamant that the parties stick with the resolution
of their disagreements and execute the program, without
changing requirements, without constantly seeking changes to
the sensors, without trying to add sensors, or interfering with
the agreed upon management structure. In other words-agree upon
the program and stick with it.
One additional problem not addressed in the IRT is the role
of the European Space Agency. The Department of Commerce was
obligated to enter into an agreement with the European Space
Agency to provide for the mid-morning orbit. So far no such
agreement has been arranged. If an agreement is not
forthcoming, the parties must build into the management plan a
contingency for the mid-morning orbit.
Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters
Inclusion of Defense Intelligence Agency in authority to use proceeds
from counterintelligence operations (sec. 921)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) the same authority accorded
the Military Departments to use proceeds from
counterintelligence operations to offset necessary and
reasonable expenses incurred in such operations under Section
423 of title 10, United States Code. When the Secretary of
Defense directed the establishment of the Defense
Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC) within
the DIA, he authorized the DCHC to conduct offensive
counterintelligence operations. Since existing statute limits
the authority to use proceeds from counterintelligence
operations to the Military Departments, the DCHC would have to
return such proceeds to the Treasury. The committee therefore
recommends extending this authority to DIA in light of its new
mission.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 931)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a United States Military
Cancer Institute in the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences. The Institute would be authorized to establish
a data clearinghouse on the incidence of cancer among members
and former members of the armed forces, and to conduct research
that contributes to early detection or treatment of cancer
among military personnel. The committee recognizes that the
United States Military Cancer Institute is currently operated
and funded by the Department of Defense. In the committee's
view, this institution should be authorized in statute in order
to ensure its continued viability and service to military
members and their families.
Instruction of private sector employees in cyber security courses of
the Defense Cyber Investigations Training Academy (sec. 932)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to permit eligible private-sector
employees to receive instruction at the Defense Cyber Crime
Investigations Training Academy, operating under the direction
of the Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3), on a reimbursable
basis.
The DC3 Training Academy provides computer investigation
training to forensic examiners, investigators, systems
administrators, or any other Department of Defense (DOD)
members who ensure Defense information systems are secure. DOD
conducts a Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/
Information Assurance Program with DIB partners to improve the
security of DOD information resident in private networks. For
this effort to be successful, DOD needs to make training
available to industrial partners.
Items of Special Interest
Commercial communications anti-jamming study
The committee notes that substantial portions of military
communications utilize commercial communication satellites,
which have no anti-jam capability. There is generally no
requirement among regular commercial users for this capability;
as a result, commercial satellite providers have not included
this capability in their systems. While there have been only a
few incidents of intentional jamming of commercial satellites,
the committee is nevertheless concerned about this potential
vulnerability, particularly as the military's dependence on
commercial satellites continues to grow even as new military
communications satellites with anti-jam capability become
available. The committee also notes that there has been an
increase in the availability of jammers that could jam the
commercial satellites. Commercial communication satellites take
2 to 3 years to design, manufacture, and launch. Because anti-
jam capabilities must be included in the design of a commercial
satellite from the outset, this is not a capability that can be
added after a satellite is in orbit.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to review the
benefits and feasibility, including cost, schedule and
technical risk, of adding anti-jam capabilities to commercial
communication satellites and to submit a report that would set
forth the results of the review to the congressional defense
committees. The review should also include an assessment of the
government investment required to support a viable business
case for commercial providers to provided protected
communication links for long-term lease by the Department of
Defense as well as other customers; a cost analysis of
commercial lease costs with and without protected
communications, including any appropriate incentive structures;
and an assessment of when the first commercial satellite with
anti-jam capabilities could be launched. This review should
also include an assessment of the jamming threats to commercial
satellites that are used for military communications that such
anti-jam capability would address. The report should be
submitted no later than March 1, 2010.
Deep Space Climate Observatory
The committee is aware of a satellite that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) built in 2000 but
was never launched. The satellite, the Deep Space Climate
Observatory (DSCOVR), was put into storage in 2001. The
satellite would measure solar wind data, important to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air
Force, and other agencies including the Department of Homeland
Security. The satellite was stored with two of the three
sensors that would be needed for solar wind measurements. NOAA
is also looking at the possibility of adding additional earth
observation sensors. There is a critical need for the
geomagnetic storm information that the DSCOVR could provide as
the current satellite that provides this information was built
in 1997, and has long ago exceeded its design life. The
geomagnetic storm information is particularly useful to provide
sufficient warning to utility companies and satellite operators
to execute timely procedures to protect their assets. A sudden
magnetic storm in 1989 caused the collapse of the electrical
distribution grid over the entire province of Quebec, Canada.
DSCOVR was removed from storage at the end of last year,
and went through a series of tests to determine its status and
condition. NOAA and NASA have recently determined that although
there were some concerns the condition was generally good. NOAA
and NASA believe that DSCOVR, with some upgrading and
modification, would be suitable to fly.
The Air Force is very interested in the space weather
information and is part of an interagency team looking at the
possibility of refurbishing DSCOVR and launching it to an orbit
referred to as L1, about one million miles from Earth on a line
with the Sun. If the team determines that the satellite can be
refurbished and launched, they will make a recommendation to
the President. Notionally, NOAA and NASA would pay for
refurbishing the satellite, the Air Force would pay for the
launch, and all agencies would receive the data.
The committee supports this effort to ensure that there is
no gap in the critical national need for space weather
information and directs the Air Force to inform the
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the House of
Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, and the
House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce of
the outcome of the study along with the cost of the launch as
soon as the study is completed.
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance task force
Secretary Gates established the Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force to meet critical
intelligence requirements of deployed forces that the military
departments and the Office of the Secretary of Defense had
failed to address. The initial unmet requirements that led the
Secretary to establish the Task Force had been known and
validated for some time, but remained unaddressed because
existing programs of record could not be accelerated. The Task
Force was created to find alternative solutions, outside of the
established programs of record and acquisition processes, and
succeeded in doing so. Secretary Gates and his predecessor have
had to take such extraordinary actions previously, to address
the improvised explosive device (IED) threat through the Joint
IED Defeat Organization and through the massive Mine-Resistant
Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle program. As with those
programs, the ISR Task Force has reallocated billions of
dollars.
Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral Mullen, recently testified that the ISR Task Force
could be phased out. The committee is skeptical that the need
for the ISR Task Force has run its course and that it should be
disbanded entirely and immediately. Indeed, the Department of
Defense (DOD) is entering a critical phase of the war effort in
Afghanistan, where the ISR needs are different from, and more
challenging than, those of Iraq. Moreover, thus far, the Task
Force has focused on rapidly deploying large quantities of off-
the-shelf systems and capabilities; there is now a need for
more sophisticated capabilities that will require the Task
Force, backed by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, to organize and field. A prominent example is multi-
sensor, cross-platform networking, tipping, and cueing, as well
as networked communications for collection management and data
dissemination.
The Task Force is also the focal point for data-driven
analyses, sponsored by the Joint Staff and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD), that have been instrumental in
determining what ISR equipment and procedures are working in
theater and which are not. The Defense Science Board Task Force
Report on Operations Research Applications for Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance lauded the value and role of
this analysis. These studies would not have been produced
without top-level sponsorship.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs clarify their plans for the
Task Force and provide a clear recommendation to the
congressional defense committees prior to conference on the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
The committee requests further that the Secretary assess
whether certain rules and authorities under which the Task
Force operates are appropriate for the next phase of the
conflict in Afghanistan. Under current procedures, the Task
Force is required to find a service willing to volunteer to
sponsor an initiative to respond to a theater requirement as a
condition for recommending funding for a project. The problem
has been that, too often, the services have not volunteered to
solve these problems. The Secretary should determine whether
the Task Force should be authorized and given the authority to
propose a solution to a need that could be assigned to an
appropriate organization for execution.
Finally, the committee notes that the Task Force, with
Joint Staff and OSD support, is examining the ISR needs of
forces engaged in the irregular warfare missions of population
protection and foreign internal defense that will dominate
operations in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned that
previous analyses focused on the ``find, fix, finish''
methodology pioneered by special forces in direct action
operations in Iraq and elsewhere. The success of these
operations, and their measureable outcomes, contributed to
widespread adoption of the tactics and equipment used by
special forces. It may be that the same methods and resources
are applicable to the operational requirements in Afghanistan,
but it is important to purposefully find out.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to $4.0 billion of funds authorized in
Division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department of Defense
(sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
statutory objectives for the Department of Defense to achieve
by a certain date financial statements that are validated as
ready for audit. The provision would require the Department of
Defense to develop and maintain a Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan that describes specific actions to
be taken to correct financial management deficiencies and meet
audit readiness objectives. The FIAR plan would be required to
tie such actions to process and control improvements and
business systems modernization efforts described in the
business enterprise architecture and transition plan required
by section 2222 of title 10, United States Code.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Temporary reduction in minimum number of aircraft carriers in active
service (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would temporarily
waive the requirement that the Navy maintain 11 active aircraft
carriers in inventory. This provision would only apply to the
time between the planned retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN-
65) and the delivery of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The
committee has reluctantly concluded that the expense of
extending the Enterprise beyond her planned retirement date to
cover this gap is not worth the $1.0 billion to $2.0 billion
the Navy would have to divert from other important programs to
get one extra deployment from that ship.
The committee is taking no position at this time on the
recommendation of the Secretary of Defense that the long-term
carrier force structure should be 10 rather than 11.
Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels of the strike
forces of the Unites States Navy (sec. 1012)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by section
1015 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), would require that
all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious
assault ships larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship
displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that the inclusion of an
integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the
national interest.
The committee believes that the Navy is already having too
much difficulty in achieving the goal of a 313-ship fleet
without adding a substantial increment to the acquisition price
of a significant portion of the fleet. Moreover, current
acquisition law and the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-23) emphasize the need to start
acquisition programs on a sure footing as a central mechanism
by which the Department of Defense (DOD) can get control of
cost growth and schedule slippage on major defense acquisition
programs. Therefore, Congress should be loathe to dictate a
particular outcome of a requirements process before the
Department has conducted the normal requirements review.
The committee expects that the Navy will continue to
evaluate the integrated nuclear power alternative for any new
class of major surface combatants, but would prefer that any
Navy requirements analysis not be skewed toward a particular
outcome.
Sense of Senate on the maintenance of a 313-ship Navy (sec. 1013)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate regarding achieving and maintaining the
goal of having a 313-ship fleet.
The committee believes that the Navy can implement certain
actions that would help achieve and maintain that goal,
including:
(1) when procuring new classes of ships, avoiding the
temptation to move too quickly into production before
the technologies and designs are mature enough;
(2) doing a much better job of achieving the full
planned service lives of ships and perhaps extending
other vessels beyond their expected service lives to
keep their unique capabilities in the fleet while the
Navy takes the time necessary to develop and field
next-generation capability under a low risk program;
(3) reducing and controlling the total costs of
ownership, by emphasizing common hull designs, open
architecture combat systems, and other common ship
systems in order to achieve efficiency in acquiring and
supporting various classes of ships; and
(4) managing the acquisition process better to
increase use of fixed price-type contracts, maximize
competition (or the option of competition) throughout
the life cycle of its ships, enter into multiyear
contracts when warranted, and employ an incremental
approach to developing new technologies.
Designation of USS Constitution as America's ship of state (sec. 1014)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
the USS Constitution as America's ``Ship of State,'' because of
this vessel's representation of our important naval history and
maritime traditions.
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
Summary
The budget request for drug interdiction and counterdrug
activities of the Department of Defense totaled approximately
$1.1 billion for fiscal year 2010: $537.6 million for
international support; $212.5 million for domestic support;
$169.8 million for intelligence, technology, and other
activities; and $139.2 million for demand reduction programs.
The committee recommends the following fiscal year 2010 budget
for the Department's counterdrug activities.
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG
CONTROL POLICY FUNCTION AREAS
[In millions of dollars; may not add due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2010 Counterdrug Request................. $1,059.0
Intelligence: Domestic Law Enforcement........... 35.5
Intelligence: Interdiction....................... 56.6
Intelligence: International...................... 101.6
Interdiction..................................... 335.9
International.................................... 205.9
Investigative.................................... 45.2
Prevention....................................... 130.7
Research and Development: Interdiction........... 19.8
Research and Development: International.......... 4.0
State and Local Assistance:...................... 115.5
Treatment........................................ 8.5
Increases:
High Priority National Guard Counterdrug Programs 30.0
Mobile Sensor Barrier............................ 5.0
Decreases:
United States European (EUCOM) Command 8.0
Counternarcotics Support (Project Code (PC)
9205)...........................................
EUCOM Headquarters Support (PC2346).............. 0.8
EUCOM Interagency Fusion Centers (PC2365)........ 1.0
Relocatable Over-the Horizon-Radar (PC3217)...... 5.0
U.S. Special Operations Command Support to 0.2
Combatant Commanders (PC6505)...................
EUCOM Counternarcotics Reserve Support (PC9215).. 1.2
Fiscal Year 2010 Counterdrug Funding Authorized...... 1,077.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High priority National Guard counterdrug programs
The committee values the contribution that the National
Guard makes to the national counterdrug effort. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase in $30.0 million for the
National Guard Bureau's highest priority counterdrug
activities.
Mobile sensor barrier
The committee is aware of the growing use of Self Propelled
Semi-Submersibles (SPSS) by drug trafficking organizations
operating out of South and Central America. According to United
States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), SPSS are responsible for at
least one-third of all cocaine movement in the transit zone.
SOUTHCOM and the United States Coast Guard consider SPSS a
serious threat to U.S. and regional security. As such, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the
Department to develop, test, and demonstrate a system of
autonomous surface vehicles to detect, monitor, and support
interdiction of SPSS. SOUTHCOM has assigned the SPSS a high
priority in its most recent Integrated Priority List submission
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
United States European Command counterdrug activities
The committee notes that in previous fiscal years the
Department has provided robust counterdrug-related funding to
United States European Command (EUCOM) on the basis of the
burgeoning illegal narcotics trafficking trade emanating from
West Africa. However, as of the stand up of United States
Africa Command (AFRICOM) in October 2008 (i.e. fiscal year
2009), AFRICOM is provided funding within the budget request
for counterdrug activities in West Africa and across the
continent. As such, the committee recommends a series of five
decreases within the counterdrug budget request totaling $11.2
million. Specific project code reductions are reflected above
and in Title XIV. Moving forward, the committee directs the
Department to adjust the funding levels for counterdrug related
funding dedicated to EUCOM downward significantly to reflect
the change in the Unified Command Plan, which moved the African
continent into the area of responsibility for AFRICOM, and to
reflect the greater capacity of our European partners to combat
illegal narcotics trafficking.
Relocatable over-the-horizon radar
The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 for the
Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar. The committee is aware of
the important role this aerial detection asset plays in the
western hemisphere and believes this asset is critical to
situational awareness on the eastern and southern coasts of the
United States; however, the committee believes the deployment
of this asset is more appropriately funded by the military
services operations and maintenance budget activities.
Fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justification documents
According to the budget justification materials, $537.6
million is dedicated to international support, but the budget
justification books for fiscal year 2010 provide little or no
specific information as to the level of assistance to be
provided to partner nations. In preparing congressional budget
justification books for fiscal year 2011, the committee directs
the Department to provide information relating to partner
nations receiving assistance under section 1004 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1991
(Public Law 101-510), as amended, and section 1033 of the NDAA
for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as amended. At a minimum, the
committee believes this should include: recipient partner
nation and recipient within the partner nation's government;
type and amount of support provided; expected duration; and
U.S. agency executing support.
Extension and modification of authority to provide additional support
for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments
(sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
fiscal year the duration of authority for assistance under
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as amended by
section 1021 of the NDAA for FY 2004 (Public Law 108-136),
section 1022 of the John Warner NDAA for FY 2007 (Public Law
109-364), section 1022 of the NDAA for FY 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), section 1024 of the Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009
(Public Law 110-417); would increase the funding limitation
under section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended, from $75.0
million to $100.0 million for fiscal year 2010; and would make
technical changes to the reporting requirements to include
requiring the Secretary of Defense to report to the
congressional defense committees on an annual basis.
The committee is aware of the Department's request to
expand the list of countries that could qualify for assistance
under section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended, to include
Indonesia, Philippines, Nicaragua, Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra
Leone. However, given the Department's failure to utilize
section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended, vis-a-vis the
additional four countries provided under the Duncan Hunter NDAA
for FY 2009 (Public Law 110-417), the committee has decided not
to expand the list of eligible countries. The committee,
however, shares the Department's concerns about the burgeoning
illegal narcotics trade in West Africa and urges the Department
to expand its authorized activities with Guinea-Bissau and
Senegal.
For the first time, the committee has recommended a
significant increase in the authorized maximum amount the
Department can expend under this authority without expanding
the list of eligible countries. The committee has opted to take
this action in part as a response to the Department's repeated
attempts to leverage other authorities (e.g., section 1206 of
the NDAA for FY 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as amended) that are
designated for counterterrorism purposes or stability
operations in which the United States is a participant. The
committee believes that some of the projects put forward by the
Department under section 1206 of Public Law 109-163 over the
past 2 fiscal years (e.g., Operation Enduring Freedom--
Caribbean and Central America and the Mexico counterterrorism
capabilities) would have been more appropriately funded under
section 1033 of Public Law 105-85, as amended.
Further, the committee reminds the Department that joint
task forces of the Department that provide support to law
enforcement agencies conducting counterdrug activities may
provide similar support to law enforcement agencies conducting
counterterrorism activities on the condition that any support
provided under this section is consistent with all applicable
laws and regulations; that the support may only be provided in
the geographic area of responsibility of the joint task force;
and that a verifiable nexus exists between the individuals
involved in the illegal narcotics trade and individuals
involved in terrorist-related activities. This authority was
provided under section 1022 of Public Law 108-136 as amended.
