[House Report 112-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress 1st
Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
112-78
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1540
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 17, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
112th Congress
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
112-78
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1540
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 17, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Legislation....................................... 1
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Position............................................... 5
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 5
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 5
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 6
Budget Authority Implication..................................... 17
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 21
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 21
OVERVIEW....................................................... 21
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 21
Overview................................................... 21
Items of Special Interest.................................. 21
Aerial Common Sensor..................................... 21
Airborne Reconnaissance Low.............................. 21
Air filters for National Guard helicopters............... 22
CH-47F Chinook helicopter................................ 22
UH-72A Lakota helicopter aircraft survivability equipment 22
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 22
Overview................................................... 22
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 23
Overview................................................... 23
Items of Special Interest.................................. 23
Abrams tank program National Guard modernization......... 23
Bradley fighting vehicle program......................... 24
M4 carbine product improvement program................... 24
Stryker vehicles......................................... 25
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 25
Overview................................................... 25
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 25
Overview................................................... 25
Items of Special Interest.................................. 25
Body armor investment strategy........................... 25
Body armor requirements generation and weight reduction
initiatives............................................ 26
Information management system for the National Guard..... 27
Joint Tactical Radio System.............................. 27
Light tactical vehicle investment strategy............... 28
M915 line haul tractor trailer acquisition strategy...... 29
Tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition strategy............ 29
Weapon light upgrades.................................... 29
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................ 30
Overview................................................... 30
Items of Special Interest.................................. 30
Efforts to mitigate the improvised explosive device
threat to dismounted operations........................ 30
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.... 30
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 31
Overview................................................... 31
Items of Special Interest.................................. 31
V-22..................................................... 31
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 32
Overview................................................... 32
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 32
Overview................................................... 32
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Laser guided air-launched rockets........................ 32
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 32
Overview................................................... 32
Items of Special Interest.................................. 33
Amphibious Assault Ship.................................. 33
Navy Shipbuilding Program................................ 33
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 34
Overview................................................... 34
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 34
Overview................................................... 34
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 34
Overview................................................... 34
Items of Special Interest.................................. 35
B-1 bomber aircraft force structure...................... 35
Common vertical lift support platform.................... 35
Global Hawk.............................................. 35
Intra-theater and inter-theater airlift programs......... 36
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 37
Overview................................................... 37
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 37
Overview................................................... 37
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 38
Overview................................................... 38
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 38
Overview................................................... 38
Items of Special Interest.................................. 38
Innovative titanium manufacturing processes.............. 38
Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal
Defense................................................ 38
Special operations combatant craft systems............... 39
Special operations communications equipment and tactical
radio systems.......................................... 39
Standard missile-3 interceptors.......................... 39
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense...................... 40
Transition of non-lethal weapons......................... 41
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 42
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 42
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 42
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 42
Section 111--Limitation on Retirement of C-23 Aircraft..... 42
Section 112--Limitation on Procurement of Stryker Combat
Vehicles................................................. 42
Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Airframes
for Army UH-60M/HH-60M Helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S
Helicopters.............................................. 42
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 42
Section 121--Multiyear Funding for Detail Design and
Construction of LHA Replacement Ship Designated LHA-7.... 42
Section 122--Multiyear Funding for Procurement of Arleigh
Burke-Class Destroyers................................... 43
Section 123--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Mission
Avionics and Common Cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S
Helicopters.............................................. 43
Section 124--Separate Procurement Line Item for Certain
Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules..................... 43
Section 125--Life-Cycle Cost-Benefit Analysis on
Alternative Maintenance and Sustainability Plans for the
Littoral Combat Ship Program............................. 43
Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for F/A-18
Service Life Extension Program........................... 44
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 44
Section 131--B-1 Bomber Force Structure.................... 44
Section 132--Procurement of Advanced Extremely High
Frequency Satellites..................................... 44
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 45
Section 141--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 45
Section 142--Contracts for Commercial Imaging Satellite
Capacities............................................... 45
Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Acquisition of Joint Tactical Radio System............... 45
Section 144--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program................ 45
Section 145--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Commercial Satellite Procurement......................... 46
Section 146--Separate Procurement Line Item for Non-Lethal
Weapons Funding.......................................... 46
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 46
OVERVIEW....................................................... 46
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 46
Overview................................................... 46
Items of Special Interest.................................. 46
Active protection systems technology development......... 46
Armed Deployable Helicopter.............................. 47
Army science and technology management................... 47
Bioinformatics initiative................................ 48
Development of personnel protection equipment for female
soldiers............................................... 48
Ground Combat Vehicle.................................... 49
Improved Turbine Engine Program.......................... 50
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle............................. 50
Medium Extended Air Defense System....................... 51
Nett Warrior............................................. 52
Precision artillery munitions acquisition strategy....... 52
Status of Future Combat Systems contract actions......... 53
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 53
Overview................................................... 53
Items of Special Interest.................................. 53
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program...... 53
Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended
Range Munition......................................... 54
Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of Alternatives....... 54
Naval gunfire support.................................... 54
Navy remotely piloted demonstration and strike aircraft
programs............................................... 55
Over-the-horizon vessel tracking......................... 56
Study on LHD Class steam plants and propulsion systems... 56
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 57
Overview................................................... 57
Items of Special Interest.................................. 57
Air Force advanced materials research.................... 57
Air Force missile field monitoring technology............ 57
Army and Air Force test, evaluation, range, and facility
support................................................ 58
Common propulsion technology development................. 58
Deep Space Climate Observatory Launch Service............ 59
Electronic, Scheduling and Dissemination Upgrade......... 59
F-35 aircraft............................................ 60
F-35 alternative ejection seat........................... 62
Hosted payloads.......................................... 63
KC-46A aerial refueling aircraft program................. 63
Lead-free electronic components.......................... 64
Military satellite communications technology development. 64
Next generation long-range strike bomber program......... 65
Operationally responsive space........................... 66
Space-Based Infrared System.............................. 66
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 67
Overview................................................... 67
Items of Special Interest.................................. 67
3-D advanced integrated circuit capabilities............. 67
Airborne Infrared........................................ 68
Basic research international cooperation................. 68
Capabilities to support humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief........................................ 69
Composite technology for use in missile defense
interceptors........................................... 69
Conventional prompt global strike........................ 69
Cyber test and evaluation................................ 70
Defense laboratory survey................................ 71
Directed energy research................................. 71
Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program.................. 72
Fabrication of micro-air vehicles........................ 73
Ground-based midcourse defense........................... 73
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System............. 75
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority
Serving Institutions................................... 75
Industrial research and development activities........... 76
Israeli cooperative missile defense...................... 76
Medical Countermeasures Initiative and the Chemical and
Biological Defense Program............................. 77
Meeting airspace needs for defense-related Unmanned
Aerial Systems research................................ 78
Missile defense adjunct sensor capabilities.............. 78
Mitochondrial disease research........................... 78
Mobile applications development.......................... 78
Multidisciplinary research in cyber-related fields....... 79
Nanotechnology research.................................. 79
National Research and Education Center for Corrosion..... 80
Phased, adaptive approach................................ 80
Precision Tracking Space System.......................... 81
Project Pelican.......................................... 82
Scientific and engineering fellowships................... 83
Semiconductor development................................ 83
Social media tools for collaboration..................... 83
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor................. 84
Study on possible establishment of a power and energy
University Affiliated Research Center.................. 84
Technology transition and insertion...................... 85
University Affiliated Research Centers................... 86
Vertical lift consortium................................. 86
Weaponization of rail-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems... 86
Weapons of Mass Destruction defeat technologies and
capabilities........................................... 87
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 87
Overview................................................... 87
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 87
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 87
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 87
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 88
Section 211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Ground Combat Vehicle Program............................ 88
Section 212--Limitation on the Individual Carbine Program.. 88
Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ohio-
class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program.... 89
Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Amphibious Assault Vehicles of the Marine Corps.......... 90
Section 215--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the
Propulsion System for the F-35 Lightning II Aircraft
Program.................................................. 91
Section 216--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Joint
Replacement Fuze Program................................. 91
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Joint Space Operations Center Management System.......... 92
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Wireless Innovation Fund................................. 92
Section 219--Advanced Rotorcraft Flight Research and
Development.............................................. 92
Section 220--Designation of Main Propulsion System of the
Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Bomber Aircraft as
Major Subprogram......................................... 92
Section 221--Designation of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch
System Development and Procurement Program as Major
Subprogram............................................... 93
Section 222--Prohibition on Delegation of Budgeting
Authority for Certain Research and Educational Programs.. 93
Section 223--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Future
Unmanned Carrier-based Strike System..................... 93
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 93
Section 231--Acquisition Accountability Reports on the
Ballistic Missile Defense System......................... 93
Section 232--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Medium
Extended Air Defense System.............................. 94
Section 233--Homeland Defense Hedging Policy and Strategy.. 95
Section 234--Ground-based Midcourse Defense System......... 96
Section 235--Study on Space-based Interceptor Technology... 96
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 97
Section 241--Annual Comptroller General Report on the KC-
46A Aircraft Acquisition Program......................... 97
Section 242--Independent Review and Assessment of
Cryptographic Modernization Program...................... 97
Section 243--Report on Feasibility of Electromagnetic Rail
Gun System............................................... 97
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 97
Section 251--Repeal of Requirement for Technology
Transition
Initiative............................................... 97
Section 252--Preservation and Storage of Certain Property
Related to F136 Propulsion System........................ 97
Section 253--Extension of Authority for Mechanism to
Provide Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and
Development of Technologies for Military Missions........ 98
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 98
OVERVIEW....................................................... 98
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 100
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 100
Flight Simulator Training Hour Restoration................. 100
Marine Corps Expeditionary Forward Operating Base.......... 100
Operational Energy Capability Improvement.................. 101
Strategic Environmental Research Program................... 101
Energy Issues................................................ 101
Energy-Efficient Tires..................................... 101
Navy Green Fleet Initiative Including Harbor Tugs.......... 101
Support of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs........... 101
Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 102
Aircraft Landing Gear Systems Sustainment.................. 102
Department-Wide Depot Workforce Development................ 102
Improved Corrosion Prevention and Control Practices........ 102
Increased Competition for the Operation and Sustainment of
Major Weapon Systems..................................... 103
Laser Peening Technologies................................. 104
Long-Term Corrosion Strategies of the Military Departments. 104
Parts Supply Recapitalization.............................. 105
Study on Reducing Navy Small Boat Maintenance Costs........ 105
Sustainment Planning....................................... 106
Readiness Issues............................................. 107
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Operational Considerations
and Force Structure...................................... 107
Army Unit Manning Effects on Readiness..................... 107
Distribution and Use of Bottled Water in Contingency
Operations............................................... 108
Federal Fire Protection.................................... 109
Installation Emergency Management Programs................. 109
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Instrument Landing System
Replacement.............................................. 109
Material Readiness of the Navy's Amphibious and Surface
Combatant Ships.......................................... 110
Modified Tables of Equipment............................... 111
Naval Air Station North Island............................. 111
Review of Department of Defense's Mix of Live and Simulated
Training................................................. 111
Security Force Assistance.................................. 112
U.S. Army Full Spectrum Training Mile...................... 112
Other Matters................................................ 113
Air Force Environmental Cleanup............................ 113
Briefing on the Use of the Overseas Contingency Operations
Budget for Military Equipment Reset...................... 113
Department of Defense Personnel Security Clearance Program. 113
Department of Defense Unexploded Ordnance Cleanup Report... 114
Disposal of Surplus Property............................... 114
Expedited Security Clearance Processing for Wounded
Warriors................................................. 115
Federal Facility Agreement for Environmental Cleanup at
Tyndall Air Force Base................................... 116
Joint Space Operations Center.............................. 116
Key Enabler Explosive Ordnance Disposal Requirements....... 116
Satellite Operations Efficiencies.......................... 117
Wounded Warrior Service Dog Programs....................... 117
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 118
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 118
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 118
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions.............. 118
Section 311--Designation of Senior Official of Joint Chiefs
of Staff for Operational Energy Plans and Programs and
Operational Energy Budget Certification.................. 118
Section 312--Military Installation Implementation of Land
Management Plans and Sustainability Studies.............. 118
Section 313--Improved Sikes Act Coverage of State-Owned
Facilities Used for the National Defense................. 118
Section 314--Discharge of Wastes at Sea Generated by
Vessels of the Armed Forces.............................. 118
Section 315--Designation of Department of Defense Executive
Agent for Alternative Fuel Development................... 118
Section 316--Favorable Consideration of Energy-Efficient
Technologies in Contracts for Logistics Support of