The committee is aware of commanders' concerns about
current constraints to the types of support authorized to be
provided under this authority (e.g. certain types of lethal
assistance). As such, the committee directs the Under Secretary
of Defense-Policy to report to the committee 180 days after
enactment of this Act on what constraints commanders executing
funding under this authority are confronting and whether
changes to this authority should be considered.
One-year extension of authority for joint task forces support to law
enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
(sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority provided in section 1022 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136),
which expires at the end of fiscal year 2009, through fiscal
year 2010. The authority granted under this provision provides
that a joint task force of the Department of Defense, which is
providing support to law enforcement agencies conducting
counterdrug activities (e.g., Joint Interagency Task Force--
South, Joint Interagency Task Force--West, and Joint Task
Force--North), may also provide these law enforcement agencies
with support for their counterterrorism activities.
This provision also includes an amendment which would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional
defense committees, no later than December 31st of each year, a
report evaluating the effect on counterdrug and
counterterrorism activities and objectives of using counterdrug
funds of a joint task force to provide counterterrorism
support, a description of the type of support and recipient(s)
of support provided, and a list of current joint task forces
conducting counterdrug operations.
One-year extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 fiscal year the continuation of the authorities provided in
section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 (Public Law
108-375), as amended by the John Warner NDAA for FY 2007
(Public Law 109-364), which allows the Department of Defense to
support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and
activities by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; the
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia; and the National
Liberation Army. Each of these organizations is designated as
foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. Department of State
under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1965 (Public Law 89-236).
This provision would also extend the limitation on the
number of U.S. military and federally funded civilian
contractor personnel in the Republic of Colombia through fiscal
year 2010. Section 1021 of Public Law 108-375, as amended,
limits the number of military personnel in Colombia to 800
people and the number of federally funded civilian contractors
to 600 people.
Given the success of Operation Willing Spirit, which
successfully rescued three American hostages in July 2008, the
ongoing negotiations with the Republic of Colombia regarding
U.S. military access to Palanquero, Apiay, and Baranquilla air
bases, and the scheduled loss of access to Manta Air Base in
Ecuador, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
perform an assessment of the numerical limitations included in
section 1021 of Public Law 108-375, as amended, and report to
the congressional defense committees 180 days after enactment
of this Act on whether these numeric limitations should be
changed, upward or downward, or repealed.
Subtitle D--Military Commissions
Military commissions (sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that
military commissions meet standards of fairness established by
the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the trial of
detainees for violations of the law of war, unless the trial is
conducted ``by a regularly constituted court affording all the
judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.''
The Court concluded that ``[t]he regular military courts in
our system are the courts-martial established by congressional
statutes'' and that ``procedures governing trials by military
commission historically have been the same as those governing
courts-martial.'' Consequently, a military commission ``can be
`regularly constituted' by the standards of our military
justice system only if some practical need explains deviations
from court-martial practice.''
Similarly, the Court found that the Common Article 3
provision for ``judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples'' requires, at a minimum,
that any deviation from the procedures governing courts-martial
be justified by ``evident practical need''. According to the
Court, ``The uniformity principle is not an inflexible one; it
does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated
for use by courts-martial. But any departure must be tailored
to the exigency that necessitates it.''
The provision recommended by the committee is designed to
meet this test by bringing procedures for military commissions
in line with procedures governing trials by courts-martial,
except in cases where deviations are justified by practical
needs.
The committee notes that the definition of the term
``unprivileged enemy belligerent'' in the provision makes no
specific reference to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
forces. The committee acknowledges that the United States and
its coalition partners are and have been engaged in hostilities
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Public
Law 107-40. The definition used by the committee encompasses
these hostilities, as well as future hostilities, while
providing for jurisdictional determinations to be made case-by-
case, on the basis of the actions of each individual.
The committee is aware of concerns that the defense teams
in some military commission cases may have been under-resourced
to conduct investigations, obtain expert witnesses, and perform
other necessary tasks. Many of these concerns are set forth in
a June 9, 2009, memorandum from the Chief Defense Counsel for
military commissions to the Attorney General of the United
States and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
The committee expects the Department of Defense to review and
address these concerns, as appropriate.
Subtitle E--Medical Facility Matters
Medical Facility Matters (sec. 1041-1047)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to execute an
executive agreement for the joint use by the Department of
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs of a new Navy
ambulatory care center, parking structure, and supporting
structures and facilities in North Chicago, Illinois, and Great
Lakes, Illinois, as well as medical personal property and
equipment relating to the center, structures, and facilities.
The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs' jurisdiction over the center, structures, facilities,
and property and equipment covered by the agreement not earlier
than 5 years after execution of the agreement or upon
completion of benchmarks established by the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to the
joint use of the facility. The provision would also authorize
the transfer of functions, including civilian employee
positions of the Department of Defense to the Department of
Veterans Affairs. The transfer of civilian employee positions
would not result in a reduction in an employee's pay, and would
continue collective bargaining rights under title 5, United
States Code, for a 2-year period. The transfer would not result
in any non-bargaining unit employees becoming members of the
bargaining unit. The center, structures, and facilities
transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be
designated as the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care
Center.
The committee is aware that on April 22, 2009, testimony
presented by the Veterans Administration (VA) to the Senate
Committee on Veterans Affairs was in opposition to proposed
legislation that would make matters relating to direct patient
care and the clinical competence of clinical health care
providers subject to collective bargaining, the same matters
proposed for 2 years under section 1604 of this bill. In that
testimony, concern was expressed that such an expansion of
collective bargaining rights would be an ``anathema to patient
centered medicine'' and would ``adversely impact VA's ability
to deliver quality patient care.'' The committee will observe
with active interest the implementation of section 1604 to see
if, in fact, VA's concerns were well founded. In any case, the
committee will not tolerate anything less than the highest
quality of care for those treated at this federal health
center.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the
planning and implementation of the electronic medical record
system or systems to be used at this federal health center as
part of the assessment of the implementation of the joint
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs fully
interoperable electronic health records required by section
1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 109-364).
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Requirements, Authorities, and Limitations
Congressional earmarks relating to the Department of Defense (sec.
1051)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the procedures used to award funding for
congressionally directed spending items that have been included
in National Defense Authorization Acts for 3 or more
consecutive years. The provision would also direct the
Department of Defense Inspector General to conduct an audit to
determine whether recipients of congressionally directed
spending items are in compliance with laws pertaining to use of
federal funds to influence congressional action.
National strategic five-year plan for improving the nuclear forensic
and attribution capabilities of the United States (sec. 1052)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
President to develop a strategic plan for improving over a 5
year period the nuclear forensic and attribution capability of
the United States and the methods, capabilities, and capacity
for nuclear materials forensics and attribution. The Department
of Homeland Security is the agency currently tasked with
responsibility to coordinate the actions of the federal
agencies. The plan would be conducted with the participation of
the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, Energy and
State, the Attorney General, the Director of National
Intelligence, and other such officials as the President
considers appropriate.
The committee shares the larger congressional concern that
the U.S. ability to attribute accurately the origins of the
material and manufacturers of a nuclear or radiological device,
including a dirty bomb, is adequate but is neither as robust as
it should be nor sustainable over the long-term. While each of
the named agencies has a role in the attribution chain, there
is currently no fully coordinated and resourced forensics and
attribution plan to guide government-wide strategy and
investment. This is of particular concern to the committee as
the research and development capabilities of the Department of
Energy laboratories underpin all of the activities of each of
the responsible agencies.
The plan would be provided to Congress and would be due 180
days after enactment of this Act.
One-year extension of authority to offer and make rewards for
assistance in combating terrorism through government personnel
of allied forces (sec. 1053)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority provided in section 127b(c)(3)(C) of title
10, United States Code, to offer and make rewards through
government personnel of allied forces to persons who provide
information or nonlethal assistance that is beneficial to
operations against international terrorism conducted by U.S.
Armed Forces or allied forces operating in combination with
U.S. Armed Forces, or is beneficial to force protection.
Business process reengineering (sec. 1054)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
appropriate chief management officer of the Department of
Defense (DOD) to determine whether or not appropriate business
process reengineering efforts have been undertaken before DOD
approves a new business system modernization program.
Responsibility for preparation of biennial Global Positioning System
report (sec. 1055)
The committee recommends a provision that would shift
responsibility for preparing the biennial Global Positioning
System (GPS) report from the Secretary of Defense to the
Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Defense would retain
responsibility for certain aspects of the report, which at a
minimum would include that portion of the report dealing with
the current status of the GPS system.
Additional subpoena authority for the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1056)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to
subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses necessary to
carry out an audit or investigation. The DOD Inspector General
would be required to notify the Attorney General in advance of
the issuance of any subpoena, and would not be permitted to
issue a subpoena if the Attorney General objects.
The DOD Inspector General recently notified the committee
that he was unable to complete an investigation requested by
the committee because former senior DOD officials who engaged
in the activities to be reviewed refused the Inspector
General's requests for an interview. The committee concludes
that the DOD Inspector General needs the authority to compel
testimony in appropriate cases.
Reports on bandwidth requirements for major defense acquisition
programs and major system acquisition programs (sec. 1057)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1047(d) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
require a report on the bandwidth determinations made each year
by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National
Intelligence for each major defense acquisition program and
each major systems acquisitions program respectively.
Multiyear contracts under pilot program on commercial fee-for-service
air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1058)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide an
exemption to the 5-year limitation on multiyear contracts and
make other minor changes to enable the Air Force to implement a
fee-for-service air refueling support pilot program.
Section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) directed the Secretary of
the Air Force to conduct a pilot program to assess the
feasibility and advisability of utilizing commercial fee-for-
service air refueling tanker aircraft for Air Force operations.
The Air Force has been working with the private sector to
implement this pilot program. The Air Force has informed the
committee that results from their formal request for
information process indicate that a multiyear contract that
exceeds the current 5-year limit would be necessary to promote
adequate competition and reduce program costs. The Air Force
needs to have authority to make commitments for the 8-year
pilot program in order to issue a request for proposal. The Air
Force also needs to be able to offer carriers insurance
coverage similar to that provided to civil reserve air fleet
(CRAF) program partners. This provision would provide the Air
Force with those authorities.
Subtitle G--Reports
National intelligence estimate on nuclear aspirations of non-state
entities and nuclear weapons and related programs in non-
nuclear-weapons states and countries not parties to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (sec. 1071)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to prepare a national
intelligence estimate (NIE) on nuclear weapons and related
programs of non-nuclear weapons state parties to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the weapons
aspirations of such non-state actors as the DNI considers
appropriate to include in the estimate. The NIE would be due on
September 1, 2010. If the DNI determines that it is not
possible to complete the NIE by such date then the DNI shall
provided notification not later than August 1 2010, that the
NIE will be late and the date that the NIE will be submitted.
The completed NIE would be submitted to the congressional
defense committees and the Intelligence Committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
While the committee recognizes that the intelligence
community prepares numerous reports that bear on certain
aspects of the material that would be contained in the NIE,
there is benefit to having a comprehensive report on this
subject.
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of military
whistleblower protections (sec. 1072)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Government Accountability Office to review the implementation
by the Department of Defense of military whistleblower
protections afforded to members of the armed services.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Transfer of Navy aircraft N40VT (sec. 1081)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Navy to transfer a Navy helicopter to a
private corporation, the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation, at no
cost to the Government. This provision would require that the
transfer be: (1) at no cost to the Government; (2) subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary may deem appropriate
to protect the interests of the Government; and (3) conditioned
upon receiving adequate consideration in the use of any
technologies proven during testing of new technology on the
aircraft.
The Navy has been developing a concept to employ different
propulsion approaches for helicopters. This program is known as
the vectored thrust ducted propeller (VTDP) program. The
testing on this concept has completed exploring the flight
envelope for which the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) will
certify the aircraft. The whole point of the development
program, however, is to demonstrate whether the VTDP concept
can expend the flying envelope for helicopters beyond their
normal limits.
The Navy has determined that: (1) the Navy has no further
use for the aircraft to be transferred; (2) while the Navy owns
the aircraft, they cannot permit the aircraft to fly outside
the limits of the NAVAIR certification; (3) the Navy would
incur substantial additional expense to expand the
certification of this single aircraft; (4) the Navy and others
within the Department of Defense would like to have the results
of the testing; and (5) transferring ownership to the Piasecki
Aircraft Corporation is the least expensive means of obtaining
those results.
Conveyance of Big Crow aircraft (sec. 1082)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of the Air Force to transfer two Big Crow aircraft to
an appropriate private entity, if it is determined to be in the
best interests of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
to do so. The committee notes that the Big Crow aircraft have
been used for a number of test and evaluation and operational
missions related to electronic warfare and other areas for a
variety of joint customers. The committee understands that the
Air Force must fund large sustainment and refurbishment costs
for the aircraft, but believes that the capabilities provided
by the systems are of high value to the Department of Defense.
The committee believes that it may be possible to give the
Department of Defense access to these critical test assets by
transferring them to a private sector entity, who would then be
responsible for their maintenance and operation in order to
keep them in service to potential defense customers. The
committee believes that this transfer should only occur if
there is no liability and limited cost incurred by the
Department of Defense in the transaction.
Items of Special Interest
National cyber security initiative
The budget request included large but classified amounts
for the national cyber security initiative, mostly in the
national intelligence program budget, but also in the
Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and
elsewhere in the Federal Government. The new administration
recently completed a significant policy review of the
initiative, which began in the last years of the previous
administration.
The new review appears to have made considerable progress
in at least framing many of the important issues that must be
addressed. However, it is impossible for the public to come to
this conclusion because all the fundamental aspects of the
program, and the issues associated with it, remain classified.
The administration realizes that it is imperative to engage in
a public dialogue about the legal and policy issues affecting
privacy and civil liberties, but has not indicated how or when
it plans to achieve this objective. Likewise, the
administration recognizes that it is essential to develop and
publicly present a national strategy and doctrine for cyber
security and operations for deterring aggression, establishing
norms of behavior, and the like, that depends upon a level of
public analysis and discourse about activities,
vulnerabilities, and capabilities in cyberspace that is not
possible today.
There is another important problem with the cyber
initiative, which the administration review did not address,
that also cannot be rectified without substantial progress in
declassifying basic information about the program. For a number
of years, the government has invested large sums developing
cyber security capabilities through the intelligence agencies.
These capabilities are being developed inside the government on
a classified basis, with very little commercial industry
participation or even awareness. Some defense contractors are
working on the technology, but under government engineering and
technical direction.
The committee is concerned that this government solution,
even if it is superior technically now to what the private
sector could provide, will before long be surpassed by
commercial technology and systems and will become an expensive
albatross. In addition, if the government believes what it says
about the cyber threat, and believes that its technical
solutions are substantially better than what is commercially
available, it is incumbent on the government to make as much of
that technology available to the private sector as possible,
especially the owners and operators of critical infrastructure.
Furthermore, privacy and civil liberties concerns will diminish
the more the commercial information technology industry is
involved in designing, engineering, and implementing cyber
security solutions.
The committee concludes, after extensive review, that
commercial companies do have highly relevant technology for
intrusion prevention at high speeds and volumes, and for
recognizing anomalous activities and managing a rapid response
across a large, complex network. Some of these industry sectors
are not even aware that their capabilities are relevant to
cyber security because the government has provided no insight
into the capabilities it requires, or the architecture and
concept of operations it has designed for the cyber security
initiative.
The committee urges the President to declassify the cyber
security initiative to the level where industry can understand
how it may contribute to solutions, and to invite U.S. industry
to propose comprehensive solutions to the government's cyber
security needs.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to task the Defense
Science Board (DSB) to assess the capability of U.S. industry
to design and build capabilities to defend government networks
and critical infrastructure consistent with the government's
classified architecture and concept of operations. The
committee directs that the DSB report be forwarded to Congress
by April 1, 2010.
Ship decommissioning
Section 231 of title 10, United Stets Code, requires the
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual long-range plan for
the construction of naval vessels, and to certify that the
current budget and the future-years defense program (FYDP)
funds that plan.
The Senate report accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110-77) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
included direction that the Secretary include an addendum
providing the hull numbers and planned disposition of ships
that were to be dismantled, sunk, or decommissioned during the
FYDP and the resultant gaps in capability upon the
decommissioning of each ship.
The committee finds these reports very helpful, but
believes that they could be even more useful if there were
better fidelity in projections of long-term force structure in
this report. Specifically, one can infer from notional delivery
schedules when a ship in the shipbuilding plan will deliver.
What is much less clear for data beyond the FYDP is what
assumptions are being made for decommissionings of ships.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to include in each annual report submitted in accordance with
section 231 of title 10, United States Code, specific ship-by-
ship decommissionings that are projected over the full-time
period of the plan. That information shall be in addition to
the more specific data on decommissionings within the period of
the FYDP mentioned above.
Strategic communications and public diplomacy
The committee continues to monitor closely the Department
of Defense's (DOD) funding for counter support for terrorism
and counter-radicalization strategic communication programs and
other public diplomacy programs. Since the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, the U.S. Government, according to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), has spent at least
$10.0 billion on communication efforts designed to advance the
strategic interests of the United States. DOD does not have a
separate budget covering its strategic communication
activities, but the GAO reports that DOD ``spends hundreds of
millions of dollars each year'' to support its information
operations outreach activities.
The committee is aware of initiatives undertaken and funded
by the joint improvised explosive device defeat organization
and geographical combatant commands for strategic
communications programs directed at counter-support for
terrorism and counter-radicalization. Many ongoing programs are
in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but military
information support teams (MISTs) from United States Special
Operations Command are also deploying to United States
embassies in countries of particular interest around the globe
to bolster the efforts of the Department of State and the U.S.
Agency for International Development. These efforts are in
addition to many of other small public diplomacy programs.
Strategic communications and public diplomacy programs are
important activities and the committee supports them, but the
committee is not able to determine whether these efforts are
integrated within DOD or with the broader U.S. Government, nor
is the committee able to oversee adequately the funding for the
multitude of programs.
While Congress awaits delivery of the report on strategic
communication and public diplomacy activities of the Federal
Government required under section 1055 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense--Policy and Under Secretary of Defense--Comptroller to
develop budget documentation materials for fiscal year 2011
that clearly articulate and document DOD's objectives and
funding levels for strategic communications and public
diplomacy.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Repeal of National Security Personnel System; Department of Defense
personnel authorities (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would freeze the
expansion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and
terminate NSPS unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that
termination would not be in the best interest of the Department
of Defense and provides a specific schedule for making changes
to improve the fairness, credibility, and transparency of the
system. In the event that NSPS is terminated, the provision
would provide a 1-year period for the transition of NSPS
employees back into the General Schedule system. In addition,
the provision would authorize the Secretary to develop fair,
credible, and transparent methods for hiring and assigning
personnel, and for appraising employee performance.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
needs continuing flexibility to efficiently hire qualified new
employees and to manage its workforce in a manner that promotes
superior performance. However, the committee has received many
complaints from DOD employees during the 5 years during which
the Department has sought to implement NSPS, to the detriment
of needed human capital planning and workforce management
initiatives. The committee acknowledges the review of NSPS
initiated by the Deputy Secretary of Defense under the auspices
of the Defense Business Board and remains open to consideration
of its forthcoming findings and recommendations.
Extension and modification of experimental personnel management program
for scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
experimental personnel management program at the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the services, and a
number of defense agencies for an additional 3 years. The
provision would also equalize the compensation that employees
under the program could receive above their base pay to the
levels established for the Department's Highly Qualified
Experts program. The committee notes that DARPA has used this
authority successfully to hire the specialized, world-class,
technical talent they need to perform their unique defense
mission.
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the
aggregate of basic and premium pay payable during calendar
years 2009 and 2010 to an employee who performs work in an
overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, United States Central Command, or an overseas
location that was formerly in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, United States Central Command but has been moved to
the area of responsibility of the Commander, United States
Africa Command, in support of a contingency operation or an
operation in response to a declared emergency.
The total amount payable may not exceed the total annual
compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of
title 3, United States Code.
Availability of funds for compensation of certain civilian employees of
the Department of Defense (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense (DOD) to use funds available for the
purchase of contract services to instead provide compensation
for civilian employees to meet the same requirement.
The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to hire up to
30,000 new civil servants over the next 5 years, to replace
contractor employees and restore needed expertise and authority
to the DOD workforce. In the past, the Department has been
impeded in efforts to achieve a rational balance between
civilian employees and contractor employees by funding
decisions that preclude trade-offs between the two workforces.
The committee believes that the Secretary should have the
funding flexibility needed to make such trade-offs.
Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (sec. 1105)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to establish a program of leadership
recruitment and development for civilian employees of the
Department of Defense, to be known as the Department of Defense
Civilian Leadership Program (DCLP).
The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to increase
the size of the acquisition workforce by 20,000 government
acquisition professionals by 2015 to address the Department's
long-standing problems in the acquisition of products and
services. Acquisition experts have informed the committee that
the Department's needs extend beyond contracting officials to
system engineers, development planners, software engineers,
cost estimators, developmental testers, and other highly
skilled professionals. They have emphasized that the quality of
the new employees is at least as important as the quantity. The
committee believes that the DCLP will provide the Department
with an important new tool to recruit individuals with the
academic merit, work experience, and demonstrated leadership
skills necessary to build the most effective acquisition
workforce possible.
Review of defense laboratories for participation in defense laboratory
personnel demonstration projects (sec. 1106)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to undertake a review of defense
laboratories that are not currently operating under the
successful laboratory personnel demonstration system,
originally authorized by Congress in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337).
The committee notes that the personnel system flexibilities
within this program support laboratory directors' efforts to
hire and retain top quality in order to support the execution
of their designated research and technology development
missions.
The committee notes that there are still a number of
laboratories that have not been allowed to participate in the
program and recommends that the Department quickly review the
costs and benefits to allowing them to operate using the
greater flexibilities inherent in the lab personnel
demonstration program. The committee expects that in the
interests of allowing the laboratories to optimally execute
their designated missions, the laboratories will be delegated
the maximum flexibility possible to shape their technical
workforces.
Item of Special Interest
Utilization of hiring authorities for civilian health care
professionals
The committee notes that Congress provided enhanced and
expedited personnel hiring authorities for civilian health care
professionals to the Department of Defense in section 1636 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), as well as in section 1107 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417). These direct hire provisions authorized
the Secretary of Defense to exercise any authority for the
appointment and pay of health care personnel under chapter 74
of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of recruitment,
employment, and retention of civilian health care
professionals; and to recruit and appoint certain health care
professionals directly to designated positions, respectively.
The committee continues to hear complaints from the
Department and from the services about the onerous nature of
the civilian hiring process and that highly qualified
professionals are lost to other agencies or to the private
sector as a result. The hiring authorities provided to the
Department by Congress were meant to alleviate those
difficulties in order to enable the Department and the services
to recruit and retain much needed health care support.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after
enactment of this bill on the implementation and utilization of
these hiring authorities to date, and whether the Department
needs any additional legislative authorities in order to obtain
necessary civilian health care professionals.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Increase in unit cost threshold for purchases using certain funds under
the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would change the
unit cost threshold for items whose purchase is subject to the
limitation of subparagraph (e)(1)(A) of section 166a of title
10, United States Code, from $15,000 to the unit cost threshold
in effect under section 2245a of this title, currently
$250,000.
Authority to provide administrative services and support to coalition
liaison officers of certain foreign nations assigned to Joint
Forces Command (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to allow the
Secretary of Defense to provide administrative services and
support, and to pay travel and subsistence expenses, for
certain coalition liaison officers assigned temporarily to U.S.
Joint Forces Command, as is currently authorized for certain
coalition liaison officers to the headquarters of a combatant
command in connection with the planning for, or conduct of, a
coalition operation.
Modification of authorities relating to program to build the capacity
of foreign military forces (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
that no more than $75.0 million of the $350.0 million
authorized annually for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for a
program under section 1206 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120
Stat. 2418), as amended, may be used to build the capacity of
foreign military forces to participate in or support military
and stability operations in which the United States Armed
Forces are a participant.
The committee notes the request by the Department for new
authorities to: (1) build the capacity of a foreign country's
national military forces preparing to support a coalition
operation conducted as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, or by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF); and (2) build the capacity of
NATO and partner special operations forces to support NATO or
coalition special operations conducted as part of OIF or OEF in
Afghanistan, or by the NATO ISAF. The committee believes that
both these activities can be conducted within the existing
authority of section 1206 of Public Law 109-364, as amended.
The authority provided in section 1206 of Public Law 109-
364, as amended, has been developed through a process of close
consultation between the Department of Defense and Congress,
resulting in both a number of legislative changes and informal
policy guidance intended to ensure that the program is
conducted consistent with the legislative intent. For example,
the committee has made clear its desire that section 1206 funds
not be used to build the capacity of foreign military forces of
countries for which designated funds for training and equipping
security forces have been established, such as in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The committee would be open to considering
proposals to use the authority under this section to help build
the capacity of NATO and other coalition partners whose ability
to contribute to ongoing military or stability operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan would otherwise be limited.
The committee has repeatedly stated that the authority of
section 1206 of Public Law 109-364, as amended, is intended to
address emerging needs and should not duplicate or become a
substitute for security assistance under Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) authorities. To this end, the committee has
emphasized the need for 1206 programs to develop plans to
transition to FMF funding if longer-term assistance is
required. The Department's stated desire to conduct sustained
capacity building to prepare special operations to deploy for
coalition operations suggests that it intends to establish
multi-year programs with respect to certain recipient
countries. To reduce the potential impact of such multi-year
programs on the section 1206 program as a whole, the committee
would establish the $75.0 million funding limit provided in
this section.
The committee reiterates its view that the authority of
section 1206 of Public Law 109-364, as amended, is temporary
and encourages the Administration to review the existing
security assistance authorities of the Department of Defense
and Department of State to reconcile, de-conflict, and improve
the effectiveness of these authorities.
Modification of notification and reporting requirements for use of
authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism
(sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
two distinct notification requirements under section 1208 of
the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as amended by the
Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009 (Public Law 110-417). In the
event the Department is providing assistance under this
authority to irregular forces, groups, or individuals
supporting or facilitating military operations by U.S. special
operations forces to combat terrorism, the Secretary of Defense
shall notify the congressional defense committees at least 72
hours prior to the use of such authority, and in the event the
Department is providing assistance under this authority to
foreign forces supporting or facilitating military operations
by U.S. special operations forces to combat terrorism, the
Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense
committees no later than 48 hours following the use of such
authority. This provision would also require the Department to
notify the congressional defense committees again should there
be any change in the scope or funding level of the operation.
The committee has reviewed the most recent notifications
and the annual report submitted by the Department and believes
the level of information provided by the Department is
inadequate, particularly on issues of the type of support
provided to U.S. special operations forces; type of support
provided to the recipient; intended duration of the support
(i.e. duration of the program); amount obligated under the
authority to provide support; and an after-action assessment of
the operational support. Therefore, this provision also amends
the notification and reporting requirements established in
section 1208 (c) and (f) respectively of the Ronald Reagan NDAA
for FY 2005 (Public Law 108-375) to reflect these unaddressed
matters.
The committee is concerned that U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) may be leveraging this authority for long-term
engagement with partner nations, rather than exclusively for
support of or facilitating of military operations by U.S.
special operations forces to combat terrorism, particularly in
countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee
recommends that SOCOM review the current programs to ensure
that they are being executed in a manner consistent with the
original intent.
Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition
nations for support provided to United States military
operations (sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2010 the authority provided in section 1233 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393) for the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse key cooperating nations for logistical and military
support provided by that nation to, or in connection with, U.S.
military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). This provision would also
modify section 1233 of Public law 110-181 to allow funds under
section 1233 of Public Law 110-181 for fiscal year 2010 to be
used to assist key cooperating nations supporting U.S. military
operations in OIF and OEF by providing specialized training and
supplies, or loaning specialized equipment. The total amount of
reimbursements and other support authorized for fiscal year
2010 would not exceed $1.6 billion. The provision would also
extend until September 30, 2011, the requirements of section
1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393) applicable to
notifications of reimbursements of Pakistan for support it
provided.
The committee understands from the Department of Defense
that the Pakistan Government has agreed to establish within the
Pakistan Ministry of Finance an account, to be funded with
$25.0 million from the next reimbursement to Pakistan under
Coalition Support Funds, to cover the costs of helicopter spare
parts. Under this arrangement, the United States would deposit
this amount directly into Pakistan's U.S.-administered Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) trust fund, and the procurement of
helicopter spare parts would be financed using those funds
under the FMS program. The committee welcomes this arrangement
as a positive step in improving transparency for how Pakistan
uses reimbursements provided from Coalition Support Funds.
One-year extension and expansion of Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (sec. 1206)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority for the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP), which enables commanders in Iraq and
Afghanistan to fund humanitarian relief and reconstruction
projects in their areas of responsibility that provide
immediate benefit to the local people. The provision would
authorize the Secretary of Defense to use up to $1.4 billion in
Operation and Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2010 for CERP.
The provision would also provide that the Secretary may
transfer up to $100.0 million of CERP funds to the Department
of State to support the Afghanistan National Solidarity Program
if the Secretary determines that doing so would enhance
counterinsurgency or stability operations in Afghanistan.
The committee notes that the budget request included $1.5
billion for CERP for fiscal year 2010, consisting of $300.0
million for CERP in Iraq and $1.2 billion for CERP in
Afghanistan. The committee welcomes the reduction in CERP
expenditures for Iraq which is consistent with the drawdown of
U.S. forces and the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq by
no later than the end of August 2010. The committee has
concerns related to the rapid growth of CERP funding in
Afghanistan and would reduce CERP funding for Afghanistan by
$100.0 million to $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2010. This
reduced funding level for CERP in Afghanistan would still
exceed the level of CERP spending by U.S. forces in Iraq at the
height of the surge in 2007-2008, when the U.S. troop level in
Iraq exceeded 160,000 soldiers, more than twice the 68,000 U.S.
soldiers expected to be deployed in Afghanistan by late summer
2009. Also, concerns have been raised about the capacity of
Afghanistan, with its lack of infrastructure and low literacy
rates, to absorb such a large influx of CERP funds. In
addition, the committee has concerns about the Department of
Defense's capacity to manage and oversee large amounts of CERP
funds in Afghanistan. A report by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) earlier this year found a lack of training for
personnel responsible for executing CERP, and a shortage in the
number of personnel needed to effectively execute CERP. As a
result, oversight of CERP projects in Afghanistan has been
conducted inconsistently or not at all. The committee strongly
supports the GAO recommendations that the Secretary direct the
Commander of U.S. Central Command to: 1) conduct an evaluation
of workforce requirements for CERP in Afghanistan and ensure
adequate staffing for its administration; and 2) establish
training requirements for personnel executing CERP.
The committee notes the valuable contribution that the
National Solidarity Program (NSP) is making to reconstruction
and local governance in Afghanistan. The NSP funds thousands of
small development projects in nearly every corner of
Afghanistan, providing modest grants of money directly to
locally-elected community development councils which plan and
oversee projects that meet local needs. As of the first quarter
of 2009, the NSP has established over 21,500 development
councils in villages and localities in every province. The
program provides grants averaging $27,000 with a cap of $60,000
per community, and has disbursed approximately $600.0 million
in international contributions, primarily from World Bank
grants and the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. In
addition, communities must take ownership of the projects by
contributing at least 10 percent of the total project costs in
either labor, materials, or funds. The Afghan Ministry of Rural
Rehabilitation and Development, which manages the program, has
plans to expand the NSP to all districts in the country,
including less secure areas in Regional Command South where the
U.S. troop presence is increasing. The committee believes that
increased funding for the NSP would support key
counterinsurgency objectives of in areas at risk of insurgent
influence and strengthening ties between local political
entities and the Afghan Government.
One-year extension of authority for security and stabilization
assistance (sec. 1207)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer
up to $100.0 million in services or funds to the Department of
State to support Department of State programs of security and
stabilization assistance under section 1207 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), as amended by section 1210 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
The committee believes that one valuable aspect of the
section 1207 authority is the increased coordination between
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State
(DOS) in the formulation and implementation of reconstruction,
security, and stabilization assistance projects under this
authority. At the same time, the committee reaffirms its view
that section 1207 is a temporary authority. Should a section
1207-type authority be established within the DOS, the
committee would urge that it be adequately resourced within the
DOS budget and that authority be designed to institutionalize
the expanded coordination between the DOD and DOS achieved
under section 1207.
Authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense personnel between the
United States and foreign countries (sec. 1208)
The committee recommends a provision which would permit the
Department of Defense (DOD) to accept, on a non-reciprocal
basis, defense personnel of the defense ministry of an ally or
friendly foreign government. This provision would not permit
the DOD to pay the salary, per diem, cost of living, travel
costs, cost of language or other training, and other costs for
the personnel of such government. This authority will expire at
the end of 2011.
The committee understands that the Department has been
approached by allies and friendly foreign nations that would
like to assign defense personnel, civilian and military, to
counterpart organizations in the Department, but has only had a
limited capability to do so when the United States cannot
provide reciprocal personnel.
The Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the
congressional defense committees annually, not later than March
1, the costs of this program to the United States; the agencies
and positions that are involved in the program; and an
assessment of the benefits to the Department.
Defense cooperation between the United States and Iraq (sec. 1209)
The committee recommends a provision that would encourage
the Secretary of Defense to increase the number of positions in
professional military education courses at command and general
staff colleges, war colleges, and the service academies
available annually to personnel of the security forces of the
Government of Iraq. The committee notes that the long-term
security of Iraq is in the interest of the United States and
that military education can foster enduring relationships with
the security forces of the Government of Iraq.
Report on alternatives to use of acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection
and survivability (sec. 1210)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to assess and report on alternatives to
the temporary authority provided under section 1202 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2412), as amended, which allows
for the use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements for
the purposes of lending or leasing certain military equipment
to military forces participating in combined operations with
the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, or as part of
peacekeeping operations under the United Nations Charter or
another international agreement.
The committee notes that the temporary authority provided
by section 1202 of Public Law 109-364, as amended, expires
September 30, 2011. The committee reiterates its concern that
acquisition and cross-servicing agreements are not intended for
the loan or lease of significant military equipment and
emphasizes the need to find alternatives to this authority
prior to its expiration.
Subtitle B--Reports
Report on United States engagement with Iran (sec. 1221)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President, no later than January 31, 2010, to deliver a report
to Congress on U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic of
Iran. The report would describe the status of U.S. efforts to
engage with the Government of Iran, including an assessment of
the progress of negotiations; the seriousness with which the
Government of Iran is engaging in negotiations; and an
assessment of the extent to which the Government of Iran has
complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and
cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The
report would also include an assessment of the extent to which
Iran continues past practices or has expressed a willingness to
change its behavior, with regard to the following areas:
diplomatic engagement; support for terrorism and extremism;
nuclear weapons-related and other nuclear activities; and
missile development activities. The report would also require
an assessment of the Government of Iran's involvement in the
illegal narcotics networks in Afghanistan. And, finally, the
report would also require the President to identify all
sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and provide an
assessment of the effectiveness of these sanctions.
The committee hopes the Government of Iran will seize the
opportunity offered by President Barack Obama to engage in
direct diplomacy with the United States to discuss areas of
mutual interest and to engage in a good faith effort to resolve
all outstanding issues related to its support for terrorism and
extremism, and illicit nuclear and missile development
activities.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Sense of Congress on establishment of measures of progress to evaluate
United States strategic objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan
(sec. 1231)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
Sense of the Congress that the Administration should review any
previously established measures of progress for Afghanistan as
required by section 1230(d) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and
modify, add, or further establish applicable measures of
progress for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as part of the
report on Afghanistan required by section 1230 of Public Law
110-181 and the report on Pakistan required by section 1232 of
Public Law 110-181, consistent with the Administration's new
strategy for the region as announced on March 27, 2009, and
thereafter.