Contingency Operations................................... 119
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 119
Section 321--Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and
Repair................................................... 119
Section 322--Core Logistics Capabilities................... 119
Section 323--Designation of Military Industrial Facilities
as Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence........ 120
Section 324--Redesignation of Core Competencies as Core
Logistics Capabilities for Centers of Industrial and
Technical Excellence..................................... 120
Section 325--Permanent and Expanded Authority for Army
Industrial Facilities To Enter into Certain Cooperative
Arrangements with Non-Army Entities...................... 121
Section 326--Amendment to Requirement Relating to
Consideration of Competition Throughout Operation and
Sustainment of Major Weapon Systems...................... 121
Section 327--Implementation of Corrective Actions Resulting
from Corrosion Study of the F-22 and F-35 Aircraft....... 121
Subtitle D--Readiness........................................ 121
Section 331--Modification of Department of Defense
Authority To Accept Voluntary Contributions of Funds..... 121
Section 332--Review of Proposed Structures Affecting
Navigable Airspace....................................... 122
Section 333--Sense of Congress Regarding Integration of
Ballistic Missile Defense Training Across and Between
Combatant Commands and Military Services................. 122
Subtitle E--Reports.......................................... 122
Section 341--Annual Certification and Modifications of
Annual Report on Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment.... 122
Section 342--Modification of Report on Maintenance and
Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards................... 122
Section 343--Additional Requirements for Annual Report on
Military Working Dogs.................................... 122
Section 344--Assessment and Reporting Requirements
Regarding the Status of Compliance with Joint Military
Training and Force
Allocations.............................................. 123
Section 345--Study of United States Pacific Command
Training Readiness....................................... 123
Subtitle F--Limitations and Extensions of Authority.......... 123
Section 351--Adoption of Military Working Dog by Family of
Deceased or Seriously Wounded Member of the Armed Forces
Who Was the Dog's Handler................................ 123
Section 352--Prohibition on Expansion of the Air Force Food
Transformation Initiative................................ 123
Section 353--Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure of
Funds for the Migration of Army Enterprise Email Services 124
Section 354--One-Year Extension of Pilot Program for
Availability of Working-Capital Funds to Army for Certain
Product Improvements..................................... 124
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 124
Section 361--Consideration of Foreclosure Circumstances in
Adjudication of Security Clearances...................... 124
Section 362--Authority To Provide Information for Maritime
Safety of Forces and Hydrographic Support................ 124
Section 363--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds under Reciprocal
Fire Protection Agreements............................... 125
Section 364--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To
Be Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Printing
and Reproduction......................................... 125
Section 365--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To
Be Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Studies,
Analysis and Evaluations................................. 125
Section 366--Clarification of the Airlift Service
Definitions Relative to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet...... 125
Section 367--Ratemaking Procedures for Civil Reserve Air
Fleet Contracts.......................................... 126
Section 368--Sense of Congress on Proposed Federal Aviation
Administration Changes to Flight Crew Member Duty and
Rest Requirements........................................ 126
Section 369--Policy on Active Shooter Training for Certain
Law Enforcement Personnel................................ 126
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 126
OVERVIEW....................................................... 126
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 128
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 128
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 128
Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength
Minimum Levels........................................... 128
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 128
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 128
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 129
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 129
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2012 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 129
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 130
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 130
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 130
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 130
OVERVIEW....................................................... 130
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 131
Community College of the Air Force......................... 131
Critical Language Training at Reserve Officer Training
Programs and Senior Military Colleges.................... 131
Expanding the Use of On-Line Education in the Department of
Defense Educational Activity............................. 132
Review for Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients...... 132
Use of Electronic Media for Family Support Programs........ 132
Wounded Warrior Implementation............................. 133
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 133
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 133
Section 501--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Marine
Corps Officers on Active Duty in Grades of Major,
Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel.......................... 133
Section 502--General Officer and Flag Officer Reform....... 133
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 134
Section 511--Leadership of National Guard Bureau........... 134
Section 512--Preseparation Counseling for Members of the
Reserve Components....................................... 135
Section 513--Clarification of Applicability of Authority
for Deferral of Mandatory Separation of Military
Technicians (Dual Status) until Age 60................... 135
Section 514--Modification of Eligibility for Consideration
for Promotion for Reserve Officers Employed as Military
Technicians (Dual Status)................................ 135
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 135
Section 521--Findings regarding Unique Nature, Demands, and
Hardships of Military Service............................ 135
Section 522--Policy Addressing Dwell Time and Measurement
and Data Collection regarding Unit Operating Tempo and
Personnel Tempo.......................................... 136
Section 523--Authorized Leave Available for Members of the
Armed Forces Upon Birth or Adoption of a Child........... 136
Section 524--Extension of Authority To Conduct Programs on
Career Flexibility To Enhance Retention of Members of the
Armed Forces............................................. 136
Section 525--Policy on Military Recruitment and Enlistment
of Graduates of Secondary Schools........................ 136
Section 526--Navy Recruiting and Advertising............... 137
Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters............... 137
Section 531--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military
Personnel Decisions Relating To Correction of Military
Records.................................................. 137
Section 532--Clarification of Application and Extent of
Direct Acceptance of Gifts Authority..................... 137
Section 533--Additional Condition on Repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell Policy........................................ 138
Section 534--Military Regulations Regarding Marriage....... 138
Section 535--Use of Military Installations as Site for
Marriage Ceremonies and Participation of Chaplains and
Other Military and Civilian Personnel in Their Official
Capacity................................................. 138
Subtitle E--Member Education and Training Opportunities and
Administration........................................... 138
Section 541--Improved Access to Apprenticeship Programs for
Members of the Armed Forces Who Are Being Separated from
Active Duty or Retired................................... 138
Section 542--Expansion of Reserve Health Professionals
Stipend Program To Include Students in Mental Health
Degree Programs in Critical Wartime Specialties.......... 138
Section 543--Administration of United States Air Force
Institute of Technology.................................. 139
Section 544--Appointments to Military Service Academies
from Nominations Made by the Governor of Puerto Rico..... 139
Section 545--Temporary Authority To Wave Maximum Age
Limitation on Admission to United States Military
Academy, United States Naval Academy, and United States
Air Force Academy........................................ 139
Section 546--Education and Employment Advocacy Program for
Wounded Members of the Armed Forces...................... 139
Subtitle F--Army National Military Cemeteries................ 140
Section 551--Army National Military Cemeteries............. 140
Section 552--Inspector General of the Department of Defense
Inspection of Military Cemeteries........................ 140
Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 141
Section 561--Control and Administration by Secretary of
Defense.................................................. 141
Section 562--Senior Medical Advisor Oversight of Health
Care Provided to Residents of Armed Forces Retirement
Home..................................................... 141
Section 563--Establishment of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Advisory Council and Resident Advisory Committees... 141
Section 564--Administrators, Ombudsmen, and Staff of
Facilities............................................... 142
Section 565--Revision of Fee Requirements.................. 142
Section 566--Revision of Inspection Requirements........... 142
Section 567--Repeal of Obsolete Transitional Provisions and
Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Amendments........... 142
Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness Matters................ 142
Section 571--Revision to Membership of Department of
Defense Military Family Readiness Council................ 142
Section 572--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local
Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees................................................ 143
Section 573--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for
Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces.............. 143
Section 574--Center for Military Family and Community
Outreach................................................. 143
Section 575--Mental Health Support for Military Personnel
and Families............................................. 143
Section 576--Report on Department of Defense Autism Pilot
Projects................................................. 143
Subtitle I--Improved Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
in the Armed Forces...................................... 144
Section 581--Director of Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office.......................................... 144
Section 582--Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
Sexual Assault Victim Advocates.......................... 144
Section 583--Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel
and Services of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
Sexual Assault Victim Advocates.......................... 144
Section 584--Privilege in Cases Arising Under Uniform Code
of Military Justice Against Disclosure of Communications
Between Sexual Assault Victims and Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates and Certain Other
Persons.................................................. 144
Section 585--Maintenance of Records Prepared in Connection
with Sexual Assaults Involving Members of the Armed
Forces or Dependents of Members.......................... 145
Section 586--Expedited Consideration and Priority for
Application for Consideration of a Permanent Change of
Station or Unit Transfer Based on Humanitarian Conditions
for Victim of Sexual Assault............................. 145
Section 587--Training and Education Programs for Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Program.................. 145
Subtitle J--Other Matters.................................... 145
Section 591--Limitations on Authority To Provide Support
and Services for Certain Organizations and Activities
Outside Department of Defense............................ 145
Section 592--Display of State, District of Columbia, and
Territorial Flags by Armed Forces........................ 145
Section 593--Military Adaptive Sports Program.............. 146
Section 594--Wounded Warrior Careers Program............... 146
Section 595--Comptroller General Study of Military
Necessity of Selective Service System and Alternatives... 146
Section 596--Sense of Congress Regarding Playing of Bugle
Call Commonly Known as ``Taps'' at Military Funerals,
Memorial Services and Wreath Laying Ceremonies........... 146
Section 597--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Yellow
Ribbon Day............................................... 146
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 147
OVERVIEW....................................................... 147
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 147
Commissary and Exchange Privileges for Non-Department of
Defense Federal Employees Overseas....................... 147
Consolidation of Disability Evaluation System.............. 147
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act............. 148
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 149
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 149
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2012 Increase in Military Basic
Pay...................................................... 149
Section 602--Resumption of Authority To Provide Temporary
Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing under
Certain Circumstances.................................... 149
Section 603--Lodging Accommodations for Members Assigned to
Duty in Connection with Commissioning or Fitting Out of a
Ship..................................................... 149
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 149
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 149
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 149
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 150
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 150
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 150
Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Referral Bonuses.............................. 150
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Generally... 150
Section 621--One-Year Extension of Authority To Reimburse
Travel Expenses for Inactive-Duty Training outside of
Normal Commuting Distance................................ 150
Section 622--Mandatory Provision of Travel and
Transportation Allowances for Non-Medical Attendants for
Seriously Ill and Wounded Members of the Armed Forces.... 151
Subtitle D--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and
Transportation
Authorities.............................................. 151
Section 631--Purpose....................................... 151
Section 632--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and
Transportation Authorities of the Uniformed Services..... 151
Section 633--Old-Law Travel and Transportation Authorities
Transition Expiration Date and Transfer of Current
Sections................................................. 151
Section 634--Addition of Sunset Provision to Old-Law Travel
and Transportation Authorities........................... 151
Section 635--Technical and Clerical Amendments............. 152
Section 636--Transition Provisions......................... 152
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 152
Section 641--Expansion of Use of Uniform Funding Authority
To Include Permanent Change of Station and Temporary Duty
Lodging Programs Operated through Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities........................................ 152
Section 642--Contracting Authority for Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities To Provide and Obtain Goods and
Services................................................. 152
Section 643--Designation of Fisher House for the Families
of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force
Base as a Fisher House................................... 153
Section 644--Discretion of the Secretary of the Navy To
Select Categories of Merchandise To Be Sold by Ship
Stores Afloat............................................ 153
Section 645--Access of Military Exchange Stores System to
Credit Available Through Federal Financing Bank.......... 153
Section 646--Enhanced Commissary Stores Pilot Program...... 153
Subtitle F--Disability, Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits.... 153
Section 651--Monthly Amount and Duration of Special
Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Widows and Widowers of
Deceased Members of the Armed Forces Affected by Required
Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation................................... 153
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 154
Section 661--Reimbursement of American National Red Cross
for Humanitarian Support and Other Services Provided to
Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents......... 154
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 154
OVERVIEW....................................................... 154
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 155
Automated Patient Management System for Air Evacuation..... 155
Clarification on Competition for Medical Research
Consultation and Education............................... 156
Clinical Social Workers.................................... 156
Cost Share for Acute Care Prescriptions under the TRICARE
Pharmacy Program......................................... 156
Expansion of Spinal Cord Injury Research Program........... 157
Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury................... 157
Orthopedic Research for Extremity Injury................... 157
Physical Rehabilitation of Wounded Warriors................ 158
Recommendations for Cost Savings Under the TRICARE Pharmacy
Program.................................................. 158
Use of Simulation Technology in Medical Training........... 158
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 159
Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits.................. 159
Section 701--Annual Enrollment Fees for Certain Retirees
and
Dependents............................................... 159
Section 702--Provision of Food to Certain Members and
Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in Military
Medical Treatment
Facilities............................................... 159
Section 703--Behavioral Health Support for Members of the
Reserve Components of the Armed Forces................... 160
Section 704--Transition Enrollment of Uniformed Services
Family Health Plan Medicare-Eligible Retirees to TRICARE
for Life................................................. 160
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 160
Section 711--Unified Medical Command....................... 160
Section 712--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Future Electronic Health Records Program................. 160
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 160
Section 721--Review of Women-Specific Health Services and
Treatment for Female Members of the Armed Forces......... 160
Section 722--Comptroller General Reviews of Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Project.................................... 161
Section 723--Comptroller General Report on Contracted
Health Care Staffing for Military Medical Treatment
Facilities............................................... 161
Section 724--Treatment of Wounded Warriors................. 161
Section 725--Cooperative Health Care Agreements............ 161
Section 726--Prostate Cancer Imaging Research Initiative... 161
Section 727--Defense Centers of Excellence for
Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.......... 161
Section 728--Collaborative Military-Civilian Trauma
Training
Programs................................................. 161
Section 729--Traumatic Brain Injury........................ 161
Section 730--Competitive Programs for Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Disorders.......................................... 162
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 162
OVERVIEW....................................................... 162
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 162
Acquisition Involving Federal Prison Industries............ 162
Aircraft Specialty Metal Content........................... 162
Army Contract Bundling..................................... 163
Beryllium Stockpile Modernization.......................... 163
Common Database for Tracking Contracts and Contractor
Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan........................ 164
Competition in Construction Acquisition Programs........... 165
Cost Escalators in Major Weapons Systems Life Cycle Cost
Estimations.............................................. 166
Defense Contract Audit Agency Improvements................. 166
Nunn-McCurdy Breach due to a Quantity Reduction............ 167
Pilot Programs for Rapid Acquisition of Information