Items of Special Interest
China's use of nonmilitary warfare concepts
The Department of Defense's Annual Report to Congress on
the Military Power of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has
included a brief description of the PRC concept of the ``three
warfares'', generally identified as psychological warfare,
media warfare, and legal warfare. These concepts, also referred
to as ``nonmilitary warfare concepts'', have also been the
subject of hearings before the United States-China Economic and
Security Review Commission and were discussed in some detail in
the Commission's 2008 report to Congress. The March 2009
harassment of the USNS Impeccable by Chinese ships in the South
China Sea stands as a recent example of how the PRC may be
using the concept of ``legal warfare'', for instance, to
influence regional events. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to examine the implications of the ``three warfares''
on United States military affairs in the region and requests
the Secretary to provide additional detail on each of them,
including examples and trends, in the 2010 report to Congress.
Recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia
The committee is concerned about the recent surge in piracy
off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden and believes
that piracy must be an urgent part of our national security
dialogue. The April 2009 pirate attack on the U.S.-flag ship
Maersk Alabama, and the ensuing rescue operation of Captain
Richard Philips orchestrated by our Nation's military,
particularly the United States Navy and Navy SEALS, underscores
the value of the armed forces in confronting piracy. While it
is widely agreed that the naval forces of the world have a
critical role to play in deterring and combating pirates, the
problem is more complex and requires a holistic approach
combining military efforts with industry efforts, diplomatic
outreach, and robust prosecutions.
Today, policymakers are searching for solutions to combat
piracy and, more broadly, to address the situation in Somalia--
a failed state that lacks a functioning government capable of
enforcing its laws, or policing and securing its territory,
including its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone. The
committee believes that it is imperative that the international
community come together to confront and solve this growing
problem of piracy. Ultimately, the most durable, long-term
solution will be achieved ashore, not on the high seas. While a
more permanent solution involves engaging broadly on Somalia's
myriad issues ashore, near-term coordinated international
action is necessary to protect ships, cargos, and, most
importantly, seafarers from the proliferation of piracy in the
region.
Currently, the primary mechanism for U.S. military
involvement is Combined Task Force-151, which consists of naval
forces of the U.S. and several of our allies while cooperating
and coordinating with the navies of a broad array of other
nations, including Pakistan, Russia, India, and China. We
cannot, however, expect the armed forces to secure completely a
vast maritime expanse roughly equivalent to the distance of the
U.S. coastline from Maine to Florida. The global commercial
shipping industry, to include the shipping companies and their
insurers, must also take necessary steps to protect their ships
and crews.
The committee believes that the U.S. military must remain
proactively involved in the issue, but that the industry must
develop effective piracy countermeasures, including the
employment of private armed shipboard security teams capable of
responding to and preventing pirate attacks. Although this
alone will not lead to a permanent solution to the problem it
is a necessary step that must be taken while we pursue such a
solution.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec.
1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill,
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$424.2 million, an increase of $20.0 million above the budget
request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program.
This provision would also authorize specific amounts for each
CTR program element, require notification to Congress 30 days
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal
year 2010 funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in
the provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal
year 2010 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for
each CTR program element.
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for
new Cooperative Threat Reduction initiatives for states outside
of the former Soviet Union, $7.0 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination and $3.0 million for additional
expenses associated with the Russian and other chemical weapons
destruction activities.
The committee continues to believe that one of the highest
priorities of the CTR program is destroying Russian chemical
weapons munitions at the destruction facility in Shchuch'ye,
Russia. The CTR program has entered into an arrangement with
the Russian Government that assigns responsibility to Russia to
complete the U.S. funded destruction facility and begin
operations. Timely startup and safe operation of the facility
is essential and continues to be a matter of concern to the
committee. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary to
notify the congressional defense committees immediately if
there is any delay or other problem in the startup of either
the Russian funded destruction facility or the U.S. funded
destruction facility. The committee notes that the formal
dedication ceremony for the Shchuch'ye facility was conducted
in May.
The additional $3.0 million for chemical weapons
destruction shall be available for sustainment of the community
outreach efforts and to provide technical or other assistance
to assist with the Shchuch'ye facility startup, or other
chemical weapons destruction activity.
The committee notes that there are other countries with
stockpiles of bulk chemical agent and chemical munitions
outside of the former Soviet Union for which the Department of
Defense (DOD) could provide destruction assistance. The
committee urges DOD to explore assisting other countries with
chemical weapons destruction requirements.
Authority to enter into agreements to receive contributions for
Biological Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to receive contributions from any person the
Secretary of Defense deems appropriate for purposes of the
biological threat reduction program (BTRP) at the Department of
Defense. The BTRP is a program carried out under the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. Any funds accepted
would be retained by the Secretary of Defense in a separate
account in the Treasury, but would be available for obligation
and expenditure without further appropriation. If the funds
contributed have not been obligated or expended within 3 years
from the date received they shall be returned to the original
donor. This authority would expire on December 31, 2015.
The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to
notify the congressional defense committees within 30 days
after receiving any contributions. The notification shall
include the person who made the contribution and the value and
purpose of the contribution. The Secretary of Defense may not
obligate the funds accepted until 15 days after the notice is
submitted. In addition, the provision would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees an annual report for each fiscal year in which funds
are accepted describing the contributions received in that
fiscal year. This annual report would be due no later than
October 31 of each year and would describe the contributions
for the previous fiscal year.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy has
successfully utilized similar authority for several of the
Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. The committee
urges the Secretary of Defense to utilize this authority to the
maximum extent practical to allow other countries,
organizations, and individuals to contribute to the important
BTRP programs. If the Secretary of Defense determines that the
authority is useful, the committee would welcome suggestions
for any additional CTR programs that could utilize this type of
authority.
Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds for
bilateral and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament
activities (sec. 1304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to obligate not more than 10 percent
of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program for any bilateral or
multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation or
disarmament, notwithstanding any other provision of law. The
Secretary may exercise this authority after notifying the
appropriate congressional committees 15 days in advance of the
intent to exercise this authority and if the President
certifies the action is necessary to support the national
security objectives of the United States.
The committee believes that additional flexibility is
needed to ensure there are adequate funds available to address
urgent immediate requirements for which funds might not
otherwise be available or are inadequate. Similar authority has
been provided to the Secretary of Energy elsewhere in this
bill.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Extension of previously authorized disposal of cobalt from National
Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411)
The committee recognizes the volatility of the cobalt
market and the current economic downturn, which has reduced
demand for cobalt material. The committee authorizes that
cobalt sales authority to be extended 2 years through fiscal
year 2011.
Authorization for actions to correct the industrial resource shortfall
for high-purity beryllium metal in amounts not in excess of
$80,000,000 (sec. 1412)
Subsection 303(a)(6)(c) of the Defense Production Act of
1950 (Public Law 81-774) requires a specific authorization from
Congress for any action or actions taken to correct an
industrial resources shortfall, that would cause the aggregate
outstanding amount of all such actions to exceed $50.0 million.
The budget request has $19.5 million which the Department
estimates will complete the project; however, this amount of
funding will place them over the current $50.0 million limit by
statute.
The committee is aware of the Department's concern that
unanticipated cost growth may occur. Accordingly, the committee
authorizes an increase not in excess of $80.0 million.
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$134.0 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2010 from the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund. Of the amount
requested, $62.0 million would be used for the operation and
maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and $72.0
million would remain available for construction and renovation
of physical plants.
The committee notes that in accordance with section 418 of
title 24, United States Code, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense will inspect the Retirement Home's
Washington D.C. location this year. Because committee staff
continues to hear concerns expressed about issues with staffing
and health care services at the Retirement Home, the committee
looks forward to the Inspector General's report and its
continued oversight of the operations of the Retirement Home.
Budget Items
T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship
The fiscal year 2010 budget request included $940.1 million
within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for building
two T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships.
These next two vessels are intended to support the Maritime
Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F), concept. At this time
last year, the future-years defense program (FYDP) included
several ships in the plan to support the MPF(F) concept.
However, the FYDP did not include any T-AKE vessels after 2009.
The other MPF(F) vessels that were in that FYDP last year
have been delayed in this budget, on the basis that the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) needs to review this concept
before implementing it.
The committee notes that the Navy's acquisition strategy
for these two T-AKE vessels includes exercising options on
existing contracts that would remain in force until after
fiscal year 2010. In other words, the contract options would be
available to exercise, at the Navy's discretion, until fiscal
year 2011 for one ship and fiscal year 2012 for the other ship.
In the face of the pending QDR review, it would make sense
to hedge our bets on moving forward as rapidly as this on one
part of the program, when the Department has delayed other
parts of the program pending that review.
The committee believes that continued production of only
one of these vessels is sufficient to hedge against a positive
outcome for the MPF(F) concept in the QDR, while avoiding a
production break in the shipyard. The Navy could use available
funds to contract for some advanced procurement to protect
shipbuilding schedules, but need not award the full contract
for the second ship to do that.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $400.0
million to reflect delaying exercising the option for the
second of the two ships at least until fiscal year 2011, after
the Department completes the QDR reviews of the MPF(F) concept.
Defense Coalition Support Fund
The budget request included $22.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Coalition
Support Fund. The legislative authority for this fund, which
would require an amendment to title 22, United States Code,
does not currently exist. The committee recommends a decrease
of $22.0 million in OMDW for the Defense Coalition Support
Fund.
Defense Health Program Operation & Maintenance funding
The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense
Health Program Operation and Maintenance account includes the
following changes from the budget request. The provisions
underlying these changes in funding levels are discussed in
greater detail in title VII of this committee report.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
TRICARE continuation pending MEDICARE eligibility..... 4.0
Reimbursement for exceptional travel.................. 10.0
TRICARE eligibility for Retired Reservists under the 10.0
age of 60............................................
Expansion of survivor eligibility for the TRICARE 2.0
dental program.......................................
-----------------
Total............................................. 26.0
Medical products sustainment
The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 67100HP for
medical products and capabilities enhancement activities. The
committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for this
account. The committee believes that this activity needs to be
better justified, with specific sustainment activities related
to specific medical products or technologies identified to
justify requested funds.
Breast Cancer Center of Excellence
The budget request included $113.3 million in PE 63115HP
for medical technology development. The committee recommends a
reduction of $5.3 million for the Breast Cancer Center of
Excellence. The committee believes there are higher medical
research priorities for the Department of Defense, including
addressing critical infectious disease, combat casualty care,
and warfighter psychological health issues. The committee
further notes that the National Institutes of Health's National
Cancer Institute has requested a fiscal year 2010 budget of
over $5.0 billion. The committee believes that the Department
of Defense should leverage those funds to address any
identified military cancer research priorities.
Department of Defense Inspector General
The budget request included $272.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). The committee is concerned that
funding levels for independent audit and investigative
functions should keep pace with the demand for these services.
Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of $16.0
million in OMDW for the OIG, of which $15.0 million is for
operation and maintenance and $1.0 million is for procurement.
The OIG audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the
programs and operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), and
recommends policies and process improvements that promote
economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD
programs and operations. The committee notes the dramatic
growth in the number and cost of Department contracts for
operations, procurement, research, and construction within the
United States and around the world. The increase recommended by
the committee should enable the OIG to conduct oversight
related military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, contract
management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify
potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
TITLE XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Purpose (sec. 1501)
This section states the purpose of this title which is to
authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency
operations.
Army procurement (sec. 1502)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Army
procurement.
Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Navy
and Marine Corps procurement.
Air Force procurement (sec. 1504)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Air
Force procurement.
Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1505)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
Defense-wide activities procurement.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1506)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
research, development, test, and evaluation expenses.
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1507)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
operation and maintenance expenses.
Military personnel (sec. 1508)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for
military personnel expenses.
Working capital funds (sec. 1509)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for defense
working capital funds.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for the
Defense Health Program.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1511)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities, defense-wide.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1512)
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513)
This section would provide that the amounts authorized for
overseas contingency operations in this title are in addition
to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Funding tables (sec. 1514)
This section would provide that the amounts authorized for
overseas contingency operations in this title are to be
available for the projects, programs, or activities in the
dollar amounts indicated by funding tables in Division D of
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1515)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of overseas contingency
operations funding authorizations in this title among the
accounts in this title. The committee also recommends a
provision that would authorize the transfer of up to $1.5
billion of overseas contingency operations funding
authorizations in this title to the Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected Vehicle Fund. These special transfer authorities are
in addition to the general transfer authority contained in
section 1001 of this Act, but the same reprogramming procedures
applicable to transfers under section 1001 would also apply to
transfers under this section.
Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund (sec. 1516)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund in fiscal year 2010 will
comply with the conditions in subsections (b) through (g) of
section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 428).
Availability of funds in Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1517)
The committee recommends a provision that would specify the
uses of funds transferred by the Secretary of State to the
Secretary of Defense during fiscal year 2010 for the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) to provide assistance to the
security forces of Pakistan to build the counterinsurgency
capability of the Pakistan military forces and the Pakistan
Frontier Corps. The provision would require prior to the
expenditure of PCF funds that the Secretary of Defense provide
an assessment as to whether the Government of Pakistan is
committed to confronting the threat posed by Al Qaeda, the
Taliban, and other militant extremists based on a determination
by the Government of Pakistan that these extremist groups pose
a threat to Pakistan's national interest and confronting this
threat is critical to Pakistan's own national interest. The
provision would also authorize the transfer of funds from the
PCF account to other accounts of the Department of Defense,
provide for prior notice to Congress before the transfer of
these funds, and require quarterly reports on the specific uses
of these funds.
Budget Items
Single channel ground to air radio systems family
The budget request for overseas contingency operations
includes $128.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for
the procurement of single channel ground to air radio systems
(SINCGARS). The committee understands that the Army bases this
request on anticipated battle losses for which there appears to
be no record or documentation of actual loss over time upon
which to base a projection. Further, if funded fully, the
budget request would procure radios at a level beyond the
Army's validated acquisition objective. It also remains unclear
to the committee how the Army is accounting for the more than
64,000 SINCGARS-like radios the Army procured in fiscal year
2005 against its acquisition objective.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.0
million in OPA for SINCGARS radios due to unjustified program
growth. The funding that remains in the budget request should
be used to cover the installation cost of systems already
procured and sustainment of existing systems. The committee
also directs the Army to request funds for SINCGARS sustainment
transitions in the appropriate Operation and Maintenance, Army
budget activity in fiscal year 2012 and beyond.
Force XXI battle command brigade and below
The budget request for overseas contingency operations
includes $242.9 million in other procurement, Army (OPA), for
Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The Army's
Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities list included a request
for an additional $179.0 million in FBCB2 funding. FBCB2, used
in conjunction with the Blue Force Tracking System, has proven
its value in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by
increasing the ability of commanders to control the conduct of
small unit operations while at the same time reducing the risk
of fratricide. The committee recommends an increase of $179.0
million in OPA for FBCB2.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request for overseas contingency operations
(OCO) includes $1,535.0 million for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund. In title I of this act, the
committee recommended a transfer of $564.9 million to title XV
of this Act, including $203.1 million for the joint improvised
explosive device defeat organization's (JIEDDO) attack the
network line of operation; $199.1 million for JIEDDO's defeat
the device operation; $41.1 million for JIEDDO's train the
force operation; and $121.6 million for JIEDDO's staff and
infrastructure line of operation. These adjustments are
reflected in the appropriate tables.
Despite the Department's decision to institutionalize
JIEDDO, the committee believes that JIEDDO's funding should
remain in the OCO portion of the budget request because JIEDDO
was organized in response to threats confronted by U.S. forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee continues to be
concerned that the Department cannot adequately oversee
JIEDDO's budget, manpower, and activities in a manner that
ensures the most efficient and effective delivery of equipment
and capabilities to U.S. forces. The committee urges that the
Department consider reexamining JIEDDO's oversight structure to
determine whether a principal staff assistant could devote time
and attention to JIEDDO's activities commensurate with the size
of its activities.
The committee recognizes that improvised explosive devices
(IED) will likely remain the weapon of choice for extremists
operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee commends
JIEDDO for its ongoing efforts to counter the threat posed by
IEDs to U.S. forces, and supports the Department's request to
maintain JIEDDO's robust funding levels.
JIEDDO has executed over $300.0 million for the
construction of training lanes and other IED-specific training
devices over the past few fiscal years. While the committee
believes JIEDDO has an important role to play in coordinating
the dissemination of information about tactics, techniques, and
procedures being used by extremists and developing
recommendations on how to counter IED threats and train U.S.
forces, the committee believes the military departments have
primary responsibility for training of their respective forces.
Therefore, the committee directs JIEDDO to fund neither
additional training lanes nor support and sustainment thereof
after fiscal year 2010. The committee feels strongly that
funding the sustainment and upgrade of training lanes is the
sole responsibility of the appropriate military department,
defense agency, or combatant command.
The committee supports the direction provided to JIEDDO by
the appropriations committees relating to the future of the
counter-improvised explosive device operations integration
center (COIC). The committee believes COIC contributes to the
Department provision of reach-back capabilities for
conventional forces, and the committee commends JIEDDO's focus
on these efforts. The committee is, however, concerned that the
COIC may be duplicative and/or insufficiently coordinated with
other similar organizations within the military departments,
defense agencies, and intelligence community. The committee
understands that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with United States Central Command, and the Joint
Staff, is undertaking an assessment of the relative
contributions of various entities that provide reach-back
support, and looks forward to the results of this analysis.
The committee notes that the Department has taken
inconsistent positions on the disposition of ad hoc, but
critical, entities created to respond to the urgent needs of
combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As noted elsewhere in
this report, the Secretary of Defense has stated in testimony
before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on
Defense, that the intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) task force should be phased out, while at
the same time, the Department has decided to institutionalize
JIEDDO. Just as the committee is concerned about the possible
hasty demise of the ISR task force, so too the committee is
concerned about the premature decision to make JIEDDO
permanent. The committee urges the Department to clarify the
criteria it is using to determine which institutions should
become permanent and which should not, and to demonstrate how
these criteria are being consistently applied across
organizations.
MQ-9 Reaper modifications
The committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in
line 66, Air Force Aircraft Procurement, for MQ-9
modifications. The budget request included funds for
procurement and integration of a long-range camera that the Air
Force has decided not to buy.
Commanders' Emergency Response Program
The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq
and Afghanistan, consisting of $300.0 million for CERP in Iraq
and $1.2 billion for CERP in Afghanistan. The committee's
concerns regarding the level of CERP funding for Afghanistan,
which has grown rapidly in recent years, are discussed in title
XII. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
million in OMA, OCO, for CERP.
Human terrain teams
The budget request included $1.4 billion for security
programs in Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO), including funds for Human Terrain
Teams (HTT). The committee supports the HTT program but expects
that the reduction in troop levels in Iraq will result in a
reduction in the requirement for additional HTTs. The committee
recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in OMA OCO from the
request.
Information Dominance Center
The budget request included $1.4 billion for security
programs in Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO), including funds for the
Information Dominance Center (IDC) within the Intelligence and
Security Command. The IDC has performed pioneering work in data
mining, analytic collaboration, information sharing technology,
and concepts of operation before and after the events of
September 11, 2001, including direct support for deployed
forces. The committee believes, however, that the IDC
activities can be pared back as other organizations and
activities now provide similar support and capabilities. The
committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million in OMA OCO to
the request.
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
The budget request included $700.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF). Following the
submission of the budget request, the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State reached an agreement that for fiscal
year 2010 funds for the PCF would be transferred from funds
appropriated to the Department of State. Therefore, the
committee recommends a decrease of $700.0 million in OMA, OCO,
for the PCF.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Summary
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security
Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base
closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions in base closure rounds.
The tables in Division B of the bill provide the project-
level authorizations for the military construction funding
authorized in Division B of this Act, other than the overseas
contingency operations projects authorized in title XXIX, and
summarize that funding by account. Funding for base closure
projects is summarized in the table that follows, and is
explained in additional detail in the table included in title
XXVII of this report.
The fiscal year 2010 budget requested $22.95 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$13.1 billion was requested for military construction, $1.96
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $7.9 billion for base closure activities, including $7.5
billion to implement the results of the 2005 Base Realignment
and Closure round.
Excluding the overseas contingency operations projects in
title XXIX, the committee recommends authorization of
appropriations for military construction and housing programs
totaling $22.92 billion. The total amount authorized for
appropriations reflects the committee's continuing commitment
to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and
infrastructure. The committee recommends an increase of $1.08
billion for additional construction projects, and a reduction
of $1.06 billion in unjustified or lower priority projects, for
a net increase of $22.0 million to the amount requested for
military construction and family housing. Additionally, the
committee recommends the rescission of $112.5 million in prior
year funding no longer required.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
Division B of this Act as the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization infrastructure program as October 1, 2012, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later.
Effective date (sec. 2003)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX
of this Act take effect on October 1, 2009, or the date of
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Funding tables (sec. 2004)
The committee recommends a provision that directs that the
funding authorized for appropriations in sections 2104, 2204,
2304, 2404, 2411, 2502, and 2606 shall be available, in
accordance with requirements of sections 4001 for projects,
programs, and activities, and in the amounts, specified in the
funding table in sections 4501, 4502, 4503, and 4504.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.66 billion for military construction and $796.65 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.47 billion for military construction and $796.65 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
In December 2007, the Army announced its specific force
structure and stationing strategy to accommodate active end
strength growth of 65,000 personnel. As part of that strategy
the Army indicated that it would increase its number of brigade
combat teams (BCTs) by six, from 42 to 48. In fiscal year 2009
the Army was authorized and had appropriated more than $1.1
billion in military construction funding and $333.0 million in
Army Family Housing for BCTs 46, 47, and 48 at Forts Stewart,
Carson, and Bliss. In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the
Army has decided to limit future growth to 45 BCTs. The
committee, rather than rescind the fiscal year 2009 funding for
the three BCTs which will not be activated, expects that the
Army will come forth expeditiously with alternative plans and
project reprogramming requests where necessary to meet its
other long standing barracks, vehicle maintenance, troop dining
facility, and company operations facility shortfalls. However,
the committee also notes that the fiscal year 2010 request
included funding for other BCT construction and range
facilities which are in excess of the new requirements. Funding
for those projects have been reduced or eliminated.
Additionally, $53.0 million in fiscal year 2009 funding for
Army Family Housing at Fort Carson, Colorado is rescinded. The
Army has indicated to the committee that because of the
elimination of one BCT, Fort Carson has adequate housing for
the number of soldiers and their families assigned. At Fort
Bliss, Texas the committee notes that the Army proposes to
continue construction of facilities for an Infantry Brigade
Combat Team (IBCT) which will not now be activated. The
Committee is also aware that the Army awarded contracts at Fort
Stewart, Georgia and Fort Carson, Colorado even after the
Secretary of Defense announced plans to reduce the number of
Army BCTs. The continued construction of those facilities,
along with the marginal justification for occupancy by existing
units for the project at Fort Bliss, would appear to be
presumptuous given that some of these decisions are well in
advance of Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) decisions.
The committee also eliminated without prejudice $20.0
million funding requested for site preparation for the National
Museum of the U.S. Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The status
of fundraising for the museum will not permit construction to
begin immediately after the site preparation is completed. Each
military construction project must result in a complete and
usable facility and the current construction plan and timeline
will build segments of the museum, but not a complete facility.
In fiscal year 2009 the committee fully authorized, but
incrementally funded a Command and Battle Facility at
Wiesbaden, Germany intended for the 7th Army Headquarters. The
Army did not fund the second increment in its fiscal year 2010
request. It also did not fund a number of other companion
facilities which had been planned. This puts into question the
entire Wiesbaden relocation plan. The committee understands the
decision on relocation has been deferred pending the QDR. While
the full authorization remains, the committee rescinds the
fiscal year 2009 authorization for appropriations of $59.5
million.
Finally, the committee eliminated funding for the Warrior
Transition Complex at Landstuhl, Germany pending a decision on
the final location of a hospital replacement facility for the
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2010. It would also authorize
funds for facilities that support family housing, including
housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage
facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2010 to improve existing Army family
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2010 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Army. The State list contained in
this bill is the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec.
2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for two Army fiscal year 2006 military
construction projects at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii,
until October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2011, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the
Department of Defense.
Item of Special Interest
Cooperative security location in Manta, Ecuador
The committee continues to monitor closely the Ecuadorian
Government's decision not to renew the lease of the United
States Government at Manta Air Base, which is used by the
United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance operations against illegal
narcotics trafficking in the Eastern Pacific. In 1999, the
United States signed a 10-year agreement with then Ecuadorean
President Jamil Mahuad. The Government of Ecuador fulfilled its
agreement allowing the United States to conduct counter-
narcotics operations out of Manta through 2009.
The committee notes that the Manta Air Base provided a
unique set of capabilities that are difficult to replace in a
single location and that SOUTHCOM is looking at several options
to mitigate the loss of Manta. However, the loss of Manta will
impact the operational reach of detection and monitoring
missions in the Eastern Pacific region, and while some
operations can be conducted from other locations in the region
to mitigate some of the loss of Manta, operating from different
locations increases transit times and operational costs.
The committee understands that SOUTHCOM is currently
preparing a mitigation plan for the loss of Manta Air Base.
With this in mind, the committee directs the Commander of
SOUTHCOM to provide a report to the committee 60-days after
enactment of this Act which would include SOUTHCOM's mitigation
plan, as well as explain how the Command specifically intends
to mitigate this loss to its detecting and monitoring
operations in the Eastern Pacific; what, if any, replacement
options within the region are being explored; and the potential
for future negotiations with the Government in Ecuador.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.76 billion for military construction and $515.11 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2010.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.53 billion for military construction and $515.11 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
The committee notes with particular interest that the
fiscal year 2010 budget request contains the first increment of
funding for the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. An
item of special interest later in this title reflects the
committee's view on this critical program.
The committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded
the Ship Repair Pier Replacement Facility at Norfolk, Virginia
as well as the Apra Harbor Wharves Improvement project on Guam.
These are large projects, projected for late fiscal year 2010
award, and will take several years to complete construction.
The committee reduced funding for the Military Working Dog
facility on Guam, which appears to be overstated. It should be
noted that United States Special Operations Command is building
a number of similar sized facilities in this budget request at
an average cost of slightly more than $3.0 million each.
Finally, the committee eliminated funding for the Andersen Air
Force Base North Ramp Utilities for the reasons cited in the
items of special interest on Guam.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction and planning and design of family housing
units for the Navy for fiscal year 2010. It would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2010 to improve existing Navy family
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2010 in this Act.
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the
amount authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the
Marine Corps. The State list contained in this bill is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2006 project (sec. 2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Division B of Public Law 109-163) to increase
the project authorization for a waterfront security enclave at
Bangor, Washington, by $67.0 million, as well as extend the
authorization until October 1, 2012. This increase and
extension were requested by the Department of Defense.
Budget Item
Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa
The budget request includes $41.6 million in military
construction funds for four separate projects at Camp Lemonier
in Djibouti. The projects include $21.7 million for an
ammunition supply point, $8.1 million for security fencing
around the perimeter of the base, $7.2 million to pave several
internal base roads, and $4.8 million to construct a fire
station. The committee recommends funding all four of these
military construction projects.
The committee notes that the facilities of the Combined
Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) at Camp Lemonier,
Djibouti, have been largely funded to date by supplemental
appropriations for expeditionary infrastructure. CJTF-HOA
staffing has likewise been expeditionary in nature, with
personnel and officers serving rotations of 1 year or less.
Prior to United States Africa Command's (AFRICOM) status as a
fully operational combatant command, the committee expressed
concern over the lack of guidance on the future presence of
U.S. military forces on the African continent. Since that time,
however, AFRICOM officials have referred to CJTF-HOA as an
enduring forward operating site providing a persistent, rather
than an episodic, presence for building regional security
capacity. The committee recognizes the importance of CJTF-HOA,
particularly given the continuing counter-piracy mission off
the coast of Somalia, and the importance of regional persistent
engagement opportunities, but the committee requires further
clarification on the future of CJTF-HOA on the continent. As
such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
to the congressional defense committees, 180 days after
enactment of this Act on specific responsibilities of CJTF-HOA
within AFRICOM and the relationship between AFRICOM, CJTF-HOA,
the Offices of Security Cooperation (OSC) in the Task Force's
area of operations, and OSCs on the continent but outside the
CJTF-HOA's Operations Area. The committee further expresses
concern as to whether AFRICOM resources will be able to sustain
the current level of operations in future years.
Items of Special Interest
Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam
The committee notes that on February 17, 2009, The United
States Government reaffirmed its support of an agreement with
the Government of Japan concerning the implementation of the
relocation of 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to
Guam by 2014 in a manner that maintains unit integrity. This
realignment is a key element of the transformation of the
alliance with Japan and secures the enduring presence of
remaining U.S. forces in Japan. The committee is aware that the
success of this agreement depends on many factors including
tangible progress towards completion of the Futenma Replacement
Facility, successful completion of the environmental impact
statement for Guam, and the coordinated funding of over $10.0
billion by both countries to complete construction of all
operational requirements, housing, as well as the upgrade to
infrastructure and utilities on Guam.
Regarding the Futenma Replacement Facility, the committee
notes that ``tangible progress'' is currently considered by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to be a signature by the Governor
of Okinawa on a landfill permit required to commence
construction. This action is currently planned to take place in
mid to late 2010 and would allow the U.S. Government to gain
flexibility to make adjustments in the timeline and
determination of units to be moved to Camp Schwabb, Okinawa.
The environmental impact statement (EIS) currently underway
is a statutory requirement that must be completed prior to
commencement of construction in order to allow military
planners to mitigate any significant negative impact to the
environment on the Island. The Record of Decision for the EIS
is scheduled to be completed in 2010. The EIS will also serve
as the opportunity to develop firm requirements to ensure
adequate individual training of Marines on Guam and collective
training in the region. Several concerns were brought to the
attention of this committee during testimony in recent months.
To date, projects to support these training requirements have
not been identified or planned.
Investments in Guam's infrastructure for port upgrades,
roads, and utilities are the essential first steps to ensure
that significant construction efforts can be supported without
detrimental impact to the local community. The committee notes
that no funding is included in the President's budget for
fiscal year 2010 to address Guam's port and utility
infrastructure requirements, despite the fact that $378.0
million has been requested to start construction of a new ramp
at Anderson Air Base, to upgrade military piers at Apra Harbor,
and to relocate a military working dog facility.
In addition, Congress has repeatedly requested from the DOD
a master plan that details the facilities to be constructed and
validates the estimates of funding required to complete the
move to Guam. To date, the Department has not provided any
details of a masterplan or an investment strategy. This
omission is of critical concern to the committee absent the
submission of a future-years defense plan (FYDP) to accompany
the budget request for fiscal year 2010. An FYDP would go a
long way toward illustrating to the committee that the total
U.S. investment required for the initiative can be supported in
future budget requests. The FYDP is currently being assessed as
part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and is likely to be
affected by major program changes in a potentially constrained
fiscal environment.
The committee also notes that the authorization of the
construction requested for the ramp and utilities at Anderson
Air Force Base will not result in a complete and useable
facility as required by section 2801 of title 10, United States
Code. This could preclude its use for the requirement
identified in the justification data that accompanies the
budget unless further construction is also authorized and
appropriated in future years. This partial construction has the
risk of becoming a ``bridge to nowhere'' without a firm
indication of future funding to complete the requirement.
In consideration of these facts, the committee recommends
that authorizations for the partial construction of certain
projects unique to the movement of Marines to Guam be deferred
until the DOD provides Congress with: (1) a master plan
detailing construction efforts and the total costs; (2) a FYDP
that provides Congress with an understanding of the impact of
this initiative on future defense budgets; 3) a final
environmental impact statement with a firm mitigation plan to
minimize the negative impact to the local community; 4) a firm
plan to address Marine training requirements; and 5)
confirmation of tangible progress towards completion of the
Futenma Relocation Facility.
Secretary of the Navy report on an outlying landing field
The committee notes the requirement for the Department of
the Navy to establish an outlying landing field (OLF) to
support the stationing and operation of carrier-based fixed-
wing aircraft on the east coast of the United States within a
suitable range of both Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, and
Naval Station Norfolk/Chambers Field, Virginia. The OLF will
also support training requirements of transient carrier-based
aircraft to be stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry
Point, North Carolina. The OLF serves as a critical training
facility for pilots to practice aircraft carrier landings with
lower risk and under more controlled conditions before
conducting highly demanding day and night carrier landings at
sea. A new OLF will afford the Department increased scheduling
capacity to mitigate current capacity shortfalls, greater
operational flexibility, improved safety, and higher training
fidelity in operational flight training on the east coast. The
committee is aware that public opposition has been expressed to
the Department of the Navy during the preparation of an
environmental impact statement evaluating sites for a future
OLF in North Carolina and Virginia. The committee expects the
Secretary of the Navy to take into consideration the impact on
local communities of the placement and operation of an OLF and
to examine means to mitigate the impact on those communities.
As part of that consideration, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to engage and consult with the State of
North Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as
local governments and other public stakeholders, prior to the
issuance of a final environmental impact statement and record
of decision, to identify ways to mitigate impacts, to evaluate
opportunities for economic assistance, and to minimize the land
removed from the state tax base. The committee further directs
the Secretary of the Navy, prior to the issuance of a final
environmental impact statement and record of decision, to
provide to the congressional defense committees a report
containing a review of the aforementioned engagement and
consultations, as well as the results of those engagements. The
report shall include a description of the measures taken by the
Department of the Navy to identify all suitable options for the
location of an outlying landing field.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.15 billion for military construction and $569.04 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.18 billion for military construction and $569.04 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2010.
The committee does not recommend authorization of
appropriations at this time for the War Reserve Material
Compound and the Airlift Ramp and Fuel Facilities at Al
Musannah Air Base in Oman. The projects were proposed as a
result of a Government of Oman request to U.S. Central Command
to relocate existing U.S. military facilities from Seeb
International Airport, Oman, in order to facilitate commercial
development. The committee is concerned that projects have been
requested for Al Musannah Air Base, without a base master plan,
without the appropriate long-term agreements in place with the
Omani Government, and without consideration of contributions
from the host nation. Furthermore, the committee notes that an
additional $350 million would need to be included in U.S.
defense future budgets in order to ensure these projects could
be used for their intended purpose. Absent a future-years
defense plan to accompany the budget request for fiscal year
2010, the committee is unable to confirm the commitment of
funds in future budgets to complete this requirement.
The committee does not recommend authorization of
appropriations at this time for a new hangar facility at Naval
Air Station (NAS) Sigonella, Italy, to support the Global Hawk
unmanned aerial vehicle. The committee notes that Navy flight-
line facilities at Sigonella are currently underutilized and
can accommodate this requirement in the near-term, starting
with the arrival of the first Global Hawk system in October,
2009. The committee recommends deferring the investment in
additional flightline facilities at NAS Sigonella until the
Quadrennial Defense Review results inform future Navy P-8 and
unmanned systems programs, as well as subsequent basing
decisions for these programs at NAS Sigonella.
The budget request included an authorization of
appropriation of $33.75 million to upgrade electrical
infrastructure at Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, intended to
support the establishment of power hub for intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, strike, and aerial refueling
assets. The committee notes that an additional $500.0 million
would need to be included in U.S. defense future budgets in
order to ensure this project can be used for its intended
purpose. Absent a future-years defense plan to accompany the
budget request for fiscal year 2010, the committee is unable to
confirm the commitment of funds in future budgets to complete
this requirement. The committee has been briefed that the
project will also correct power distribution deficiencies for
current mission operations at Anderson Air Force Base.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to ensure that the authorization of appropriations for this
project are expended to only carry out the scope of work in the
construction data provided with the budget request that
addresses current requirements regarding power distribution on
the south side of Anderson Air Force Base.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2010.