Technology............................................... 168
Small Business Subcontracting Goals........................ 168
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 169
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 169
Section 801--Requirements Relating to Core Logistics
Capabilities for Milestone A and Milestone B and
Elimination of References to Key Decision Points A and B. 169
Section 802--Revision to Law Relating to Disclosures to
Litigation Support Contractors........................... 169
Section 803--Extension of Applicability of the Senior
Executive Benchmark Compensation Amount for Purposes of
Allowable Cost Limitations under Defense Contracts....... 170
Section 804--Supplier Risk Management...................... 170
Section 805--Extension of Availability of Funds in the
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund........... 170
Section 806--Defense Contract Audit Agency Annual Report... 171
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations.............................. 171
Section 811--Calculation of Time Period Relating to Report
on Critical Changes in Major Automated Information
Systems.................................................. 171
Section 812--Change in Deadline for Submission of Selected
Acquisition Reports from 60 to 45 days................... 171
Section 813--Extension of Sunset Date for Certain Protests
of Task and Deliver Order Contracts...................... 171
Section 814--Clarification of Department of Defense
Authority To Purchase Right-Hand Drive Passenger Sedans.. 172
Section 815--Amendment Relating to Buying Tents,
Tarpaulins, or Covers from American Sources.............. 172
Section 816--Para-Aramid Fibers and Yarns.................. 172
Section 817--Repeal of Sunset of Authority to Procure Fire
Resistant Rayon Fiber from Foreign Sources for the
Production of Uniforms................................... 172
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of
Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan............ 172
Section 821--Restrictions on Awarding Contracts in Support
of Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan to
Adverse Entities......................................... 172
Section 822--Authority To Use Higher Thresholds for
Procurements in Support of Contingency Operations........ 173
Section 823--Authority To Examine Records of Foreign
Contractors Performing Contracts in Support of
Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan............ 173
Section 824--Definitions................................... 173
Subtitle D--Defense Industrial Base Matters.................. 173
Section 831--Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base
Pilot Program............................................ 173
Section 832--Department of Defense Assessment of Industrial
Base for Potential Shortfalls............................ 173
Section 833--Comptroller General Assessment of Government
Competition in the Department of Defense Industrial Base. 174
Section 834--Report on Impact of Foreign Boycotts on the
Defense Industrial Base.................................. 174
Section 835--Rare Earth Material Inventory Plan............ 174
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 175
Section 841--Miscellaneous Amendments to Public Law 111-383
Relating to Acquisition.................................. 175
Section 842--Procurement of Photovoltaic Devices........... 175
Section 843--Clarification of Jurisdiction of the United
States District Courts To Hear Bid Protest Disputes
Involving Maritime Contracts............................. 175
Section 844--Exemption of Department of Defense from
Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement................. 175
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 176
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 176
Conduct of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review....... 176
Influence of Budget on Quadrennial Defense Review.......... 176
Information Operations and Strategic Communications........ 177
Management of Information Technology....................... 177
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence........ 178
Office of Cyberthreat Analysis............................. 178
Protection of Sensitive Information........................ 179
Report on Contractors at the Defense Intelligence Agency... 179
Report on Increasing Competition for Space Launch.......... 179
Research and Development Assessments in Quadrennial Defense
Review and the Responsibilities of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.................................... 180
Total Force Management..................................... 180
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 182
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 182
Section 901--Revision of Defense Business System
Requirements............................................. 182
Section 902--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 182
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 182
Section 911--Notification Requirement for Harmful
Interference to Department of Defense Global Positioning
System................................................... 182
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters..................... 184
Section 921--Report on Implementation of Recommendations by
Comptroller General on Intelligence Information Sharing.. 184
Section 922--Insider Threat Detection...................... 184
Subtitle D--Total Force Management........................... 185
Section 931--General Policy for Total Force Management..... 185
Section 932--Revisions to Department of Defense Civilian
Personnel Management Constraints......................... 186
Section 933--Additional Amendments Relating to Total Force
Management............................................... 186
Section 934--Amendments to Annual Defense Manpower
Requirements Report...................................... 186
Section 935--Revisions to Strategic Workforce Plan......... 187
Section 936--Technical Amendments to Requirement for
Inventory of Contracts for Services...................... 187
Section 937--Modification of Temporary Suspension of
Public-Private Competitions for Conversion of Department
of Defense Functions to Contractor Performance........... 187
Section 938--Preliminary Planning for Department of Defense
Public-Private Competitions.............................. 188
Section 939--Conversion of Certain Functions from
Contractor Performance to Performance by Department of
Defense Civilian Employees............................... 188
Section 940--Assessment of Appropriate Department of
Defense and Contractor Personnel for the Defense Medical
Readiness Training Institute............................. 189
Subtitle E--Quadrennial Roles and Missions and Related
Matters.................................................... 189
Section 951--Transfer of Provisions Relating to Quadrennial
Roles and Missions Review................................ 189
Section 952--Revisions to Quadrennial Roles and Missions
Review................................................... 189
Section 953--Amendment to Presentation of Future-Years
Budget and Comptroller General Report on Budget
Justification Material................................... 189
Section 954--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Assessment of Contingency Plans.......................... 190
Section 955--Quadrennial Defense Review.................... 190
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 190
Section 961--Deadline Revision for Report on Foreign
Language Proficiency..................................... 190
Section 962--Military Activities in Cyberspace............. 191
Section 963--Activities to Improve Multilateral, Bilateral,
and Regional Cooperation regarding Cybersecurity......... 191
Section 964--Report on U.S. Special Operations Command
Structure................................................ 191
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 192
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 192
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 192
Interagency Coordination..................................... 192
Whole-of-Government Approaches and the National Security
Strategy................................................. 192
Other Matters................................................ 193
Analysis of Nuclear Force Structure Alternatives........... 193
Annual Report on Missile Proliferation..................... 193
Audit Readiness of the Department of Defense............... 194
Comptroller General Review of Security Requirements for
Special Nuclear Material................................. 195
Countering Adversarial Narratives.......................... 195
Countering Network-Based Threats........................... 196
Counterproliferation Improvements and Efficiencies......... 197
Cyber Activity of the People's Republic of China........... 198
Cyber Threats to Critical Infrastructure................... 199
Economic Warfare........................................... 199
Evaluation of the Alternative Methods for Titanium
Production............................................... 200
Global Posture Review Report............................... 200
Government Accountability Office Assessment of Reporting
Cost Data Collection..................................... 200
Management and Security of Nuclear Weapons................. 201
Nuclear Command, Control and Communications................ 201
Planning for Electromagnetic Pulse Events.................. 202
Reduction in Reporting Requirements........................ 203
Secure Telecommuting Centers............................... 203
Special Operations Aviation and Rotary Wing Support........ 204
State Partnership Program.................................. 204
The Role of Military Information Support Operations........ 205
U.S. Special Operations Command Undersea Mobility Strategy. 206
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 207
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 207
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 207
Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act................ 207
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 207
Section 1011--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces
to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting
Counterterrorism Activities.............................. 207
Section 1012--Extension of Authority of Department of
Defense To Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug
Activities of Other Governmental Agencies................ 207
Section 1013--One-Year Extension of Authority To Provide
Additional Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain
Foreign Governments...................................... 207
Section 1014--Extension of Authority To Support Unified
Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia... 207
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 208
Section 1021--Budgeting for Construction of Naval Vessels.. 208
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 208
Section 1031--Definition of Individual Detained at
Guantanamo............................................... 208
Section 1032--Extension of Authority for Making Rewards for
Combating Terrorism...................................... 208
Section 1033--Clarification of Right To Plead Guilty in
Trial of Capital Offense by Military Commission.......... 208
Section 1034--Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda,
the Taliban, and Associated Forces....................... 209
Section 1035--Requirement for National Security Protocols
Governing Detainee Communications........................ 209
Section 1036--Process for the Review of Necessity for
Continued Detention of Individuals Detained at Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............................ 209
Section 1037--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or
Modify Facilities in the United States To House Detainees
Transferred from Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba..... 210
Section 1038--Prohibition on Family Member Visitation of
Individuals Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba..................................................... 210
Section 1039--Prohibition on the Transfer or Release of
Certain Detainees to or within the United States......... 210
Section 1040--Prohibitions Relating to the Transfer or
Release of Certain Detainees to or within Foreign
Countries................................................ 210
Section 1041--Counterterrorism Operational Briefing
Requirement.............................................. 211
Section 1042--Requirement for Department of Justice
Consultation Regarding Prosecution of Terrorists......... 211
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces................................... 212
Section 1051--Annual Assessment and Report on the Delivery
Platforms for Nuclear Weapons and the Nuclear Command and
Control System........................................... 212
Section 1052--Plan on Implementation of the New START
Treaty................................................... 212
Section 1053--Annual Report on the Plan for the
Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear
Weapons Complex, and Delivery Platforms.................. 213
Section 1054--Sense of Congress on Nuclear Force Reductions 213
Section 1055--Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions....... 213
Section 1056--Nuclear Employment Strategy.................. 214
Section 1057--Comptroller General Report on Nuclear Weapon
Capabilities and Force Structure Requirements............ 214
Subtitle F--Financial Management............................. 215
Section 1061--Amendments Relating to Financial Management
Workforce................................................ 215
Section 1062--Reliability of Department of Defense
Financial Statements..................................... 215
Section 1063--Financial Management Personnel Competency
Assessment............................................... 215
Section 1064--Tracking Implementation of Department of
Defense Efficiencies..................................... 216
Section 1065--Business Case Analysis for Department of
Defense Efficiencies..................................... 216
Section 1066--Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness
Plan..................................................... 217
Section 1067--Corrective Action Plan Relating to Execution
of Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan........ 217
Subtitle G--Studies and Reports.............................. 217
Section 1071--Repeal of Certain Report Requirements........ 217
Section 1072--Biennial Review of Required Reports.......... 217
Section 1073--Transmission of Reports in Electronic Format. 218
Section 1074--Modifications to Annual Aircraft Procurement
Plan..................................................... 218
Section 1075--Change of Deadline for Annual Report to
Congress on National Guard and Reserve Component
Equipment................................................ 218
Section 1076--Report on Homeland Defense Activities........ 218
Section 1077--Report on Nuclear Aspirations of Non-State
Entities, Nuclear Weapons, and Related Programs in Non-
Nuclear Weapons States and Countries Not Parties to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Certain Foreign
Persons.................................................. 218
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 219
Section 1081--Exemption from Freedom of Information Act for
Data Files of the Military Flight Operations Quality
Assurance Systems of the Military Departments............ 219
Section 1082--Limitation on Procurement and Fielding of
Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft............... 219
Section 1083--Use of State Partnership Program Funds for
Civilians and Non-Defense Agency Personnel............... 220
Section 1084--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for
Manufacturing Beyond Low Rate Initial Production at
Certain Prototype Integration Facilities................. 220
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 220
Section 1091--Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of
Certain Department of Defense Critical Infrastructure
Information.............................................. 220
Section 1092--Expansion of Scope of Humanitarian Demining
Assistance Program to Include Stockpiled Conventional
Munitions Assistance..................................... 220
Section 1093--Mandatory Implementation of the Standing
Advisory Panel on Improving Coordination Among the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the
United States Agency for International Development on
Matters of National Security............................. 220
Section 1094--Number of Navy Carrier Air-Wings and Carrier
Air-Wing Headquarters.................................... 221
Section 1095--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for
Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment......... 221
Section 1096--National Rocket Propulsion Strategy.......... 221
Section 1097--Inclusion of Religious Symbols as Part of
Military Memorials....................................... 222
Section 1098--Unmanned Aerial Systems and National Airspace 222
Section 1099--Sense of Congress Regarding the Killing of
Osama Bin Laden.......................................... 222
Section 1099A--Grants to Certain Regulated Companies for
Specified Energy Property Not Subject to Normalization
Rules.................................................... 222
Section 1099B--Submittal of Information Regarding
Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba..................................... 222
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 222
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 222
Department of Defense Hiring Processes..................... 222
Pay Parity for Department of Defense Federal Wage System
Employees Employed at Joint Military Institutions........ 224
Performance Management Authorities for the Department of
Defense.................................................. 224
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 225
Section 1101--Amendments to Department of Defense Personnel
Authorities.............................................. 225
Section 1102--Provisions Related to the Department of
Defense Performance Management System.................... 225
Section 1103--Repeal of Sunset Provision Relating to Direct
Hire Authority at Demonstration Laboratories............. 226
Section 1104--Denial of Certain Pay Adjustments for
Unacceptable Performance................................. 226
Section 1105--Revisions to Beneficiary Designation
Provisions for Death Gratuity Payable Upon Death of a
Government Employee...................................... 226
Section 1106--Extension of Authority to Waive Annual
Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay
for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas.......... 227
Section 1107--Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations............ 227
Section 1108--Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators.... 227
Section 1109--Authority to Waive Recovery of Certain
Payments Made under Civilian Employees Voluntary
Separation Incentive Program............................. 228
Section 1110--Extension of Continued Health Benefits....... 228
Section 1111--Authority to Waive Maximum Age Limit for
Certain Appointments..................................... 229
Section 1112--Sense of Congress Relating to Pay Parity for
Federal Employees Serving at Certain Remote Military
Installations............................................ 229
Section 1113--Reports by Office of Special Counsel......... 229
Section 1114--Disclosure of Senior Mentors................. 229
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 230
OVERVIEW....................................................... 230
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 231
African Security Sector Reform............................. 231
Closure of United States Military Installations and
Alteration of Basing Arrangements in European Command
Theater of Operations.................................... 232
Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program................. 232
Joint Military Exercises with Iraq......................... 233
Military and Security Developments Involving the People's
Republic of China........................................ 234
Military Power of Iran..................................... 234
NATO Special Operations Headquarters....................... 234
Report on Deployment of Assets and Personnel to Libya...... 235
Taxing Foreign Assistance in Afghanistan................... 235
Transparency in NATO Arms Sales............................ 236
Unfunded Requirements of the Department of Defense......... 236
United States Missile Defense Cooperation with Russia...... 237
U.S. Africa Command and the Lord's Resistance Army......... 238
Village Stability Operations and the Afghan Local Police
Program in Afghanistan................................... 238
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 239
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 239
Section 1201--Expansion of Authority for Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism........................... 239
Section 1202--Modification and Extension of Authorities
Relating to Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign
Military Forces.......................................... 239
Section 1203--Five-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-
Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities.............. 240
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan................................................... 240
Section 1211--Authority To Establish a Program To Develop
and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan..... 240
Section 1212--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Afghanistan.............................................. 240
Section 1213--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of
Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United
States Military Operations............................... 241
Section 1214--Extension and Modification of Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund................................... 241
Section 1215--Report on Extension of United States-Iraq
Status of Forces Agreement............................... 242
Section 1216--Authority to Support Operations and
Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq. 242
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 243
Section 1221--Review and Report on Iran's and China's
Conventional and Anti-Access Capabilities................ 243
Section 1222--Report and Consultation on Energy Security of
NATO Alliance............................................ 243
Section 1223--Extension of Report on Progress Toward
Security and Stability in Afghanistan.................... 243
Section 1224--Report on Military and Security Developments
Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...... 244
Section 1225--National Security Risk Assessment of the
United States Federal Debt Owned by the People's Republic
of China................................................. 244
Section 1226--Congressional Notification Requirement before
Permanent Relocation of Any United States Military Unit
Stationed Outside the United States...................... 244
Section 1227--Annual Report on Military Power of the
People's Republic of China............................... 245
Section 1228--Limitation on Funds to Provide the Russian
Federation with Access to United States Missile Defense
Technology............................................... 245
Section 1229--International Agreements Relating to Missile
Defense.................................................. 245
Section 1230--Non-strategic Nuclear Weapon Reductions and
Extended Deterrence Policy............................... 246
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 247
OVERVIEW....................................................... 247
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 248
Cooperative Threat Reduction Biological Surveillance
Network.................................................. 248
Cooperative Threat Reduction of Biological Weapons......... 249
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 250
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 250
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 250
Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program................ 250
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 250
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 250
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 250
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 250
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 251
Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 251
Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 251
Section 1405--Defense Inspector General.................... 251
Section 1406--Defense Health Program....................... 251
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 251
Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile
Funds.................................................... 251
Section 1412--Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for
Previously Authorized Disposals from the National Defense
Stockpile................................................ 251
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................ 252
Section 1421--Changes to Management Organization to the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program........... 252
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 252
Section 1431--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 252
Section 1432--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A.
Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois...................... 252
Section 1433--Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund...... 252
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 253
OVERVIEW....................................................... 253
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 253
CV-22 Combat Loss Replacement Funding...................... 253
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund........................ 253
MH-60 Combat Loss Replacement Funding...................... 254
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund........ 255
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 255
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 255
Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 255
Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 255
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 255
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance.................... 256
Section 1505--Military Personnel........................... 256
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................ 256
Section 1507--Defense Health Program....................... 256
Section 1508--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-wide................................. 256
Section 1509--Defense Inspector General.................... 256
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 256
Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 256
Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority................... 256
Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters.................... 256
Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund............. 256
Section 1532--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United
States Funds for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq..... 257
Section 1533--One-Year Extension of Project Authority and
Related Requirements of Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations in Afghanistan...................... 257
TITLE XVI--ADDITIONAL BUDGET ITEMS............................... 258
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 258
Subtitle A--Procurement...................................... 258
Section 1601--Budget Item Relating to Modification of
Torpedoes and Related Equipment.......................... 258
Section 1602--Budget Item Relating to Anti-Submarine
Warfare Electronic Equipment............................. 258
Section 1603--Budget Item Relating to Shallow Water Mine
Counter Measures......................................... 258
Section 1604--Budget Item Relating to LHA-7 Ship Program... 258
Section 1605--Budget Item Relating to Mobility Aircraft
Simulators............................................... 258
Section 1606--Budget Item Relating to Modifications to
Aircraft................................................. 258
Section 1607--Budget Item Relating to SH-60 Crew and
Passenger Survivability Upgrades......................... 258
Section 1608--Budget Item Relating to Modification of In-
Service A-10 Aircraft.................................... 259
Section 1609--Budget Item Relating to Radar Support........ 259
Section 1610--Budget Item Relating to Electronic Equipment-
Automation............................................... 259
Section 1611--Budget Item Relating to Base Defense Systems. 259
Section 1612--Budget Item Relating to Sniper Rifle
Modifications............................................ 259
Section 1613--Budget Item Relating to Generators and
Associated Equipment..................................... 259
Section 1614--Budget Item Relating to National Guard and
Reserve Equipment........................................ 259
Subtitle B--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation...... 260
Section 1616--Budget Item Relating to New Design SSN....... 260
Section 1617--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Submarine
System Development....................................... 260
Section 1618--Budget Item Relating to Surface Anti-
Submarine Warfare........................................ 260
Section 1619--Budget Item Relating to Ship Preliminary
Design and Feasibility Studies........................... 260
Section 1620--Budget Item Relating to Industrial
Preparedness............................................. 260
Section 1621--Budget Item Relating to Mixed Conventional
Load Capability for Bomber Aircraft...................... 260
Section 1622--Budget Item Relating to TACAIR-launched UAS
Capability Development................................... 260
Section 1623--Budget Item Relating to Electro-photonic
Component Capability Development......................... 261
Section 1624--Budget Item Relating to Airborne
Reconnaissance Systems................................... 261
Section 1625--Budget Item Relating to Small Business
Innovative Research...................................... 261
Section 1626--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research
Sciences................................................. 261
Section 1627--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research
Sciences................................................. 261
Section 1628--Budget Item Relating to Communications
Advanced Technology...................................... 261
Section 1629--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision
Technology............................................... 261
Section 1630--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision
Technology............................................... 262
Section 1631--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced
Technology............................................... 262
Section 1632--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced
Technology............................................... 262
Section 1633--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced
Technology............................................... 262
Section 1634--Budget Item Relating to Rotary Wing Surfaces. 262
Section 1635--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions
Technology............................................... 262
Section 1636--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions
Advanced Technology...................................... 262
Section 1637--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions
Advanced Technology...................................... 263
Section 1638--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology. 263
Section 1639--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology. 263
Section 1640--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology. 263
Section 1641--Budget Item Relating to Lightweight Body
Armor.................................................... 263
Section 1642--Budget Item Relating to Industrial
Preparedness Manufacturing Technology.................... 263
Section 1643--Budget Item Relating to Secure
Microelectronics......................................... 263
Section 1644--Budget Item Relating to Army Tactical Command
and Control Hardware and Software........................ 264
Section 1645--Budget Item Relating to Battlespace Knowledge
Development and Demonstration............................ 264
Section 1646--Budget Item Relating to Technology Transfer.. 264
Section 1647--Budget Item Relating to University Research
Initiatives.............................................. 264
Section 1648--Budget Item Relating to University Research
Initiatives.............................................. 264
Section 1649--Budget Item Relating to Clinical Care and
Research................................................. 264
Section 1650--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology... 265
Section 1651--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology... 265
Section 1652--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology... 265
Section 1653--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology... 265
Section 1654--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced
Technology............................................... 265
Section 1655--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced
Technology............................................... 265
Section 1656--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced
Technology............................................... 265
Section 1657--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced
Technology............................................... 266
Section 1658--Budget Item Relating to Chemical and
Biological Defense Program............................... 266
Section 1659--Budget Item Relating to Special Operations
Advanced Technology Development.......................... 266
Section 1660--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism
Technology Support....................................... 266
Section 1661--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism
Technology Support....................................... 266
Section 1662--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism
Technology Support....................................... 266
Section 1663--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism
Technology Support....................................... 266
Section 1664--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism
Technology............................................... 267
Section 1665--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism
Technology............................................... 267
Section 1666--Budget Item Relating to Weapons of Mass
Destruction Defeat Technologies.......................... 267
Section 1667--Budget Item Relating to Countermine Systems.. 267
Section 1668--Budget Item Relating to Mine and
Expeditionary Warfare Applied Research................... 267
Section 1669--Budget Item Relating to Special Applications
for Contingencies........................................ 267
Section 1670--Budget Item Relating to Microelectronics
Technology Development and Support....................... 268
Section 1671--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter
Sustainment Applied Research............................. 268
Section 1672--Budget Item Relating to Marine Corps Landing
Force Technology......................................... 268
Section 1673--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Concepts and
Simulation............................................... 268
Section 1674--Budget Item Relating to Human Effectiveness
Applied Research......................................... 268
Section 1675--Budget Item Relating to Aerospace Propulsion. 268
Section 1676--Budget Item Relating to End Item Industrial
Preparedness Activities.................................. 268
Section 1677--Budget Item Relating to Sensors and
Electronic Survivability................................. 269
Section 1678--Budget Item Relating to Military Engineering
Advanced Technology...................................... 269
Section 1679--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced
Technology............................................... 269
Section 1680--Budget Item Relating to Establishment of
Protocols for Joint Strike Fighter Lead-Free Electronics
Components............................................... 269
Section 1681--Budget Item Relating to Portable Helicopter
Oxygen Delivery Systems.................................. 269
Section 1682--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Rotorcraft
Flight Research.......................................... 269
Section 1683--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket
Advanced Technology...................................... 270
Section 1684--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket
Advanced Technology...................................... 270
Section 1685--Budget Item Relating to Combat Vehicle
Improvement Programs..................................... 270
Section 1686--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter Advanced
Technology............................................... 270
Section 1687--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced
Technology............................................... 271
Section 1688--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced
Technology............................................... 271
Section 1689--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced
Technology............................................... 271
Section 1690--Budget Item Relating to Munitions
Standardization, Effectiveness, and Safety............... 271
Section 1691--Budget Item Relating to Aegis Ballistic
Missile Defense.......................................... 271
Section 1692--Budget Item Relating to Operationally
Responsive Space......................................... 271
Section 1693--Budget Item Relating to Space Technology..... 271
Section 1694--Budget Item Relating to Army Net Zero
Programs................................................. 272
Section 1695--Budget Item Relating to Offshore Range
Environmental Baseline Assessment........................ 272
Section 1696--Budget Item Relating to Department of Defense
Corrosion Protection Projects............................ 272
Section 1697--Budget Item Relating to Study of Renewable
and Alternative Energy Applications in the Pacific Region 272
Section 1698--Budget Item Relating to Alternative Energy
for Mobile Power Applications............................ 272
Section 1699--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Battery
Technologies............................................. 272
Section 1699A--Budget Item Relating to Operational Energy
Improvement Pilot Project................................ 272
Section 1699B--Budget Item Relating to Microgrid Pilot
Program.................................................. 273
Section 1699C--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Surface
Machinery Systems........................................ 273
Section 1699D--Budget Item Relating to Base Camp Fuel Cells 273
Section 1699E--Budget Item Relating to Defense Alternative
Energy................................................... 273
Section 1699F--Budget Item Relating to Radiological
Contamination Research................................... 273
Subtitle C--Operation and Maintenance........................ 273
Section 1699G--Budget Item Relating to Department of
Defense Corrosion Prevention Program..................... 273
Section 1699H--Budget Item Relating to Navy Emergency
Management and Preparedness.............................. 273
Section 1699I--Budget Item Relating to Army Simulation
Training Systems......................................... 274
Section 1699J--Budget Item Relating to Army Industrial
Facility Energy Monitoring............................... 274
Section 1699K--Budget Item Relating to Army National Guard
Simulation Training Systems.............................. 274
Section 1699L--Budget Item Relating to Army Arsenals....... 274
Section 1699M--Budget Item Relating to Cold Weather
Protective Equipment..................................... 274
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 274
PURPOSE........................................................ 274
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 275
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 275
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to Be Specified by Law.......................... 275
Section 2003--Limitation on Implementation of Projects
Designated as Various Locations.......................... 275
Section 2004--Effective Date............................... 275
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 275
SUMMARY........................................................ 275
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 275
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 275
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 276
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 276
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 276
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2009 Project......................... 276
Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects........................ 276
Section 2107--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain
Fiscal Year 2012 Project Using Prior-Year Unobligated
Army Military Construction Funds......................... 276
Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2008 Projects....................................... 276
Section 2109--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Projects....................................... 276
Section 2110--Technical Amendments to Correct Certain
Project Specifications................................... 277
Section 2111--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects............... 277
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 277
SUMMARY........................................................ 277
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 277
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 277
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 278
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 278
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 278
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 278
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 278
Section 2205--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2008 Project........................................ 278
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Projects....................................... 278
Section 2207--Additional Budget Items Relating to Navy
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects............... 278
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 279
SUMMARY........................................................ 279
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 279
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 279
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 279
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 279
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 280
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 280
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 280
Section 2305--Modification of Authorization to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project......................... 280
Section 2306--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Project........................................ 280
Section 2307--Limitation on Implementation of Consolidation
of Air and Space Operations Center of the Air Force...... 280
Section 2308--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air Force