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction and planning and design of family housing
units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2010. It would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2010 to improve existing Air Force
family housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2010 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Air Force. The State list
contained in this bill is the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec.
2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2007 military
construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These extensions were
requested by the Department of Defense.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec.
2306)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2006 military
construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These extensions were
requested by the Department of Defense.
Temporary prohibition on use of funds for military construction
improvements, Palanquero Air Base, Colombia (sec. 2307)
The committee recommends a provision which would fence the
funding for military construction improvements at Palanquero
Air Base, Colombia until the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies to the
congressional defense committees and the military construction
appropriations committees that the negotiations with the
Republic of Colombia have resulted in long-term access rights
that will permit United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to
adequately perform its mission.
The Air Force budget request includes $46.0 million for
military construction improvements at Palanquero Air Base,
Colombia, including funding for runway, apron expansion, and
various other facilities improvements. The committee is aware
of the not yet completed negotiations between the United States
Government and the Republic of Colombia regarding access rights
for American equipment and personnel. As a result, the
committee believes these funds should not be expended until the
Commander of SOUTHCOM has secured terms that will permit the
Command to perform its mission over a period of time that
justifies the investment in military construction.
Further, the committee is aware of the Department's
expected loss of Cooperative Security Location Manta, Ecuador
later this calendar year, and the Department's ongoing
requirement for air base facilities from which to operate
counter-narcotics aerial detection and reconnaissance
operations. As such, the committee has approved the Air Force
request for $46.0 million in funding for military construction
projects at Palanquero Air Case, Colombia.
Finally, the committee is aware of concerns raised and the
perception that this expanded U.S. military presence in the
region, particularly for Colombia's neighbors (e.g., Venezuela,
Ecuador, and Bolivia) will give rise to increased skepticism
about American military intentions in the region. Given these
concerns, the committee directs the Commander of SOUTHCOM to
consult partner nations in the region to ensure they are aware
of ongoing U.S. requirements for robust counter-narcotics
aerial detection and reconnaissance operations.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.1 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $146.54 million for chemical demilitarization
construction, and $75.04 million for family housing for the
defense agencies, the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the
Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.86 billion for military construction, $151.54 million for
chemical demilitarization construction, and $425.04 million for
family housing programs for fiscal year 2010 including a
significant increase to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
The committee reduced funding for the fiscal year 2010
increment of the National Security Agency's Utah Data Center.
This $1.59 billion facility was recently fully authorized as a
military construction project, but the level of funding
requested cannot be reasonably executed in this fiscal year.
The committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded
the hospital replacement projects in Guam and at Lackland Air
Force Base, Texas.
The committee made small reductions in funding for Health
and Dental Clinics at Forts Carson, Stewart, and Bliss in order
to right size to account for the elimination of three brigade
combat teams from the Army at those installations. In addition,
the Hospital Replacement Facility at Fort Bliss, Texas is a
conjunctively funded project which is split between the
military construction account and the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) account. The committee reduced the military
construction portion of the funding for this project by $27.6
million and expects the Department to use $24.0 million of BRAC
funding, no longer required for the Hospital Alteration Project
PN 72865, to fund the project at a slightly reduced scope. The
committee also eliminated funding for one of two elementary
schools requested for Fort Stewart, Georgia which the
Department of Defense Educational Activity has indicated is now
in excess of requirements given the projected reduction in
soldiers and dependents to be assigned. Although a brigade will
no longer be activated there is enough other growth at Fort
Stewart to warrant another elementary school. The committee
added $50.0 million for construction of an elementary school at
Boeblingen, Germany. The current facility is located in a
converted troop barracks and has significant life, health, and
safety concerns.The committee fully authorized the Hospital
Replacement project on Guam for $446.45 million, but
incrementally funded the authorization for appropriations for
fiscal year 2010 at $200.0 million. Similarly, the committee
fully authorized the Ambulatory Care Center at Lackland Air
Force Base for $441.0 million but authorized for appropriation
the first increment of $70.0 million.
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations
Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2010 for architectural and engineering
services and construction design activities for construction or
improvement of existing family housing units.
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation
projects.
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2010 in this Act. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The State list contained in this bill is the binding
list of the specific projects authorized at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project
(sec. 2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
table relating to the Defense Logistics Agency section 2401 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Division B of Public Law 110-181) in the item related to
Point Loma Annex, California. This increase was requested by
the Department of Defense.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 project
(sec. 2406)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
table relating to the Defense Logistics Agency section 2401 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009 (Division B of Public Law 110-417) in the item related to
Souda Bay Greece. This increase was requested by the Department
of Defense.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 project (sec.
2407)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for one Defense Logistics Agency fiscal year 2007
military construction project at Richmond, Virginia until
October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever
is later. This extension was requested by the Department of
Defense.
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations
Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization
construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the chemical
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2010. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriation of $276.3 million for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2010.
The committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of
$276.3 million for this program.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $276.3 million for the United States'
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program for fiscal year 2010.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $1.02 billion for military construction in
fiscal year 2010 for National Guard and Reserve facilities. The
committee recommends a total of $1.27 billion for military
construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding
recommendations are contained in the State list table included
in this report.
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-
location basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2010 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
State list contained in this bill is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec.
2607)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2007
military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 project (sec.
2608)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for Army National Guard fiscal year 2006
military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. This
extension was requested by the Department of Defense.
TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES
Summary
The budget request included $396.8 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The
committee has authorized the amount requested for these
activities in section 2701 of this Act.
In addition, the budget requested an authorization of
appropriations of $7.5 billion for implementation of the 2005
BRAC round. Section 2702 of this Act would authorize the full
$7.5 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2010.
Included in the $7.5 billion requested for BRAC is an
authorization for appropriations for $5.9 billion in military
construction projects that would be initiated in fiscal year
2010. Section 2702 of this Act provides authorization for these
projects.
The table in Title XXVII of Division B of the bill provides
the specific amount authorized for each BRAC military
construction project as well as the amount authorized for
appropriations for all BRAC activities, including military
construction, environmental costs, relocation and other
operation and maintenance costs, permanent change of station
costs for military personnel, and other BRAC costs.
Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment
activities funded through Department of Defense base closure
account 1990 (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through
Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for fiscal year 2010 that are
required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title
of the bill lists the specific amounts authorized at each
location.
Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment
activities funded through Department of Defense base closure
account 2005 (sec. 2703)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal
year 2010 that are required to implement the decisions of the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for BRAC military construction projects. The State list
contained in this bill is the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Report on global defense posture realignment and interagency review
(sec. 2704)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees an annual report on the status of overseas base
closure and realignment actions undertaken as part of a global
defense posture realignment strategy and the status of
development and execution of comprehensive master plans for
overseas military main operating bases, forward operating
sites, and cooperative security locations. In addition, the
report would require the Secretary of Defense to include in the
report a review by the Department of State and other federal
departments and agencies deemed necessary to national security.
The provision would also amend section 118 of title 10, United
States Code, to direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees 90 days after
completing a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) on the impact of
that review on the global posture of United States military
forces.
The committee notes that in 2004, the President released an
Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy which
subsequently was known as the Global Defense Posture
Realignment Strategy. This strategy, planned for implementation
over 8 to 10 years, calls for roughly 70,000 military personnel
and 100,000 dependents to return from overseas locations from
Europe and Asia to bases in the continental United States.
Other overseas forces were to be redistributed within current
host nations such as Germany and South Korea, while new sites
would be established in the nations of Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, and Africa. The committee is aware that these realignment
plans may have a major impact across many aspects of U.S.
foreign and security policy. As such the committee has an
ongoing interest in ensuring that the Global Defense Posture
Realignment is closely aligned with an overarching strategic
framework agreed upon by key government agencies in the
national security strategy formulation process.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense's
2010 QDR will provide an important opportunity to formulate a
strategic framework that may affect the U.S. global defense
posture. Therefore, the committee expects that a report
assessing the impact of the QDR on global basing plans should
also be shared with other federal agencies responsible for
national security.
Sense of the Senate on need for community assistance related to base
closures and realignments and force repositioning (sec. 2705)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that, as the Federal Government implements
base closures and realignments, global repositioning, and
initiatives to increase the end strength of the Army and the
Marine Corps, it is necessary to assist local communities
coping with these programs and to comprehensively assess the
needs and degree of assistance to communities to effectively
implement the various initiatives of the Department of Defense
while aiding communities to either recover quickly from
closures or to accommodate growth associated with troop
influxes.
The committee notes that Subsection (b)(4) of section 2905
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A
of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; section 2687 of title 10,
United States Code note) states ``that Secretary shall seek to
obtain consideration in connection with any transfer under this
paragraph of property located at the installation in an amount
equal to the fair market value of the property, as determined
by the Secretary.'' The same section also authorizes the
Secretary to convey property at no cost if the redevelopment
authority with respect to the installation agrees that the
proceeds from any sale or lease of the property received by the
redevelopment authority during at least the first seven years
after the date of the initial transfer of property shall be
used to support the economic redevelopment of the installation.
The committee encourages the Department's use of a full
range of opportunities to assist local communities, including
the use of no-cost economic development conveyances (EDCs) to
facilitate economic development during tough economic time. In
testimony on June 17, 2009 before the Readiness and Management
Support Subcommittee by Department of Defense representatives,
the committee recognizes that ``since 2002 the Army has granted
68 Cost and No-Cost EDCs for 32,000 acres (23 No-Cost EDC
parcels covering 31,000 acres and 45 ``Cost'' EDC parcels
covering 1,000 acres), the Navy eight (8) for 4,000 acres with
zero ``Cost'' EDCs, and the Air Force 19 No-Cost EDCs covering
just under 24,000 acres.''
The committee is also aware that the proceeds gained from
consideration received as a result of a property disposed under
BRAC authorities are used to supplement appropriated funds to
accelerate environmental clean-up, remediation, and compliance
actions for other BRAC property. Therefore, funds received for
properties have a direct impact on the Department's ability to
address other military requirements.
Relocation of certain Army Reserve units in Connecticut (sec. 2706)
The committee recommends a provision that authorizes the
Secretary of the Army to locate an Army Reserve Center and
Maintenance Facility in the vicinity of Newtown, Connecticut,
at a location to be determined by the Secretary.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
Military construction and land acquisition projects authorized by
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction and land acquisition projects for the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Extension of authority to use operation and maintenance funds for
construction projects inside the United States Central Command
and United States Africa Command areas of responsibility (sec.
2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would further
amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as amended, to
extend for 1 additional year, through the end of fiscal year
2010, the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of
Defense to use funds appropriated for operation and maintenance
to carry out construction projects intended to satisfy certain
operational requirements in support of a declaration of war,
national emergency, or other contingency.
Modification of authority for scope of work variations (sec. 2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the
Department of Defense from carrying out military construction
projects or the construction, improvement, or acquisition of a
military family housing project in which the scope of work
exceeds the amount specifically authorized by Congress.
Modification of conveyance authority at military installations (sec.
2813)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2869 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
secretary concerned to enter into an agreement to convey real
property, including any improvements thereon, to any person who
agrees, in exchange for the real property, to carry out a land
acquisition to limit encroachment around Department of Defense
installations and ranges. This provision would also require the
authority to sunset on September 20, 2013.
Two-year extension of authority for pilot projects for acquisition or
construction of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2814)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
Navy's authority for unaccompanied housing for 2 years.
Subtitle B--Energy Security
Report on Department of Defense efforts toward installation of solar
panels and other renewable energy projects on military
installations (sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
report no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act on
the Department's efforts to place solar panels and other
renewable energy projects on military installations. The
committee is aware of the efforts of individual services to
place renewable energy projects on military installations as
part of an overall effort to achieve partial independence from
the commercial electrical grid during periods of emergency and
natural disaster. The committee is also aware that the services
are adapting existing statues, particularly section 2667 of
title 10, United States Code, in order to have commercial
entities construct and operate these projects. The report
directed by this statute should describe all ongoing efforts,
legislative and regulatory obstacles, recommended changes to
current statute which will enhance this effort, and the
Department's renewable energy goals by 2025.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
Land conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia (sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer 2.4 acres at Naval Air
Station, Oceana, Virginia to the city of Virginia Beach,
Virginia. This would be for the purpose of permitting the City
to expand services to support the Marine Animal Care Center.
Items of Special Interest
Incrementally funded programs
The Department has consistently resisted the funding of
large complex multiyear construction projects incrementally,
i.e. seeking full authority for the project in the annual
budget request, and then an authorization for appropriation on
a yearly basis until completion. The Department has instead
chosen to fund these projects by using a phasing strategy.
Since section 2801(b) of title 10, United States Code 2801(b),
requires that each phase result in a complete and useable
facility, this strategy can lead to inefficient designs,
complex construction difficulties brought on by multiple
contractors on a single site, repeated contractor
mobilizations, and inefficient ordering of construction
materials. This phasing strategy often leads to higher overall
costs to the government and longer construction times from
start to finish. The committee has authorized incremental
funding for several large complex military construction
(MILCON) projects in fiscal year 2010. These projects include
two hospitals, a ship repair pier, and a Wharf Improvement
Project. For the two hospitals alone it is estimated that the
government will save over $165.0 million using this method as
opposed to a phased strategy. While the vast majority of MILCON
projects should adhere to the principal of yearly full funding,
there are a few large and complex projects that warrant
incremental funding. This strategy has been used to great
efficiency in the BRAC account. The Department is strongly
encouraged to consider incremental funding for those few and
finite projects where the government is able to achieve
substantial savings and efficiencies.
Report on long-term strategy to accommodate force structure initiative
implementation at military installations
The committee finds that the simultaneous implementation of
force structure initiatives in the United States has exceeded
capacity of existing infrastructure at military installations.
In order to provide enough living and working space for service
members, the Department of Defense (DOD) has acquired
relocatable facilities that are used as barracks,
administrative offices, dining halls, and equipment maintenance
facilities. In addition, existing barracks at military
installations are in deteriorating conditions, due to lack of
facilities sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM), and
necessary military construction investments by the Department.
To date, DOD has not provided the committee a comprehensive
and detailed plan for replacing relocatable facilities with
permanent facilities, or a long-term strategy to invest in or
replace existing deteriorating infrastructure. Additionally,
DOD continues to delay funding of anticipated permanent
facilities, SRM and necessary military construction required to
accommodate force structure initiatives already being
implemented. The committee believes that providing permanent
adequate facilities for our service members, especially
housing, is essential to the health of the force.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than January 30, 2010, outlining a strategy to replace
relocatable housing with permanent facilities, and investments
or replacement military construction required to provide
adequate housing for service members at installations affected
by force structure initiatives. The report shall include: (1)
how many relocatable facilities are currently being used, (2)
what installations have relocatable facilities, (3) an
installation-by-installation plan to replace relocatable
facilities with permanent facilities, (4) a plan to replace,
sustain, restore or modernize deteriorating and outdated
barracks, and (5) investment details associated with the plan.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZATIONS
Summary
The President's Overseas Contingency Operations budget
request for fiscal year 2010 included $1.4 billion for military
construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. The table in
section 4504 describes the specific projects and recommended
adjustments for fiscal year 2010. The committee removed from
those fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations military
construction tables' projects for which funds have already been
appropriated. The committee then substituted similar projects
for Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan from the regular fiscal year
2010 military construction authorization request. The committee
added $20 million for a facility in Mons Belgium for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Coordination
Center.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$930.49 million in overseas contingency military construction
projects for the Army for fiscal year 2010.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2902)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$474.8 million in Overseas Contingency Operations military
construction projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2010.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Overview
Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2010, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes
appropriations in four categories: (1) National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental
cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) defense nuclear
waste disposal.
The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at
the Department totaled $16.4 billion, a 1 percent increase
above the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriated level. Of the
total amount suggested:
(1) $9.9 billion is for NNSA, of which:
(a) $6.4 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.0 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $420.8 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.5 billion is for defense environmental
cleanup;
(3) $852.5 million is for other defense activities;
and
(4) $98.4 million is for defense nuclear waste
disposal.
The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy
supply.
The committee recommends $16.4 billion for atomic energy
defense activities, the amount of the budget request.
Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
(1) $10.2 billion for NNSA, of which;
(a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities,
an increase of $106.2 million above the budget
request;
(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, the amount of the
amount of the budget request;
(c) $1.0 billion is for naval reactors, the
amount of the budget request; and
(d) $420.8 million is for the Office of the
Administrator, the amount of the budget
request;
(2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup
activities, a decrease of $100.0 million below the
amount of the budget request;
(3) $852.5 million for other defense activities, the
amount of the budget request; and
(4) $98.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal,
the amount of the budget request.
The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a
reduction of $6.2 million.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $10.0 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal
year 2010 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to
carry out programs necessary to national security, an increase
of $106.2 million above the budget request.
Weapons activities
The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons
activities, an increase of $106.2 million above the budget
request. The committee authorizes the following activities:
$1.6 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.6 billion for
campaigns; $1.7 billion for readiness in the technical base and
facilities; $234.9 million for the secure transportation asset;
$227.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response;
$90.4 million for site stewardship; $871.6 million for
safeguards and security; $154.9 million for facilities and
infrastructure recapitalization; and $30.0 million for support
to intelligence.
Directed stockpile work
The committee recommends $1.6 billion for directed
stockpile work, an increase of $45.0 million above the amount
of the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports
work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including
day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development,
engineering, and certification activities to support planned
life extension programs. This account also includes fabrication
and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies,
weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support
equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in
weapons dismantlement and disposition to position Pantex to
support additional dismantlements and to explore potential
dismantlement scenarios for the Device Assembly Facility to
augment or support Pantex. The committee recommends an increase
of $30.0 million for research and development for certification
and safety. The committee is concerned that sufficient
attention be paid to more collaborative certification
activities and that there is a need to ensure that methods to
improve surety and safety in nuclear weapons are further
explored.