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects............... 280
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 281
SUMMARY........................................................ 281
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 281
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 281
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 282
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 282
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 282
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects...... 282
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 282
Section 2404--Additional Budget Items Relating to Defense
Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects...... 282
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 282
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide.............. 282
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 282
SUMMARY........................................................ 282
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 283
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 283
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 283
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 283
SUMMARY........................................................ 283
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 283
Explanation of Funding Adjustment.......................... 283
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 284
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations............................................. 284
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 284
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 284
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 284
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 284
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 284
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 284
Subtitle B--Additional Budget Items.......................... 285
Section 2611--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army
National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects 285
Section 2612--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air
National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects 285
Section 2613--Additional Budget Item Relating to Air Force
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 285
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 285
Section 2621--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2008 Project........................................ 285
Section 2622--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Projects....................................... 285
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 285
SUMMARY........................................................ 285
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 286
Base Realignment and Closure Community Recovery............ 286
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 286
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.......... 286
Section 2702--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure
Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 2005..................................... 286
Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005.......... 286
Section 2704--Authority to Extend Deadline for Completion
of Limited Number of Base Closure and Realignment
Recommendations.......................................... 287
Section 2705--Increased Emphasis on Evaluation of Costs and
Benefits in Consideration and Selection of Military
Installations for Closure or Realignment................. 287
Section 2706--Special Considerations Related to
Transportation Infrastructure in Consideration and
Selection of Military Installations for Closure or
Realignment.............................................. 287
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 287
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 287
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Homeporting in Europe...... 287
Africa Command Basing Alternatives......................... 288
Army Housing Shortfall at Growth Installations............. 288
Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques to
Achieve Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities............. 288
Castner Range Complex...................................... 289
Collateral Support for Infrastructure and Real Property
Programs................................................. 289
Comptroller General Report Regarding Third-Party Financing
for Renewable Energy Projects on Military Installations.. 290
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's
Report on the Arctic and Northwest Passage............... 291
Construction Unit Costs.................................... 291
Cooperative Agreements to Facilitate Defense Posture Review
Initiatives.............................................. 292
Corrosion Evaluation for Facilities and Infrastructure..... 293
Department of Defense Microgrid Activities................. 293
Elementary and Secondary Schools on Military Installations. 294
Energy and Water Utilities Privatization................... 294
Fort Bragg Parking Assessment.............................. 295
Homeowners Assistance Program.............................. 295
Leasing of Military Museums................................ 296
Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range................... 296
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 297
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 297
Section 2801--Prohibition on Use of Any Cost-Plus System of
Contracting for Military Construction and Military Family
Housing Projects......................................... 297
Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects......... 297
Section 2803--Condition on Rental of Family Housing in
Foreign Countries for General and Flag Officers.......... 298
Section 2804--Protections for Suppliers of Labor and
Materials under Contracts for Military Construction
Projects and Military Family Housing Projects............ 298
Section 2805--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use
Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects
inside United States Central Command Area of
Responsibility and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of
Africa Areas of Responsibility and Interest.............. 298
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 298
Section 2811--Clarification of Authority to Use Pentagon
Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund for Minor
Construction and Alteration Activities at Pentagon
Reservation.............................................. 298
Section 2812--Removal of Discretion of Secretaries of the
Military Departments Regarding Purposes for which
Easements for Rights-of-Way May Be Granted............... 298
Section 2813--Limitations on Use or Development of Property
in Clear Zone Areas...................................... 299
Section 2814--Defense Access Road Program Enhancements to
Address Transportation Infrastructure in Vicinity of
Military Installations................................... 299
Subtitle C--Energy Security.................................. 299
Section 2821--Consolidation of Definitions Used in Energy
Security Chapter......................................... 299
Section 2822--Consideration of Energy Security in
Developing Energy Projects on Military Installations
Using Renewable Energy Sources........................... 299
Section 2823--Establishment of Interim Objective for
Department of Defense 2025 Renewable Energy Goal......... 299
Section 2824--Use of Centralized Purchasing Agents for
Renewable Energy Certificates to Reduce Cost of Facility
Energy Projects Using Renewable Energy Sources and
Improve Efficiencies..................................... 299
Section 2825--Identification of Energy-Efficient Products
for Use in Construction, Repair, or Renovation of
Department of Defense Facilities......................... 300
Section 2826--Core Curriculum and Certification Standards
for Department of Defense Energy Managers................ 300
Section 2827--Submission of Annual Department of Defense
Energy Management Reports................................ 301
Section 2828--Continuous Commissioning of Department of
Defense Facilities to Resolve Operating Problems, Improve
Comfort, Optimize Energy Use, and Identify Retrofits..... 301
Section 2829--Requirement for Department of Defense to
Capture and Track Data Generated in Metering Department
Facilities............................................... 301
Section 2830--Metering of Navy Piers to Accurately Measure
Energy Consumption....................................... 301
Section 2831--Report on Energy-Efficiency Standards and
Prohibition on Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design Gold or Platinum Certification...... 301
Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment........... 302
Section 2841--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funding to
Support Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of
Military Installations and Relocation of Military
Personnel on Guam........................................ 302
Section 2842--Medical Care Coverage for H-2B Temporary
Workforce on Military Construction Projects on Guam...... 302
Section 2843--Certification of Military Readiness Need for
Firing Range on Guam as Condition on Establishment of
Range.................................................... 302
Section 2844--Repeal of Condition on Use of Specific
Utility Conveyance Authority regarding Guam Integrated
Water and Wastewater Treatment System.................... 302
Subtitle E--Land Conveyances................................. 302
Section 2851--Land Exchange, Fort Bliss, Texas............. 302
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 303
Section 2861--Change in Name of the Industrial College of
the Armed Forces to the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for
National Security and Resource Strategy.................. 303
Section 2862--Limitation on Reduction in Number of Members
of the Armed Forces Assigned to Permanent Duty at a
Military Installation to Effectuate Realignment of
Installation............................................. 303
Section 2863--Prohibition on Naming Department of Defense
Real Property after a Member of Congress................. 303
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 303
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 303
OVERVIEW....................................................... 303
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 304
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 304
Overview................................................... 304
Nuclear Modernization...................................... 304
Weapons Activities......................................... 306
Stockpile Stewardship.................................... 307
Stockpile Management..................................... 307
Directed Stockpile Work.................................. 308
B61 Phase 6.3 Life Extension Program..................... 308
Science Campaign......................................... 309
Engineering Campaign..................................... 309
Readiness Campaign....................................... 309
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign............................................... 310
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign............... 311
Exa-scale computing at the Department of Energy and
National Nuclear Security Administration National
Laboratories......................................... 311
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities............... 311
Report on project management for large-scale
construction programs................................ 312
Secure Transportation Asset.............................. 313
Comptroller General Evaluation of Study on Options for
Nuclear Weapon Transportation........................ 313
Work for Others at the National Nuclear Laboratories..... 314
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 314
Nuclear Centers of Excellence............................ 314
Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.......... 315
Naval Reactors............................................. 315
Office of the Administrator................................ 316
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 316
Overview................................................... 316
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 316
Other Defense Activities................................... 317
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................. 317
Report on Mixed Oxide Fuel............................... 317
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 318
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 318
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 318
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 318
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 318
Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................ 318
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 318
Section 3111--Consolidated Reporting Requirements relating
to Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and
Infrastructure........................................... 318
Section 3112--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security................. 319
Section 3113--Use of Savings from Pension Reimbursements
for Budgetary Shortfalls................................. 319
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 320
Section 3121--Repeal of Certain Report Requirements........ 320
Section 3122--Progress on Nuclear Nonproliferation......... 320
Section 3123--Reports on Role of Nuclear Sites and
Efficiencies............................................. 321
Section 3124--Net Assessment of High-Performance Computing
Capabilities of Foreign Countries........................ 322
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 322
OVERVIEW....................................................... 322
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 322
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................... 322
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 323
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 323
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 323
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 323
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 323
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 323
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 323
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National
Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year
2012..................................................... 323
Section 3502--Use of National Defense Reserve Fleet and
Ready Reserve Force Vessels.............................. 324
Section 3503--Recruitment Authority........................ 324
Section 3504--Ship Scrapping Reporting Requirement......... 324
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 324
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 324
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 324
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 325
Section 4101--Procurement.................................. 325
Section 4102--Procurement for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 373
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 388
Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 388
Section 4202--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
for Overseas Contingency Operations...................... 427
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 430
Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance.................... 430
Section 4302--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 448
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 458
Section 4401--Military Personnel........................... 458
Section 4402--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 459
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 460
Section 4501--Other Authorizations......................... 460
Section 4502--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 464
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 466
Section 4601--Military Construction........................ 466
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 492
Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security
Programs................................................. 492
DEPARTMENTAL DATA................................................ 503
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 503
Communications from Other Committees............................. 507
Fiscal Data...................................................... 522
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 522
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 523
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 523
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 523
Oversight Findings............................................... 524
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 524
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 525
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 525
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 525
Committee Votes.................................................. 525
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 538
Additional Views
Additional Views of Representative Robert J. Wittman........... 539
Additional Views of Representative Mike Coffman................ 540
Additional Views of Representative Chris Gibson................ 541
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-78
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
_______
May 17, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1540]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to
the text of the bill.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill would, (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for procurement and for research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2012: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed
Forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and Reserve Components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2012 for the Maritime Administration.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, is a key mechanism through which the Congress
of the United States fulfills one of its primary
responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress the
power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a
Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of
the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of
Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of
Defense (DOD) generally, and over the military application of
nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The
committee bill includes the large majority of the findings and
recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the
current year, as informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence. The committee
remains steadfast in its continued and unwavering support for
the men and women of the armed forces, the civilian employees
of the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of
Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. The armed
forces continue to be deeply engaged in a number of ongoing
military operations around the world, most significantly, the
wars in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of
Iraq, and military operations in Libya. The committee is deeply
committed to providing full authorization for the funding
required to restore the readiness of our military; enhance the
quality of life of military service members and their families;
sustain and improve the armed forces; and properly safeguard
the national security of the United States.
In addition to providing authorization of appropriations,
the committee bill ensures our troops deployed in Afghanistan,
Iraq and around the world have the equipment, resources,
authorities, training, and time needed to successfully complete
their missions and return home; provides our warfighters and
their families with the resources and support they need,
deserve, and have earned; invests in the capabilities and force
structure needed to protect the United States from current and
future threats; mandates fiscal responsibility, transparency
and accountability within the Department of Defense; and
incentivizes competition for every tax-payer dollar associated
with funding Department of Defense requirements.
Equipment, Resources, Authorities, Training, and Time to Accomplish
Missions
Focusing on victory in Afghanistan, the committee bill
affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict
with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force from 2001. Further,
the committee bill validates that the President's authority,
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force,
includes the authority to detain certain belligerents until the
termination of hostilities. The committee bill includes several
additional provisions to strengthen detention policies and
procedures.
With the nation at war, the committee further addresses Al
Qaeda and affiliated groups' use of the internet as a new
battlespace. The committee includes a provision that would
provide authorization for the Defense Department to use
cyberspace to confront that threat.
The committee bill includes a subtitle of new authorities
targeting corrupt contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
committee is also concerned that the scheduled departure of
U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011, will leave the
Iraqi Security Forces with several critical capabilities gaps
that may render it unable to achieve minimum combat readiness,
thereby jeopardizing Iraq's stability and the United States
hard fought gains in the region. Therefore, the committee bill
includes a provision that would require the Secretary of
Defense to report on any changes to the status of forces
agreement between the United States and Iraq, as well as steps
being taken to mitigate the Iraqi Security Forces capability
gaps.
As in previous years, the committee bill continues to
address the Department of Defense's global train and equip
authorities, to ensure that the United States has willing and
capable partners in the war against terrorism and radical
extremism.
Resources for Warfighters and Families
Recognizing that the service and sacrifice of our military
men and women is a down payment on future health care benefits,
the committee bill takes a sensible approach to TRICARE. The
bill includes a provision that would allow for a modest fee
increase, while protecting military families from steep fee
increases in the future. The bill also provides a 1.6 percent
increase in military basic pay.
In addition, the bill establishes requirements for the
management and measurement of dwell time--the time service
members spend at home station following a deployment; personnel
tempo--the time, including training time, that a service member
is unable to spend time in housing in which the service member
lives due to work duties; and operating tempo--the time units
are involved in operational and training requirements.
Moreover, the committee remains deeply concerned about the
impact proposed future force reductions for the Army and Marine
Corps will have on individual dwell time as well as the overall
health and welfare of the all volunteer force.
The committee bill provides additional services and
protections for service members who have been the victim of
sexual assault. The committee bill also includes language that
would make mental health assessments available for members of
the reserve components at the location of their unit during
unit training and assemblies.
Capabilities and Force Structure for Current and Future Threats
The committee bill authorizes appropriations for aircraft,
ground vehicles, shipbuilding, missile defense, military space
assets, and force protection equipment. The committee also
authorizes robust funding for defense research and development.
The committee bill addresses vulnerabilities to information
systems and proposes steps necessary to secure sensitive
information.
Looking to the future, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff recently noted that our rising debt is one of the
greatest threats to our national security. Moreover, a Chinese
defense official recently stated that Beijing was ``preparing
for war in all directions.'' As such, the committee bill
includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a national security risk assessment of U.S. federal
debt held by China. The legislation also includes a number of
provisions related to the military strength of China and Iran,
especially as it relates to anti-access and area denial
capabilities.
The committee is increasingly concerned about instability
on the Korean peninsula, particularly given anticipated
leadership changes within the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (DPRK). Therefore, the committee includes a requirement
for a detailed report on the military and security developments
involving the DPRK in order to more accurately assess the U.S.
capabilities required in the western Pacific.
The ballistic missile threat continues to increase both
quantitatively and quantitatively. The committee bill would
provide additional resources for development, test and fielding
of missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland and support
the implementation of the Administration's phased adaptive
approach for regional missile defense.
A credible and reliable nuclear deterrent has been
fundamental to U.S. security for decades and will continue to
be for the foreseeable future. As such, the committee fully
funds the Administration's requested funding increase for
nuclear modernization in order to reverse what the bipartisan
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States called a ``pattern of underinvestment over the last two
decades.'' The committee seeks to further ensure that the
Administration is held accountable to its modernization
promises and recommends prudent measures to limit further
nuclear force reductions without first ensuring our deterrent
is modernized and our commitments to our allies can be met.
Fiscal Responsibility, Transparency, and Accountability
The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's
budget and identified inefficiencies to invest those savings
into higher national security priorities. The committee bill
reflects the fact that as a nation, we must make tough choices
in order to provide for America's common defense by examining
every aspect of the defense enterprise to find ways that we can
accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more
effectively. In addition, the legislation reduces costly
reporting requirements and sets new standards for DOD financial
management, including standards for financial management
personnel, reporting, and budgeting for financial auditing.
Incentivizing Competition
The committee continues to believe that competition reduces
costs, increases quality, and improves vendor performance. For
this reason, the committee recommends several provisions to
foster competition in defense acquisitions. The committee
includes a provision that would mandate competition throughout
the life cycle of major weapon system at the component and
subcomponent levels. The committee also includes a provision
that requires a competitive acquisition strategy for the
propulsion system of the next-generation bomber. In addition,
the committee takes steps to incentivize competition for next-
generation military satellite communications (MILSATCOM)
technology development by transferring funding for this effort
out of the legacy satellite program and into a program element
for next-generation MILSATCOM technology development.
Furthermore, the committee takes steps to ensure preservation
of property related to the F136 propulsion system and requires
the Secretary of Defense to provide support and allow access to
such property to enable the contractor to continue development
and testing of the system at no cost to the government. The
committee applauds the contractor for continuing development
and testing of the F136 propulsion system despite the steps
taken by the Department of Defense to cancel the program. The
committee remains steadfast in its belief that a competitive
alternative to the currently-planned F136 is critical to the
success of the Joint Strike Fighter program, and such
competition will result in better engine performance, improved
contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial base,
increased engine reliability, and improved operational
readiness.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 results from hearings
that began on January 26, 2011, and that were completed on
April 14, 2011. The full committee conducted 14 sessions. In
addition, a total of 26 sessions were conducted by 6 different
subcommittees.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 1540, as amended, by a vote of 60-
1.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1540. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This
bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts
will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives
to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on
the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
The bill addresses the following categories in the
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research,
development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance;
military personnel; working capital funds; and military
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime
Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military
personnel.
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL
The President requested discretionary budget authority of
$689.0 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee for fiscal year 2012. Of this amount,
$553.0 billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense
programs, $117.8 billion was requested for the overseas
contingency operations requirements covering the entire fiscal
year, and $18.1 billion was requested for Department of Energy
national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $690.1 billion in fiscal year 2012, including
$117.8 billion for overseas contingency operations. The base
committee authorization of $571.1 billion is a $5.2 billion
increase above the levels provided for in the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383).
The following table summarizes the committee's recommended
discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for
fiscal year 2012 and compares these amounts to the President's
request.
BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
The President's total request for the national defense
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2012 is $702.9 billion, as
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050
request includes discretionary funding for national defense
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary
funding for programs that do not require additional
authorization in fiscal year 2012, and mandatory programs.
The following table details changes to all aspects of the
national defense budget function.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $111.5
billion for procurement. This represents a $300.0 million
increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2011.
The committee recommends authorization of $111.5 billion, a
decrease of $68.3 million from the fiscal year 2012 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
procurement program are identified in division D of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $7.1
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $6.5 billion, a decrease of $513.9
million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Aerial Common Sensor
The budget request contained $539.6 million for 18 C-12
aircraft to provide manned airborne intelligence, collection,
processing, and targeting support.
The Army had planned to award a low-rate initial production
contract for 50 percent of the total projected procurement in
late fiscal year 2012. The program has experienced significant
delays due to a number of factors, including development
contract award protests, shortcomings in the award process,
which the Army has taken responsibility for, and a subsequent
delay in the development contract award.
The committee recommends $15.7 million, a decrease of
$523.9 million, for the Aerial Common Sensor to provide manned
airborne intelligence, collection, processing, and targeting
support.
Airborne Reconnaissance Low
The Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) is a multifunction,
day/night, all weather DHC-7 fixed-wing reconnaissance
aircraft. The Army is evaluating options to modernize the ARL
fleet. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the current state
of the ARL fleet, including reliability and maintainability
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The
report should also include a review of the options currently
under consideration for major ARL modernization programs.
Air filters for National Guard helicopters
The committee notes that Inlet Barrier Filtration (IBF) and
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) filtration systems capture 99
percent of air particles, including grit and other abrasives
that degrade and destroy the internal components of rotorcraft
engines. The substantial cost savings in engine repair,
overhaul, class 9 replacement parts, and maintenance labor have
been well documented throughout the Army and Army National
Guard (ARNG). The committee believes that installing IBF and
APU filtration systems on these aircraft could reduce
maintenance costs and increase readiness rates. The committee
encourages the ARNG to fund IBF and APU filtration systems in
the future.
CH-47F Chinook helicopter
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the CH-47F Chinook
helicopter includes funding for the fifth year of a 5-year
multiyear procurement contract. The committee notes that this
contract has provided stability to the program and savings to
the taxpayer of over $450.0 million. In view of the continuing
need for sustained procurement of the CH-47F, the Army's
acquisition strategy calls for a second 5-year multiyear
contract beginning in fiscal year 2013. The committee agrees
with the Army strategy to continue procurement with substantial
cost savings for the CH-47F, and encourages the Department of
Defense to include a request for authority for a new multiyear
contract in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.
UH-72A Lakota helicopter aircraft survivability equipment
The budget request contained $250.4 million for procurement
of 39 UH-72A Lakota helicopters.
The committee remains supportive of the UH-72A helicopter
program. The committee notes that with over 150 aircraft now
delivered to the Army on cost and within schedule, the UH-72A
has proven to be a robust and efficient multirole platform. The
committee understands that the UH-72A has a documented
requirement for 210 helicopters to support domestic missions in
``permissive'' environments. The committee believes that there
may be opportunities to leverage this aircraft to meet
additional operational needs for the warfighter. However,
before this happens, the committee needs to understand how the
Army defines ``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive''
environments. In addition the committee needs to understand
what the associated survivability modifications would be
required and if such modifications would be feasible, given
size, weight, and power limitations, if the mission envelope of
the UH-72A was expanded beyond ``permissive'' environments.
The committee recommends $250.4 million, the full amount
requested, for procurement of 39 UH-72A Lakota helicopters.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $1.5
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.5 billion, a decrease of $14.5 million, for
fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $1.9
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2.4 billion,
an increase of $427.5 million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Abrams tank program National Guard modernization
The budget request contained $181.3 million for the Abrams
tank upgrade program.
The committee notes that the National Guard currently has
six Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCT) that consist of the
Abrams M1A1 tank which is an analog based system and active
duty HBCTs operate the more modern M1A2 tank which uses a
digital system. The committee also notes that there are
significant differences in capability, particularly for growth
and survivability between the M1A1 and M1A2 SEP (version 2)
that now is being produced under the current Multi-Year
Procurement contract. The committee understands that under the
original Future Combat Systems (FCS) strategy, the Army planned
to cascade the M1A2 tanks to the National Guard. However, as a
result of the termination of the FCS program, the Army has yet
to develop a plan to modernize the National Guard HBCT in the
near term. Given the Army's top development project is
currently the tactical ``network,'' which requires a digital
capability, the committee believes the National Guard needs the
M1A2 tank in order to stay aligned with the Army's tactical
network strategy.
The committee further notes that the Army must maintain the
ability for its Heavy Brigade Combat Teams to overmatch any
possible threat in the future. The committee is concerned that
even with the funds requested for fiscal year 2012, the Abrams
tank production would shut down in fiscal year 2013, and the
Army is unsure that the production line and supporting
industrial base would be available when it starts future
upgrades to Abrams tanks in fiscal year 2016. The committee
believes that the Army must rapidly accelerate future Abrams
tank upgrades, or it must continue production of the most
capable version of the M1 Abrams until the upgrade program
begins. The committee believes that the most prudent course of
action is to bridge the planned production gap with production
of the most capable version of the M1 tank, the M1A2 system
enhancement program version 2 (M1A2 SEPv2), at the most
economical rate possible. The committee also believes that the
cost of shutting down and then restarting the Abrams production
line would be significant and may cost as much as it would to
``pure fleet'' the National Guard with the most modern version
of Abrams tanks.
The committee recommends $453.3 million, an increase of
$272.0 million, for the Abrams tank upgrade program to procure
additional M1A2 SEPv2 tanks using the current multi-year
contract, with the additional tanks being used to replace less
capable versions of the M1 tank in the Army National Guard or
prepositioned equipment sets.
Bradley fighting vehicle program
The budget request contained $250.7 million for the Bradley
fighting vehicle (BFV) program.
The committee is concerned that despite these funds,
Bradley fighting vehicle production will effectively shut down
for as long as 2 years, and that the Army cannot be sure that
the production line and supporting industrial base will be
available when it plans to restart production of upgraded
Bradley vehicles in the future. The committee notes that
second-tier suppliers of key components are already shutting
down or planning to do so in the near future. The committee
believes that a more prudent course of action is to bridge the
production gap with continued production of the most capable
version of the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M2A3, or pursuit
of an interim upgrade program for the existing M2A3 fleet.
Should the Army choose to produce more M2A3's, the committee
believes that the Army could provide these vehicles to the Army
National Guard, elements of the active Army not yet equipped
with M2A3's, or prepositioned equipment sets. If the Army
instead pursues an interim upgrade program for the current
fleet of M2A3's, the committee encourages the Army to consider
technology insertions to address vehicle power and
survivability requirements.
The committee recommends, $403.7 million, an increase of
$153.0 million, for the Bradley fighting vehicle program.
M4 carbine product improvement program
The budget request contained $25.1 million for M4 carbine
modifications, of which $14.6 million was for the M4 carbine
product improvement program (PIP).
The committee understands the M4/M4A1 carbine product
improvement program is a multi-phased incremental program to
enhance its reliability, durability, maintainability, sustained
rate of fire, and ergonomics. The committee notes the M4
carbine PIP consists of two phases, composed of multiple
increments within each phase. The committee is aware the
program is not fully resourced to meet operational needs and
has significant unfunded requirements across the Future Years
Defense Program.
The committee supports this M4/M4A1 PIP effort and
encourages the Army to pursue best value, full and open
competition for each phase and increment to include commercial-
off-the-shelf solutions. The committee also encourages the
Secretary of the Army to adequately resource this effort.