Campaigns
The committee recommends $1.6 billion for campaigns, an
increase of $15.5 million above the amount of the budget
request. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts
involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada
Test Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is
focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the
nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing.
These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the
Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile
remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons
testing.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
advanced certification to further support the committee's
concern that increased attention be paid to surveillance
activities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for enhanced surety and $10.0 million for enhanced
surveillance in engineering campaigns to continue to support
efforts to further enhance the knowledge of the health of the
stockpile and addressed surety concerns. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.5 million in the inertial
confinement fusion campaign for Omega operations to ensure that
the Omega facility can fully support work at the National
Ignition Facility to achieve ignition in 2010. To support the
increase in certification and surveillance activities the
committee recommends an increase in the advanced simulation and
computing campaign of $9.0 million. The committee recommends a
reduction of $20.0 million in the readiness campaign for
tritium readiness. The reduction for tritium readiness takes
into account a large carryover balance resulting from
contracting delays and problems with the tritium producing
bars.
Readiness in the technical base
The committee recommends $1.7 billion for readiness in the
technical base, an increase of $10.0 million above the budget
request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure in
the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding
for new facilities.
The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement project (CMRR),
Project 04-D-125, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a
result of uncertainty in the design of the CMRR. The committee
notes that the certification required to be made by the Defense
Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) and the National Nuclear
Security Administration has not been made. The committee
continues to believe that replacing the existing facility is
essential but the CMRR has significant unresolved issues
including the appropriate size of the facility. Some of these
decisions will not be made until the Nuclear Posture Review is
completed at the end of the year. The CMRR is one of two
projects that the DNFSB has identified as having significant
unresolved safety issues. These issues are associated with the
project's safety-related systems. Until such time as the safety
basis documents are completed, the outstanding issues cannot be
resolved. CMRR will be a category I facility supporting pit
operations in building PF-4 and has a preliminary cost estimate
of $2.6 billion. As stated last year the committee continues to
support reconstitution of the pit manufacturing capability in
PF-4 but urges that all safety issues with CMRR be resolved as
soon as possible. If there is any change in the planned mission
at CMRR, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
notify the congressional defense committees.
The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for
the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) refurbishment,
Project 09-D-007. The LANSCE is the only machine capable of
performing nuclear cross section measurements of weapons
materials to support the resolution of significant findings
investigations. LANSE refurbishment would also further enhance
the ability of the NNSA to perform surveillance on the
stockpile.
Secure transportation asset
The committee recommends $234.9 million for the secure
transportation asset (STA), the amount of the budget request.
The secure transportation asset is responsible for the
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure
transport. Last year the committee directed the STA to include
in its budget submittal for fiscal year 2010 a break out of the
lease expenses for each leased facility and the expenses for
each minor construction project. The committee has been
notified that this third-party financing option is no longer
being pursued. If the STA resumes consideration of any third-
party option, the committee expects STA to fully notify
Congress of any third-party financing arrangements in advance
of executing any leases.
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response
The committee recommends $227.6 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response, an increase of $5.7 million
above the amount of the budget request. This increase supports
the committee's efforts to improve U.S. capability for nuclear
forensics and attribution. Additional funds are also provided
in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.
Safeguards and security
The committee recommends $871.6 million for safeguards and
security, the amount of the budget request.
Facilities and infrastructure
The committee recommends $154.9 million for the facilities
and infrastructure program (FIRP), the amount of the budget
request. FIRP was established to address the backlog of
deferred maintenance at NNSA facilities. While the FIRP has
been successful, the committee continues to be concerned that
as the FIRP comes to a close, routine maintenance of
facilities, utilities and infrastructure upgrades, such as
electrical system and road improvement, will once again be
deferred to address programmatic demands.
Site stewardship
The committee recommends $90.4 million for site
stewardship, the amount of the budget request.
Support to intelligence
The committee recommends an increase to weapons activities
generally of $30.0 million to ensure that the National Nuclear
Security Administration Laboratories can continue to support
the intelligence community with specialized analysis
particularly in the areas of nuclear weapons issues and nuclear
weapons related proliferation activities as well support for
biological and chemical weapons proliferation issues.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs
The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, the same as the budget
request. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
has management and oversight responsibility for the nuclear
nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $347.3 million for nonproliferation and verification
research and development, an increase of $50.0 million; $193.2
million for nonproliferation and international security, a
decrease of $14.0 million; $552.3 million for international
nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the
budget request; $24.5 million for elimination of weapons-grade
plutonium production, the amount of the budget request; $705.9
million for fissile materials disposition, an increase of $4.0
million; and $313.5 million for the global threat reduction
initiative, a decrease of $40.0 million.
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The committee recommends $347.3 million for
nonproliferation and verification research and development, an
increase of $50.0 million for increased forensics capabilities,
international safeguards technologies, nuclear detonation
systems, seismic monitoring, proliferation detection
technologies, and support to joint DOE Air Force space
situational awareness activities.
The committee is particularly concerned about the long-term
ability of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine
nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear
weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal
devices. Currently, the fragile U.S. forensic research and
development capabilities of DOE and its laboratories underpin
the capabilities of all the federal agencies dealing with
nuclear forensics and attribution.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been assigned
responsibility to work with the various Executive Branch
agencies to coordinate technical nuclear forensics and
attribution responsibilities. As part of that responsibility
DHS, working with the other agencies, must develop requirements
and identify the capabilities needed to detect, locate, render
safe, and attribute any nuclear event, and to identify gaps in
the necessary capabilities. While some work has started, much
remains to be done. In order to more fully integrate and
coordinate these actions, the committee recommends a provision
elsewhere in this Act to develop a nuclear forensics and
attribution plan.
Nonproliferation and international security
The committee recommends $193.2 million for
nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of
$14.0 million, including a reduction of $2.0 million for Global
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP), and a
reduction of $12.0 million for nuclear noncompliance
verification, as a result of the failure of the North Koreans
to support the Six-Party Talks.
Last year, when the committee was working on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417), there was great hope that the Six-Party Talks, which were
making progress at the time, would result in the permanent
dismantlement and disablement of the North Korean nuclear
weapons program. Unfortunately the talks have come to a
complete stop since the North Koreans conducted another nuclear
test, ejected the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors, reversed most of the initial disablement work,
started to reprocess the irradiated fuel previously under the
IAEA seal, and have repeatedly tested cruise and ballistic
missiles. Other provocative actions, such as the detention of
the U.S. journalists, have further aggravated an already tense
situation. As a result the committee, reluctantly, has not
authorized any of the funds requested to support future
disablement and disarmament actions. In the event that there is
any change in the current situation and the North Koreans
return to the negotiating table, sign a binding verifiable
agreement to disclose fully and to dismantle permanently their
nuclear weapons program, the committee would welcome an amended
or supplemental budget request, or reprogramming action, to
implement such an agreement.
Fissile materials disposition
The committee recommends $705.9 million for fissile
materials, an increase of $4.0 million. The committee notes
that the United States and Russia have made considerable
progress in formulating a new plan for each country to
disposition 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium
and that the protocol to the Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement (PMDA) could be signed in the near
future. The committee continues to support the fissile
disposition program as an important part of the overall nuclear
nonproliferation program. The committee recommends a $2.0
million reduction in the U.S. uranium disposition program. The
committee notes that the program office intends to buy depleted
uranium to blend-down U.S. highly enriched uranium. The
committee believes that other programs in DOE, notably the
Environmental Management (EM) program, has material that could
be used as blend-down stock and that this material should be
transferred to the uranium blend-down program at no charge.
The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million for the
Russian fissile materials disposition program to continue the
joint gas reactor technology demonstration program. The gas
reactor is a more efficient burner of excess plutonium than
either conventional nuclear power reactors or fast reactors,
which Russia currently plans to use to disposition plutonium.
The committee notes that Russia and the United States jointly
fund this effort and that Russian support for the program
generally exceeds the U.S. contribution.
The Russian fissile material program has supported the gas
reactor design and technology risk reduction program for many
years and the committee believes that the time has come for a
decision to be made with respect to the future of the gas
reactor. As a result, the committee directs DOE to enter into
discussions with Russia and establish a plan, no later than
December 1, 2011, to either build a gas reactor or close the
U.S. portion of the gas reactor technology program.
Global threat reduction initiative
The committee recommends $313.5 million for the global
threat reduction initiative, a decrease of $40.0 million. These
funds were requested to support disablement and dismantlement
of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
International nuclear fuel bank
The committee is pleased to note that international support
for the IAEA international fuel bank continued to grow and over
$100.0 million has now been raised so that the Nuclear Threat
Initiative challenge to provide $50.0 million for the fuel bank
has been met. With the required funding in hand the IAEA has
taken the first initial steps to formulate plans to implement
the fuel bank. The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
provide to the congressional defense committees, brief
quarterly updates on the progress implementing the fuel bank
over the course of the next 2 years. The first quarterly report
shall be due April 1, 2010 and the last quarterly update shall
be due December 31, 2012.
Naval reactors
The committee recommends $1.0 billion for naval reactors,
the amount of the budget request. The committee notes that the
Office of Naval Reactors has begun design work to support a new
strategic ballistic missile submarine, in advance of the
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). While this work is premature from
a policy perspective, the committee understands that the work
must start this year to support the replacement schedule for
the current SSBN fleet should the NPR determine that a follow-
on ballistic missile submarine is needed.
Office of the Administrator
The committee recommends $420.8 million for the Office of
the Administrator, the amount of the budget request.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.4 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year
2010 for defense environmental cleanup, a decrease of $100.0
million below the amount of the budget request. Without the
approximately $6.0 billion in funds received under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)(Public Law 111-5)
the DOE office of Environmental Management (EM) would be at
risk of not meeting a number of milestones in various
compliance agreements. With these funds, however, EM will be
able to not only reduce its backlog of projects but in many
instances will be able to accelerate projects, particularly
decommissioning projects. EM plans to obligate and expend the
ARRA funds over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. As a result, the
effective EM annual budget is approximately $8.0 billion for
each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, a substantial increase from
prior years.
While the committee recognizes that need for additional
funds for the EM program generally, the committee is concerned
about the ability of the EM program to manage and oversee this
substantial increase, particularly in light of the fact that
the EM office is understaffed to manage the regular budget
request. As a result, the committee recommends a reduction of
$100.0 million in the fiscal year 2010 budget request as the
committee believes there is a low probability that all of the
AARA funds and the amount included in the budget request could
be obligated and expended by the end of fiscal year 2010 or a
reasonable period of time thereafter.
Waste Treatment Plant
The committee is aware of a design review that EM is
carrying out at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at the
Department of Energy Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The
purpose of this review is to simplify the operations of the
pretreatment facility. One aspect of the review is a
reassessment of the material at risk (MAR), to determine if the
level of radioactivity in the waste to be treated is in fact as
high as was previously assumed. This review will also look at
the application of the integrated safety management process and
determine if certain of the safety systems could be downgraded,
if the MAR is modified. The EM office is currently developing a
schedule to review, modify, and approve: the MAR, the pre-
treatment plant design revision, the equipment design
modification, and a plan for procurement, fabrication, and
installation of equipment. Simplification of operations is a
laudable goal but the committee is very concerned about this
entire process and the possibility that in the long run the
changes made could reduce operational or environmental safety,
complicate long term operations, and possibly increase the
overall cost of the WTP or delay the schedule for the waste
treatment plant.
The committee notes that EM has recently committed to take
a more cautious approach than originally planned and will use
an independent review panel to look at the technical, safety,
near- and long-term operational effects, and cost and schedule
implications of any changes or revisions.
The Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB), as the
statutory review body for operational nuclear safety at DOE
defense nuclear facilities, must also have adequate time to
review fully all aspects of this process, including all
documents and the results of all studies, including the results
of the independent review before any changes are adopted or
implemented. Only after complete review will the DNFSB be in a
position to make a recommendation on the advisability of any
proposed changes or modifications.
The committee expects this whole process to be carried out
expeditiously but also thoroughly and expects to be kept
informed by both DOE and the DNFSB as the effort progresses.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$852.5 million for other defense activities, the amount of the
budget request. The committee recommends $449.9 million for
health, safety and security, the amount of the budget request;
$189.8 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget
request; $6.4 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
the amount of the budget request; $83.4 million for the Office
of Nuclear Energy, the amount of the budget request; $123.0
million for departmental administration, the amount of the
budget request.
Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$98.4 million to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management for the defense contribution to the effort to
permanently dispose of high level nuclear waste.
Funding table (sec. 3105)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
that the amounts authorized for the Department of Energy in
this title are available for the projects, programs, or
activities and in the dollar amounts indicated by the funding
tables in Division D of the Act.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy to carry out a life extension program, to
develop a life extension program plan and direct the manner in
which funds for the life extension programs should be requested
in the annual Department of Energy budget request. This
provision recognizes that the nuclear weapons stockpile is
aging and that the existing efforts to extend or repair weapons
will need to continue. The provision also directs the Secretary
to establish mechanisms to ensure the appropriate assignment of
roles and missions for each laboratory plant. Clear lines of
responsibility should be established to avoid duplication and
overlap of activity. The committee is concerned that there is
unneeded duplication of effort and not enough true peer review.
Finally to ensure that there is true and rigorous peer review
the provision would direct that each lab has full access to all
data and information about each nuclear weapon available.
The committee believes that as the stockpile draws down the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) should increase
the level of intensity of surveillance activities to improve
the knowledge of the aging stockpile. The committee is also
concerned that there may be missed opportunities to make the
stockpile more secure through surety improvements in the
weapons themselves. As a result the committee recommends
increases in various weapons activities accounts that deal with
surveillance, certification, and surety. Other elements of work
that should be included in the life extension program include
efforts to reduce the complexity of the weapons and change as
possible the use of exotic and toxic materials.
Elimination of nuclear weapons life extension program from exception to
requirement to request funds in budget of the President (sec.
3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4209 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2529)
to eliminate the nuclear weapons life extension program
exception in the budget request. This provision would have
relieved the President from specifically requesting funds for
life extension programs. In recent years, the Appropriations
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have
in fact required that the funds be specifically requested, as a
result this provision is no longer necessary.
Repeal of reliable replacement warhead program (sec. 3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 4204A of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2524a) directing the Department of Energy to establish a
reliable replacement warhead program.
Authorization of use of International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation program funds for bilateral and multilateral
nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Energy to obligate not more than 10 percent of
the funds authorized to be appropriated for the international
nuclear materials protection and cooperation program for any
bilateral or multilateral activities relating to
nonproliferation or disarmament, notwithstanding any other
provision of law. The Secretary may exercise this authority
after notifying the congressional defense committees 15 days in
advance of the intent to exercise this authority and if the
President certifies the action is necessary to support the
national security objectives of the United States.
The committee believes that additional flexibility is
needed to ensure there are adequate funds available to address
urgent immediate requirements for which funds might not
otherwise be available or are inadequate. Similar authority has
been provided to the Secretary of Defense elsewhere in this
bill.
Repeal of prohibition on funding activities associated with
international cooperative stockpile stewardship (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 4301 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2561).
This provision repeals a prohibition on a program that no
longer exists.
Modification of minor construction threshold for plant projects (sec.
3116)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4701(3) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2741(3)) to modify permanently the threshold for general plant
projects from $5.0 million to $7.0 million. The committee notes
that for fiscal year 2009 this threshold was temporarily
increased to $10.0 million.
Two-year extension of authority for appointment of certain scientific,
engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 3117)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until September 30, 2011, the authority for the Secretary of
Energy to hire, establish, and set rates of pay for not more
than 200 positions in the Department of Energy for scientific,
engineering, and technical personnel whose duties will relate
to safety at defense nuclear facilities.
Repeal of sunset date for consolidation of counterintelligence programs
of Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3118)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 3117 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). When the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was created
there was a separate office of counterintelligence established
in the NNSA and another office of counterintelligence for the
Department of Energy (DOE). In 2006, DOE and NNSA determined
that it would be more efficient to combine these offices into
one office of counterintelligence that served the entire DOE.
Congress agreed to the consolidation in Section 3117 of Public
Law 109-364, but to ensure that the new single office would
effectively serve all of the DOE entities, the authority for
the consolidated office would expire at the end of fiscal year
2010.
The committee believes that the consolidated office has
been effective and understands that both the Secretary of
Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA support the integrated
counterintelligence office.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Ten-year plan for utilization and funding of certain Department of
Energy facilities (sec. 3131)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) and the Under Secretary of Science (USS) at the
Department of Energy to jointly develop a plan to use and fund,
over a 10-year period, the National Ignition Facility at the
Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos Neutron Science
Center at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the ``Z''
Machine at the Sandia National Laboratory. The committee notes
that these three facilities are primarily funded and maintained
by NNSA, but each of these has significant contributions to the
science and energy research communities. The committee believes
that the NNSA Administrator and the USS should explore how
these unique facilities could be used and supported
collaboratively to ensure that the capabilities of the
facilities are fully utilized.
Review of management and operation of certain national laboratories
(sec. 3132)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Armed Services
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, to
appoint an independent panel of experts to conduct a review of
the management and operation of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Sandia
National Laboratory.
The committee notes that several recent studies have
focused on the organizational location of the three labs but
not on their actual management and operations. The committee
believes that the labs should remain under the Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, but believes
that a review of the lab operations is timely.
Inclusion in 2010 stockpile stewardship plan of certain information
relating to stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 3133)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy to include, in the annual stockpile
stewardship plan for fiscal year 2010, an update on the
stewardship criteria used to assess the safety, security, and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The last update
of the criteria was completed in 2005. The 2010 plan would also
include a review of each science-based tool, such as
experimental facilities, developed or modified in the last 5
years.
The committee believes that as the stockpile ages and the
total number of nuclear weapons in the stockpile decreases, the
Department of Energy should articulate clear criteria for the
stockpile stewardship program going forward.
Comptroller General of the United States review of projects carried out
by the Office of Environmental Management of the Department of
Energy pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (sec. 3134)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General to review and report on the efforts of the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management
(EM) to identify and implement cleanup projects using the funds
received pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). The review would occur in three
phases. The first phase is an initial review focused on the
criteria used for project selection and the process to develop
cost and schedules for the projects. The second phase would be
an ongoing review of the project implementation with quarterly
reports on the ongoing work. The committee expects these
quarterly reports to be short letter reports that give a very
brief status of the projects, including jobs generated and
preserved. The third and final phase of the review would be a
recap of the entire effort that would look at areas such as
cost and schedule compliance and how the overall effort has led
to an accelerated cleanup schedule. The committee wants to
ensure that the funds are used to generate both jobs and
necessary cleanup work.
The committee supports the work of the EM Office to
accelerate the cleanup effort and utilize the funds to reduce
the overall footprint of the DOE complex, thus reducing
maintenance costs and providing for worker health and safety.
The committee notes that the majority of on-the-job injuries in
the DOE complex occur as a result of work being done in and
around old buildings that are no longer used and no longer
maintained.
Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain Department of
Energy pension obligations (sec. 3135)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
funding needed to meet pension obligations of contractor
employees at each Department of Energy (DOE) facility operated
using funds authorized in the National Defense Authorization
Acts for environmental management be included in the DOE budget
materials.
DOE is continuing a process, started approximately 3 years
ago, to no longer provide defined benefit pension plans for
newly hired contractor employees at DOE contractor operated
sites and facilities. As the workforce in the older defined
benefit plans age and retire the defined benefit plans will
require more funds as the ratio of retirees to active workers
continues to shift toward retirees. Already at the Savannah
River Site there are more retirees than active employees. With
the downturn in the economy, the situation has gotten worse as
the investments that support these plans have lost value. As a
result of this situation, these defined benefit plans will
continue to be more expensive as the amount of new
contributions decreases and more of the workforce retires. In
the long run, DOE believes that the shift to defined
contribution plans will be less costly.
To understand and manage the costs of the pension
obligations, particularly the defined benefit plans, the
committee directs that the amount of the projected pension
obligations be spelled out in the budget justification
materials for each environmental management funded site.
Item of Special Interest
W-76
The committee notes that the W-76 warhead for the submarine
launched Trident D-5 missile recently started a major life
extension effort. Planning for the life-extension took over 5
years and cost in excess of a billion dollars. The first
production unit was late as a result of the delay in
replicating a legacy material known as fogbank. A decision was
made to use this material although the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) developed a substitute for the
fogbank that would have simplified future life extensions and
long-term maintenance. The committee directs that the
Administrator of the NNSA review this decision and report to
the committee no later than August 1, 2009, on the results of
the review.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$26.1 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB) the amount of the budget request.
The committee continues to support the work of the DNFSB
and the rigorous oversight that the DNFSB brings to the
operational nuclear safety of defense nuclear facilities. The
funds requested will allow the DNFSB to increase its staff by
approximately 10 positions, still well below the statutory
personnel cap of 150. DNFSB brings a consultative, interactive,
technically competent approach to oversight that is well suited
to the work at Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear
facilities. Most of the DOE defense nuclear facilities are one
of a kind with unique and technically complex operations. On
the other hand, facilities that are more commercial-like, such
as the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, have been
statutorily directed to be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. As a result, the committee does not support a new
regulatory oversight regime for defense nuclear facilities
absent extensive and careful review, consideration, and
discussion.
TITLE XXXIII--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Maritime Administration (sec. 3301)
The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in Division D of the
bill, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific
entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
Item of Special Interest
Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate
In accordance with the requirements of Rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, this report includes a table
listing additional funding for items requested by Senators,
along with the intended recipient and intended location of
performance identified in connection with each such request.
This information is provided as an indication of the intention
of the requesting Senator, not the intention of the committee.
The information in this table will be posted on the website of
the Committee on Armed Services after the committee votes to
report the bill.
In addition, the committee has requested that each member
requesting additional funding for items in this bill provide a
certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator's
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, as
required by Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The
committee has received the requested certification from each
Senator requesting funding for items that is provided in this
bill. These certifications will also be posted on the website
of the Committee on Armed Services after the committee votes to
report the bill.
By including a table of requested funding items at the end
of the report and posting Member certifications relative to
such funding items on the committee website, the committee
takes no position as to which of these items, if any, meet the
definition of a congressionally directed spending item, limited
tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit in Rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee directs the
Department of Defense to use all applicable competitive, merit-
based procedures in the award of any new contract, grant, or
other agreement entered into with funds authorized to be
appropriated by this bill. No provision in the bill or report
shall be construed to direct funds to any particular location
or entity unless the provision expressly so provides.
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
Procurement (sec. 4101)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title I of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 105 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for procurement programs and indicates those programs
for which the committee either increased or decreased the
requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for procurement for overseas contingency operations
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title II of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 201 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for research, development, test, and evaluation
programs and indicates those programs for which the committee
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4202)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for research, development, test, and evaluation for
overseas contingency operations programs and indicates those
programs for which the committee either increased or decreased
the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title III of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 301 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for operation and maintenance programs and indicates
those programs for which the committee either increased or
decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4302)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations programs and indicates those programs for which the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
TITLE XLIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Other authorizations (sec. 4401)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XIV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 1407 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for other authorizations programs and indicates those
programs for which the committee either increased or decreased
the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for other authorizations for overseas contingency
operations programs and indicates those programs for which the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
TITLE XLV--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military construction (sec. 4501)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act, in
accordance with the requirements of sections 2004 and 4001. The
provision also displays the funding requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for
military construction programs and indicates those programs for
which the committee either increased or decreased the requested
amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
2005 base realignment and closure round FY 2010 project listing (sec.
4502)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XXVII of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2004 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for 2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year
2010 project listing programs and indicates those programs for
which the committee either increased or decreased the requested
amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act military construction (sec.
4503)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5) in accordance with the requirements of sections 2004 and
4001.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4504)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XIX of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2004 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for military construction programs and indicates those
programs for which the committee either increased or decreased
the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
TITLE XLVI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4601)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in
title XXXI of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of
sections 3105 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for Department of Energy national security programs and
indicates those programs for which the committee either
increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense (DOD) may not exceed the
authorized amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if
unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
budget justification documents of the DOD) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
By letter dated May 13, 2009, the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010,
and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed
legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication
1673 to the Committee on Armed Services on May 20, 2009.
Executive Communication 1673 is available for review at the
committee.
Committee Action
The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original
bill and a series of original bills for the Department of
Defense, military construction and Department of Energy
authorizations by voice vote.
The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 passed unanimously by
roll call vote, 26-0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin,
Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida,
Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Graham, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr, Vitter and Collins.
Opposed: None.
The 5 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the markup
are as follows:
1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed
session because classified information will be discussed.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 20-5.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall
of Colorado, Begich, Burris, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Thune, Martinez, Wicker, and Burr.
Opposed: Senators McCaskill, McCain, Graham, Vitter, and
Collins.
2. MOTION: To fully fund 7 additional F-22 aircraft.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13-11.
In Favor: Senators Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Begich,
Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr,
Vitter and Collins.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida,
Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado,
Hagan, and McCain.
3. MOTION: To include additional funds in Navy and Air
Force research, development, test and evaluation accounts for
alternate engine development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 12-10.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Nelson of Florida,
Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Thune, Wicker, and
Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of
Nebraska, Udall of Colorado, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Martinez, and Collins.
4. MOTION: To restore the $45 million reduction for
construction of the Brigade Complex at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 9-14.
In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Vitter, and Collins.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall
of Colorado, Hagan, Begich and Burris.
5. MOTION: To prohibit the establishment of an outlying
landing field at Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, North Carolina.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 6-19.
In Favor: Senators Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich,
Burris, Chambliss, and Burr.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed,
Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb,
McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Graham, Thune, Martinez,
Vitter, and Collins.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during floor debate on the legislation.
Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHAMBLISS
In relation to the report language in the bill directing
the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a plan for executing
the Air Sovereignty Alert mission, I encourage the Air Force to
give particular consideration in their plan to the ``5
Corners'' plan in which Air Sovereignty Alert aircraft, to
include F-22's or F-35's the Air National Guard receives for
executing that mission, are based at strategic, coastal
locations in the United States, specifically Massachusetts,
California, Oregon, Louisiana, and Florida, as well as in
Alaska and Hawaii.
Saxby Chambliss.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. THUNE
I appreciate the Committee passing my Next Generation
Bomber Amendment and my Air Force Alternative Aviation Fuel
Amendment during markup of the Fiscal Year 2010 National
Defense Authorization Act. These additional views provide
further context to my amendments.
Thune Next Generation Bomber Amendment
My amendment that has been accepted by the committee
regarding the Next Generation Bomber is based on legislation I
introduced earlier this year known as the Preserving Future
United States Capability to Project Power Globally Act of 2009
(S. 1044). As my amendment states, ``[t]he 2006 Quadrennial
Defense Review found that there was a requirement for a next
generation bomber aircraft and directed the United States Air
Force to `develop a new land-based, penetrating long range
strike capability to be fielded by 2018.''' As an advocate for
preserving our nation's future long range strike capability, I
strongly disagree with the Obama Administration's proposal to
terminate the Next Generation Bomber program. Their
justification for this proposal, on page 44 of the Office of
Management and Budget's ``Terminations, Reductions, and
Savings'' document for FY10, cites a Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) conclusion that the Department of Defense's
weapons acquisition program, including the future bomber fleet,
``may not be affordable over the next six years'' and states
that ``[n]ot pursuing this [Next Generation Bomber] program
will result in savings of several hundred million dollars
through 2013.''
I believe the Obama Administration's decision to terminate
the Next Generation Bomber is a reflection of the austere
approach the administration has taken toward the funding of the
Department of Defense, rather than an approach based on the
National Defense Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review. President Obama's proposed 2010 defense budget increase
is substantially less than the robust 6.7% increase in the
overall budget. In my view, our nation's strategic long range
strike capability is eroding at an alarming rate. As I wrote in
a March 26, 2009 letter to President Obama, signed by a
bipartisan group of five other Senators,\1\ almost half of our
current bomber inventory pre-dates the Cuban Missile Crisis of
1962. There are only 16 combat ready B-2 bombers currently
available with vital stealth technology to hold targets deep in
heavily defended airspace at risk. Allowing this long range
strike capability to further erode due to budget
considerations, where less pressing priorities are robustly
funded by the administration at the expense of our nation's
long range strike capability, is a mistake we cannot afford to
make.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator David
Vitter, Senator John Cornyn, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preserving a credible long range strike capability is
important because, while our current wars are being fought in
undefended airspace, the conflicts of the near-term future will
likely feature heavily defended airspace, due in large part to
the proliferation of relatively inexpensive, but extremely
sophisticated and deadly air defense systems. These and other
emerging anti-access capabilities drive the need for a Next
Generation Bomber. Secretary Robert Gates, who I admire and
respect, has publicly acknowledged the need for a Next
Generation Bomber on at least four separate occasions:
In a September 29, 2008, speech at National
Defense University, Secretary Gates said that ``[i]n
the case of China, investments in cyber- and anti-
satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry,
submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten
America's primary means to project power and help
allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets,
and the networks that support them. This will put a
premium on America's ability to strike from over the
horizon, employ missile defenses, and will require
shifts from short-range to longer-range systems such as
the next generation bomber.'' (Emphasis added)
In the January/February 2009 edition of
Foreign Affairs, in an article entitled ``A Balanced
Strategy; Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,''
Secretary Gates wrote that ``[i]n the case of China,
Beijing's investments in cyberwarfare, antisatellite
warfare, antiaircraft and antiship weaponry,
submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten the
United States primary means to project its power and
help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea
assets, and the networks that support them. This will
put a premium on the United States ability to strike
from over the horizon and employ missile defenses and
will require shifts from short-range to longer-range
systems, such as the next generation bomber.''
(Emphasis added)
In the First Quarter 2009 edition of Joint
Force Quarterly, in an article entitled ``The National
Defense Strategy; Striking the Right Balance,''
Secretary Gates wrote that ``[i]n the case of China,
investments in cyber and antisatellite warfare, anti-
air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic
missiles could threaten America's primary means to
project power and help our allies in the Pacific: our
bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that
support them. This will put a premium on America's
ability to strike from over the horizon and employ
missile defenses; and it will require shifts from
short-range to longer range systems such as the next
generation bomber''. (Emphasis added)
During a May 14, 2009 Senate Armed Services
Hearing on the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal
Year 2010 and the Future Years Defense Program,
Secretary Gates testified that ``My own personal view
is we probably do need a follow-on bomber.'' (Emphasis
added)
Until the 2009 QDR is completed and released next year, the
2006 document is the only framework we have for judging how
well the military's airpower capabilities meet national
requirements. I believe we must undertake the task of
developing a new long range strike capability by 2018, based in
substantial part on the arguments Secretary Gates has made
since October of last year. This view is reinforced by the
views of the commanders of the United States Pacific Command,
the United States Strategic Command and the United States Joint
Forces Command, who have each testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee this year in support of the capability that
the next generation bomber aircraft would provide. General
James Cartwright, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and chair of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, has also
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year
that ``the nation needs a new bomber.''
Maintaining the Triad
Secretary Gates also stated at the same May 14 Senate Armed
Services hearing mentioned above that the negotiations with
Russia regarding the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START) to further reduce the number of nuclear weapons, are
going to ``raise the question whether we still need a triad,
depending on the number of deployed nuclear weapons that we
need.'' I believe that the triad of strategic delivery systems
(bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles)
should be maintained, for the reasons set forth by the
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, in
its final report to Congress. With regard to bombers, the
Commission states unequivocally on page 25 of its report that
it has ``reviewed arguments in favor of a dyad but recommends
retention of the current triad. Each leg of the triad has its
own value: The bomber force is valuable particularly for
extending deterrence in time of crisis, as their deployment is
visible and signals U.S. commitment. Bombers also impose a
significant cost burden on potential adversaries in terms of
the need to invest in advanced air defenses.'' It is my fervent
hope that the Obama Administration will not negotiate away the
bomber leg of the triad during talks on the follow-on START
treaty.
Delays in START Negotiations
Secretary Gates' proposal to subject decisions on our
current strategic and nuclear-force structure, including the
Next Generation Bomber, to post-START arms-control talks also
appears problematic due to the foreseeable delays that could
occur in negotiating the follow-on treaty. While seemingly
reasonable on its face, waiting until a new START treaty is
negotiated could, literally, take years. Appearing before the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last fall, Secretary
Gates himself expressed concern about how long the original
START negotiations took, and what that meant for the follow-on
START treaty about to be negotiated. The lead START negotiator,
likewise, has indicated that negotiations over the follow-on
treaty could be delayed. I do not believe the Next Generation
Bomber program should be delayed by negotiations with Russia
over the follow-on START treaty, particularly if it becomes
clear that negotiations will extend past the December 5, 2009
expiration of the current treaty.
The Nation Needs a New Bomber
During his appearance before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on May 14, 2009, Secretary Gates said that ``[t]he
idea of a next-generation bomber, as far as I'm concerned, is a
very open question, and the recommendation will come out of the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review.'' As
the Administration develops a new QDR to inform FY 2011 budget
decisions, I believe that the record that has been developed
before the Armed Services Committee since January of this year,
along with the Committee's passage of my amendment with regard
to the Next Generation Bomber, provides compelling evidence of
the need and requirement for a new bomber, and should
ultimately be validated by the new QDR. As we move forward with
the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, and observe
further decisions by the Obama Administration on the Next
Generation Bomber program, I will continue the fight to
preserve this important long range strike capability.
Thune Air Force Alternative Aviation Fuel Amendment
I appreciate the committee accepting an amendment I offered
that seeks to advance two innovations being made by the Air
Force regarding alternative aviation fuel. My amendment
represents an effort to enact into law current innovative Air
Force programs that will help alleviate America's growing
energy problems.
We need to move toward secure, domestic energy sources. One
need look no further than last year's oil price spikes, the oil
embargoes of the 1970's, or the effect recent Russian-Ukraine
natural gas disputes had on the European continent to see the
peril of relying on unsecure, foreign sources for the
preponderance of our energy needs. Continuing to fund foreign
regimes unfriendly to the U.S. grows more untenable by the day,
and we must decrease this capital flight.
This amendment advances two innovations being made by the
Air Force. First, the amendment moves the Air Force toward
domestic, synthetic fuels. The amendment sets the goal that the
Air Force certify its entire fleet on a 50/50 synthetic blend
by early 2011. The Air Force has already certified the B-1, B-
52, C-17, F-15, and F-16. The amendment also sets the goal that
the USAF acquire half of its domestic fuel requirement from a
domestically sourced synthetic fuel blend by 2016. It is
important to note the amendment contains the following
limitations:
Synthetic fuels would only be acquired if
the fuel is the same cost or less than conventional
fuels and if they have a ``greener'' lifecycle than
conventional fuels.
The synthetic fuels procured can be based on
any feedstock.
My amendment also encourages the Navy and Army to advance
similar innovations with regard to alternative aviation fuels.
We should seek to understand how the Army and Navy can also use
these alternative aviation fuels, and how the buying power of
the entire Department of Defense can achieve efficiencies and
decreased costs due to large economies of scale. The amendment
calls on the Navy and Army to annually report on each
department's goals and progress to research, test, and certify
the use of alternative fuels in their respective aircraft
fleets.
The amendment also requests the Defense Science Board to
assess the achievability and impact of the goals with
implementation recommendations while there is still time to
make program changes. The amendment requires the Defense
Science Board to report on the feasibility and impact of
reaching the Air Force's alternative energy goals. This report
is due in 2011, five years prior to the Air Force 2016 goal.
This amendment is a responsible use of public policy to
take a step toward solving our energy crisis. This amendment
will help to save the government money as any fuels procured
will be at or less than the cost of conventional petroleum
fuels. This amendment will help to preserve the environment as
any fuels procured must be ``greener'' than conventional
petroleum fuels throughout their lifecycle.
I look forward to continuing work on this and other
important defense energy initiatives.
John Thune.