The committee recommends $14.6 million, the full amount of
the request, for the M4/M4A1 PIP effort.
Stryker vehicles
The budget request contained $685.8 million for procurement
of 100 Stryker nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)
reconnaissance vehicles and modifications to existing Stryker
vehicles.
The committee is concerned about the unstable requirements
and continually changing production plans for Stryker vehicles
and modifications. The committee notes that in addition to the
100 vehicles requested in fiscal year 2012, the Army has
validated unfunded requirements for 513 additional Stryker
vehicles of various models. However, the committee notes that
the Army now has in its inventory more than 400 Stryker
vehicles in its ready-to-fight or depot repair cycle float
fleets. The committee believes that increasing the size of the
Stryker vehicle fleet beyond those vehicles that are resident
in Stryker brigades is excessive. The Army should distribute or
modify those Stryker vehicles to fulfill unmet validated
requirements before increasing production of new Stryker
vehicles beyond the 100 NBC reconnaissance variants requested
in fiscal year 2012. Elsewhere in this title, the committee
includes a provision that would limit the use of fiscal year
2012 procurement funds until the Secretary of the Army provides
information clarifying the Army's future Stryker vehicle
production plans.
The committee recommends $685.8 million, the full amount
requested, for procurement of 100 additional Stryker NBC
reconnaissance vehicles and modifications to existing Stryker
vehicles.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $2.0
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $2.0 billion, no change to the
budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $9.7
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $9.5 billion, a decrease of $170.8 million,
for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Body armor investment strategy
The committee notes that section 141 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Secretary of Defense to establish procurement
line items and research and development program elements for
body armor programs. The committee notes the Secretary of
Defense has failed to establish procurement line items and as a
result, the committee is concerned about the long term
investment strategy for body armor. The committee understands
that under the Department's existing budgetary policy, funding
to procure body armor, clothing, and other personal protective
gear is typically included in the Operation and Maintenance
appropriations account and is categorized as an ``expendable''
item. The committee is aware that the O&M appropriation
accounts allow for greater flexibility in funding based on
dynamic annual program requirements. The committee also notes
that establishing a separate, procurement line item would not
prevent the Department from continuing to use the O&M
appropriation for sustainment purposes or limit the military
departments' ability to use rapid acquisition authorities to
ensure the fastest possible exploitation of body armor material
improvements, production, or fielding.
The committee believes that establishing an individual
procurement line item would generate better accountability and
transparency in long term planning, programming, and investment
by the military services for the acquisition of body armor.
Further, a long term investment strategy based on future
requirement estimates could better position the body armor
industrial base to rapidly respond to new threats or
requirements as well as accelerate the amount of industry
investment to further advancements in survivability and weight
reduction.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to notify
the congressional defense committees in writing beginning 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the actions
being taken by the Department to comply with the creation of a
procurement line item required by section 141 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 or provide
justification for having not complied with the requirement. The
committee further directs the Under Secretary to review the
current definition of ``expendable items'' and determine
whether body armor should still be considered an expendable
item rather than a program system and to report the findings to
the congressional defense committees within 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Body armor requirements generation and weight reduction initiatives
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, if required, update the current body armor
requirements document through capabilities based assessments
that would clearly define current and future force
requirements, particularly in the area of weight reduction
versus protection. The committee notes that the tradeoff
between protection capabilities and weight is a major cost
driver in body armor procurements. The committee is aware that
available technology has not been able to keep the body armor
system within the users' desired weight without sacrificing
performance.
The committee continues to recognize the critical
importance of reducing the warfighters carrying combat load for
current operations, specifically Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF), and considers this a high priority issue. The committee
notes that body armor, along with water and ammunition, make up
most of an individual's equipment weight, and that most
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are
dismounted operations. The committee believes there should be
greater urgency in providing appropriate levels of equipment to
warfighters in OEF that would allow small unit commanders to
better tailor mission equipment to effectively meet operational
requirements. The committee believes the Department should
incentivize the industrial base to achieve greater advancements
in weight reduction technology that could reduce the individual
carrying combat load, most notably in body armor.
Information management system for the National Guard
The committee believes that the National Guard Bureau
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD CST) play
an important role in support to civil authorities at a domestic
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High Explosive
(CBRNE) incident site. The committee is aware that a tactical
information management system has been fielded to the CST's to
provide crucial command, control, and communications
capabilities. The committee is also aware that in the event of
such an incident, National Guard assets such as the CBRNE
Enhanced Response Force Package and Homeland Defense Response
Force units could deploy to support the CST's. Therefore, to
ensure connectivity and unity of effort of all deployed
National Guard assets, the committee encourages the National
Guard Bureau to expand the CST information management system to
these follow-on forces.
Joint Tactical Radio System
The budget request contained $775.8 million for the Joint
Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program. Of this amount, $204.8
million was for Ground Mobile Radio (GMR), $426.2 million was
for Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit (HMS) radio, and
$144.8 million was for Airborne and Maritime/Fixed (AMF)
station radio.
The committee remains supportive of the JTRS program and
understands that the Army has made progress in its tactical
network strategy, of which JTRS is a key component. The
committee supports the Army's plan to pursue non-proprietary
waveforms, and its plan to conduct full and open competition
during full-rate production.
The committee encourages the Army to pursue full and open
competition of the HMS radios prior to full rate production, if
feasible, to ensure the best product is available to the
warfighter at the best price. Such acquisition and contracting
must fit within the competition focused elements of the
Secretary of Defense's efficiency initiatives.
The committee understands that the Army is likely to lower
its current basis of issue of GMR radios for Brigade Combat
Teams (BCT). In addition, when factoring in the fiscal year
2011 and 2012 requests the Army has requested procurement of
almost 10 brigade sets of GMR radios. Therefore, elsewhere in
this title, the committee includes a provision that would
restrict the use of fiscal year 2012 procurement funds until
the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense
committees written certification that the acquisition strategy
for full-rate production includes full and open competition. In
addition, the committee recommends a reduction in funds for GMR
procurement due to a lack of clarity regarding the Army's
overall requirements for GMR radios.
The committee recommends $716.0 million, a decrease of
$35.8 million, for the JTRS GMR program, and a decrease of
$24.0 million for the Maritime/Fixed station program.
Light tactical vehicle investment strategy
The budget request contained $161.6 million to recapitalize
1,362 high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs).
The committee understands the military services, in
coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, are
continuing to update and refine their investment strategies for
their respective light tactical wheeled vehicles (LTV) and
continue to seek a balance of affordable capabilities across
their light tactical vehicle (LTV) fleets. The committee notes
the military services' LTV fleets consist primarily of
unarmored and armored HMMWVs and will also include the future
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The committee
understands that due to affordability concerns, the Army and
the Marine Corps are planning to reduce their LTV fleets by
approximately 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively, over the
next five years. The committee understands the Army has
acknowledged that a significant risk to their strategy is the
availability of expected TWV procurement funds and as a result
the committee has concerns over adequately maintaining the LTV
industrial base.
The committee also understands that the Army and the Marine
Corps both plan to competitively recapitalize their respective
Up-Armor HMMWV (UAH) fleets with improvements to automotive
performance and survivability in order to improve overall
capability and extend life cycles. The committee is aware that
the Army and the Marine Corps plan on retaining HMMWVs and UAHs
in their inventories over the next 20 years and will use them
extensively. The committee notes the competitive approach to
improving the Army and the Marine Corps UAH fleets would be
based on a best value, full and open competition beginning in
fiscal year 2013 among public, private, and/or public-private
partnerships. The committee supports this plan and encourages
the Army and the Marine Corps to accelerate this program as a
means to stabilize the LTV industrial base and provide a bridge
to the JLTV program. The committee also expects the Army and
the Marine Corps to coordinate on establishing joint
requirements and resources for this program.
Further, the committee is aware of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) recent initiatives, in
partnership with the Army and the Marine Corps, aimed at
enhancing HMMWV survivability for the warfighter through the
integration of ``structural blast chimney'' technology on
original equipment manufacturer-produced HMMWVs. The committee
understands DARPA is conducting ballistic, mobility, and
reliability tests and that initial ballistic test results have
indicated improvements to vehicle and warfighter survivability
without increasing overall vehicle weight. The committee
supports this effort and expects this technology would be
considered, pending favorable test results, as part of the UAH
competitive recapitalization program and would encourage the
acceleration of this program.
The committee recommends $161.6 million, the full amount of
the request, for the current HMMWV recapitalization program and
encourages the Army and the Marine Corps to adequately resource
and accelerate the UAH competitive recapitalization program.
M915 line haul tractor trailer acquisition strategy
The budget request contained $1.4 million for procurement
of six M915 and M916 line haul tractor trailer trucks.
The committee notes the current $51.0 million funding
profile for fiscal years 2011-16 would only procure 115
M915A5s. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to
consider a full and open competition for any new future
procurement should the M915 requirement increase. The committee
also understands the Army Reserve has significant unfunded
requirements for its M915 truck fleet and encourages the
Secretary of the Army to develop courses of action that would
accelerate meeting these requirements in a timely manner.
The committee recommends $1.4 million, the full amount of
the request, for the procurement of six M915 and M916 line haul
tractor trailer trucks.
Tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition strategy
The committee believes the sustainment of the tactical
wheeled vehicle (TWV) industrial base could be affected by many
operational and affordability challenges across the Future
Years Defense Program. The Army's current TWV acquisition
strategy employs a near-term investment plan of just over $1.0
billion per year, slowly rising to approximately $2.5 billion
per year through fiscal year 2025. The Secretary of the Army
has indicated that these projected funding levels will not
support continuation of the prior pace of TWV modernization,
replacement, and recapitalization. In light of current budget
constraints, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army
and the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with industry,
to jointly consider requesting multi-year contracting authority
as a means to generate potential cost savings and sustain an
efficient and cost effective TWV industrial base.
Weapon light upgrades
The budget request contained $156.2 million for Night
Vision Devices. Of this amount, no funds were requested for
upgrade kits for Millennium Universal (MU) series weapon
lights.
The committee notes that the current Army inventory of
approximately 100,000 MU series weapon lights incurs
substantial cost to the Army due to battery replacement rates.
The committee understands that retrofitting these weapon lights
using the V-series KM4 upgrade kit, or other upgrade kits, may
significantly reduce battery replacement demand, resulting in
substantial annual savings to the Government. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to review options for
weapon light upgrade kits in order to determine if any meet
requirements and could produce the substantial savings due to
lower battery usage.
The committee recommends $156.2 million, the full amount of
the request, for Night Vision Devices.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $220.6
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.
The committee recommends authorization of $220.6 million, no
change in the budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Efforts to mitigate the improvised explosive device threat to
dismounted operations
The committee understands that the number of dismounted
operations conducted by U.S. and coalition forces continue to
rise in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee
notes that although overall enemy improvised explosive device
(IED) efficacy has decreased since October 2010, primarily due
to early detection from dismounted forces, the severity of
casualties increase when a dismounted IED effective attack
occurs. The committee believes that efforts to mitigate the IED
threat to dismounted forces should be a top priority for the
Department of Defense.
The committee recognizes that many mitigation efforts are
currently being developed and procured by the Joint IED Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO) to counter the IED threat to dismounted
forces. The committee also recognizes that a holistic approach
is required that entails improved pre-deployment training,
tactics, procedures, and availability of equipment to readily
address capability gaps. The committee notes that JIEDDO is
actively pursuing unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) as a counter-
IED solution to the IED threat to dismounted forces. The
committee understands that JIEDDO has engaged industry and
other Department of Defense agencies for potential UGV
solutions that could be rapidly developed and fielded and
encourages the aggressive pursuit to rapidly field a solution.
The committee believes potential interim solutions would be
operationally effective and should be considered for fielding,
concurrent to pursuing a solution that meets and addresses all
requirements as a means to mitigate the IED threat to
dismounted forces.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
The budget request contains $2.8 billion for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO).
The committee understands JIEDDO was established in
February 2006 to ``lead, advocate, and coordinate all DOD
actions . . . to defeat IEDs as weapons of strategic
influence.'' The committee expects improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) to remain an enduring threat to U.S. forces. The
committee notes that Congress has provided approximately $19.7
billion to JIEDDO to counter the IED threat and that JIEDDO has
reported significant progress in the counter-IED (C-IED) fight
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and in the Republic of
Iraq. For instance, the committee understands enemy IED
efficacy in Afghanistan has decreased since October 2010. The
committee commends JIEDDO's efforts to rapidly develop,
procure, and field programs to mitigate the IED threat in
response to urgent operational needs. To build on the
considerable progress made, the committee, in collaboration
with the Government Accountability Office, will continue to
conduct oversight of JIEDDO's capability to effectively manage
and evaluate C-IED programs.
The committee recommends $2.8 billion, the full amount of
the request, for JIEDDO.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $18.6
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $18.6 billion, an increase of $4.5
million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
V-22
The budget request contained $2.2 billion for the
procurement of V-22 aircraft.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
considering a follow-on multi-year procurement strategy for the
V-22 program starting in fiscal year 2013. The multi-year
procurement contract for fiscal years 2008-2012 provided
stability to the program and savings of over $420.0 million
compared to single-year contracts.
The committee notes that since 2007, the V-22 has performed
14 overseas deployments for the Marine Corps and Air Force
Special Operations Forces in demanding environments under war
time operational tempo, and understands that improvements in
mission capable readiness rates across the fleet and decreases
in costs per flight hour have been made as the aircraft has
achieved its first 100,000 flight hours. The committee expects
the Department of Defense to continue its focus on supply chain
efficiency, maintenance best practices, and high reliability of
select components in order to continue improvements to mission
capable rates and decreased costs per flight hour. In view of
the continuing need for sustained procurement of the V-22, the
committee urges the Department of Defense to consider a request
for authorization of a new multi-year procurement contract
beginning in fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommends $2.2 billion for the procurement
of V-22 aircraft.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $3.4
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $3.4 billion, an increase of $5.0 million, for
fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $720.0
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.
The committee recommends authorization of $720.0 million, no
change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Laser guided air-launched rockets
The budget request contained $118.4 million for airborne
rockets, all types. Of this amount, no funds were requested for
upgrading 5-inch diameter unguided rockets into 5-inch
precision laser guided rockets.
The committee is aware that the Marine Corps has requested
through the universal urgent need statement process a laser
guided 5-inch precision rocket to strike both fixed and moving
targets effectively from tactical aircraft and rotorcraft. The
committee is aware the Department of the Navy has performed
successful test firings of 5-inch diameter laser guided rockets
against both fixed and moving targets. The committee supports
the Secretary of the Navy's actions to rapidly address this
urgent operational need for the warfighter. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue to move
aggressively to adequately fund, procure, and field a 5-inch
precision laser-guided rocket through the rapid acquisition
process in order to meet this urgent operational need.
The committee recommends $118.4 million for airborne
rockets, all types.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $14.9
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $14.9 billion, a decrease of $50.0
million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Amphibious Assault Ship
The budget request contained $2.0 billion for the detail
design and construction of the amphibious assault ship
designated LHA-7.
The delivery of the first ship of the America-class, LHA-6,
has been significantly delayed. According to the Department of
Defense ``Selected Acquisition Report'' of December 31, 2010,
the delays are ``due to changing conditions in the shipyard
portfolio which are driving labor demands in various trades''.
These delays have had a cascading effect on LHA-7, which was
scheduled to go on contract for detail design and construction
in November 2010, but now the Navy estimates the contract will
be delayed until the end of fiscal year 2011. Elsewhere in this
title, the committee includes a provision that would authorize
the Navy to conclude funding for LHA-7 in fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommends $2.0 billion, a decrease of $50.0
million, for LHA-7.
Navy Shipbuilding Program
The budget request contained $14.9 billion for Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy.
The committee is pleased that the Navy has turned around
the downward spiral in battle force ship quantities, and the
plan to achieve the floor of 313 ships appears to be
achievable. To obtain the required capability and to provide
the required stability to the fragile shipbuilding industrial
base, the committee believes the following programs are
crucial.
CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford-class of aircraft
carriers. The committee was critical when the Navy changed
construction starts of these carriers from 4-year to 5-year
centers. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to
keep these aircraft carriers on 5-year centers at the most,
with fiscal year 2013 being the first year of detail design and
construction funding for CVN-79. The committee believes one key
to success in this program will be to minimize changes from
ship to ship in the class.
The Virginia-class submarine program has proven itself to
be a model shipbuilding program. Cost reduction efforts and
ever-decreasing span time for construction and delivery allowed
the Navy to fund two ships a year starting in fiscal year 2011,
1 year earlier than previously planned. The committee believes
that modularity of payloads and open interfaces for its weapons
systems, including electronic warfare, will improve capability
while being more affordable. To continue to get the most
efficiency from this program, the committee encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to ensure that advance procurement for
the next block of Virginia-class submarines is funded to
required levels.
Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the shipbuilding
program is that it will be difficult to fund and maintain the
current plan once the Navy begins to acquire replacements for
the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine fleet. In testimony
before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Navy
officials suggested that there may be options to fund these
boats outside of the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account.
The committee believes that the industrial teaming arrangement
has been successful on the Virginia-class submarine program and
would encourage the Secretary of the Navy to use the
capabilities of both submarine shipbuilders in crafting an
affordable acquisition strategy for the Ohio-class Replacement
Program.
The re-start of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of
destroyers is an important step in maintaining highly capable
surface combatants in sufficient quantities, especially given
the increased reliance on these ships to provide additional
ballistic missile defense capabilities. Elsewhere in this
title, the committee includes a provision that would grant
multi-year procurement contract authority for these ships. The
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue
pursuing an open architecture, data sharing approach to the
maintenance and sustainability of existing weapons systems.
This approach will allow for more competition and affordable
upgrades.
The committee received testimony that the Marine Corps'
requirement for amphibious ships is 38 ships, but that the
number of ships that are absolutely necessary with acceptable
risk is 33. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy
to continue pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $6.3
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $6.3 billion, an increase of $7.6 million, for
fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $1.4
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $1.0 million, for
fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $14.1
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $14.1 billion, an increase of $43.5
million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
B-1 bomber aircraft force structure
The committee understands that in fiscal year 2012 the Air
Force plans to retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft and reduce the
current combat-coded force structure from 36 B-1 bomber
aircraft down to 30. The committee supports the Air Force's
plan to retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft but does not support the
plan to reduce the combat-coded force structure of B-1 bomber
aircraft.
In a report titled ``2007 Long-Range Strike White Paper''
required by the committee report (S. Rept. 109-254)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007, the Air Force stated that 96 combat-coded bomber
aircraft total (36 B-1s, 16 B-2s, and 44 B-52s) were required
to meet combatant commander requirements until a next-
generation long-range strike aircraft is fielded. Furthermore,
the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review validated the requirement
to maintain up to 96 combat-coded bomber aircraft.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to retire 6 B-
1 bomber aircraft but would require the Secretary to maintain a
combat-coded inventory of 36 B-1 bomber aircraft. The committee
is concerned that retirement of any B-1 aircraft is premature
prior to a replacement long-range strike bomber aircraft
reaching initial operational capability status.
Common vertical lift support platform
The budget request contained $52.8 million for procurement
of two common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP)
helicopters. The budget request also contained $5.4 million in
title II of this Act for research, development, test, and
evaluation activities associated with the CVLSP program.
The CVLSP program is a new start for fiscal year 2012 that
would eventually procure 93 non-developmental helicopters to
provide vertical lift support for nuclear weapons convoy
escort, emergency security response, National Capitol Region
transport, and other Air Force missions with improved speed,
range, capacity, and survivability.
The committee notes that the Air Force plans to procure an
in-production, non-developmental, government off-the-shelf, or
commercial off-the-shelf aircraft for this purpose, and that
the total development cost throughout the Future Years Defense
Program is budgeted for $29.4 million. The committee expects
the Department of the Air Force to adhere to this strategy to
minimize development and procurement costs.
The committee recommends $52.8 million for procurement of
two CVLSP helicopters and $5.4 million for research,
development, test, and evaluation activities associated with
the CVSLP program.
Global Hawk
The budget request contained $607.8 million for procurement
of RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems (UAS).
The committee is aware this platform is a critical high-
demand, low-density intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) asset that is being used extensively and
effectively to perform critical missions in Operation New Dawn
and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee also notes that
this platform is being used effectively in global humanitarian
and recovery operations. The committee supports the Global Hawk
UAS program and should the Secretary of Defense determine that
additional Global Hawk UAS are required, then the committee
encourages using funds contained within this Act for the
purposes of addressing those requirements.
The committee recommends $607.8 million, the full amount of
the request, for Global Hawk UAS.
Intra-theater and inter-theater airlift programs
The budget request contained $396.8 million for C-17
modernization, $1.1 billion for the C-5 Reliability Enhancement
and Re-engineering program, $141.3 million for procurement of 1
C-130H/J aircraft, $1.1 billion for procurement of 10 HC/MC/AC-
130 aircraft, and $571.6 million for 9 C-27J aircraft.
The committee notes in regards to inter-theater airlift
aircraft programs, the Secretary of the Air Force requested to
repeal section 8062(g) of title 10, United States Code, which
provides that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain a minimum
inventory of 316 strategic inter-theater airlift aircraft. The
committee does not support repeal and believes that a minimum
inventory of 316 airlift aircraft provides a prudent balance of
operational risk, affordability and sufficient organic
capabilities in meeting the ever-increasing mobility
requirements in support of the National Military Strategy and
combat operations. The committee's rationale stems from
concerns regarding the future viability of the Civil Reserve
Airlift Fleet, the reliance of transporting oversize and
outsize cargo using foreign aircraft leasing arrangements, the
unforeseen over-utilization rates of the current fleet of
inter-theater airlift aircraft, the consistent under-estimation
of deploying units Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data
regarding the amount of equipment to support combat operations,
and the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study does not
address or characterize the operational risk in meeting
combatant commander warfighting requirements or timelines.
The committee notes in regards to intra-theater airlift
aircraft programs, that the Department of Defense continues to
struggle with sufficiently, and comprehensively, analyzing and
defining intra-theater airlift mobility requirements for active
and reserve components, as well as National Guard units
supporting both title 10 and title 32, United States Code,
airlift mobility operations. The committee continues to believe
that a reduction in the C-130H/J inventory from 395 to 335
aircraft, a reduction in the inventory of C-27J aircraft from
78 to 38, and a wholesale inventory reduction by the Army of 42
C-23 aircraft is unjustified, premature and based on
insufficient analytics, and moreover, executed for budgetary
reasons. Furthermore, the committee understands that neither
the 2006 Mobility Capability Study or the 2010 Mobility
Capability and Requirements Study did not comprehensively
analyze all aspects of intra-theater airlift requirements in
the mission areas of time sensitive-direct support, homeland
security, Air Force and Army National Guard domestic airlift
operations in support of contingencies resulting from natural
disasters, humanitarian crises, emergencies, and combatant
commander warfighting requirements. Unless the Department has
analysis that indicates the original requirement for 78 C-27J
aircraft is no longer valid, the committee supports the
procurement of 9 C-27J aircraft in fiscal year 2012 and the
acquisition of C-27Js in fiscal year 2013 and beyond to meet
the requirements of the National Guard. Without a comprehensive
analysis of the aforementioned mission areas, it is impossible
to justify such a decrease in intra-theater airlift
capabilities.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee expressed concerns regarding the C-27J
program. On April 29, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force
notified the committee that the program unit cost of the
aircraft had grown from the April 2008 program baseline by $8.7
million per aircraft and the estimated operations and
sustainment costs of the aircraft had grown by $1.5 billion,
resulting in a significant Nunn-McCurdy breach. An aircraft
quantity decrease of 78 to 38 total aircraft and an immature
sustainment plan from the original program of record were
primary contributing factors to the Nunn-McCurdy breach.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from retiring C-
23 aircraft until one year after the Director of the National
Guard, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army, the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the Administrator
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency submits an intra-
theater airlift study to the congressional defense committees
that incorporates a comprehensive review of intra-theater
airlift requirements for both title 10, United States Code, and
title 32, United States Code operations. Lastly, if the intra-
theater airlift requirements of the study are not sufficiently
supported by the currently planned intra-theater airlift force
structure of the Department of Defense, the committee
encourages the Department to procure the most cost-effective
and mission-effective airlift aircraft to meet requirements.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $539.1
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $539.1 million, no change to the
budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $6.1
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $6.5 billion, an increase of $416.0
million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $17.6
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $17.6 billion, a decrease of $6.0
million, for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division
D of this Act.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $5.4
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends
authorization of $5.1 billion, a decrease of $218.2 million,
for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Innovative titanium manufacturing processes
The budget request contained $19.9 million for Defense
Production Act purchases. Of this amount, no funds were
requested for innovative titanium and titanium alloy
manufacturing processes.
The committee notes a high strength-to-weight ratio and
resistance to corrosion make titanium and titanium alloys a
critical component of many military platforms. However, the
conventional, highly energy intensive process for producing
titanium can be costly and often require long lead times. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to invest in
innovative titanium and titanium alloy manufacturing processes
capable of producing high-quality, lower cost titanium
products.
The committee recommends $19.9 million, the full amount of
the request, for the Defense Production Act.
Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal Defense
The budget request contained $272.6 million for Non-
Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal Defense, and
$8.5 million for Overseas Contingency Operations for a total of
$281.1 million.
The committee notes that of this request, $110.0 million
will support new procurements and program growth for aviation
foreign internal defense.
The committee recommends $231.1 million, a decrease of
$50.0 million, for Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign
Internal Defense.
Special operations combatant craft systems
The budget request contained $6.9 million for special
operations combatant craft systems.
The committee notes that U.S. Special Operation Command's
fleet of Naval Special Warfare Rigid Inflatable Boats (NSW RIB)
will be drawn down through fiscal year 2017. The committee also
notes that the Mk V platform will leave service beginning in
fiscal year 2012, and that the Combatant Craft Medium Mk1 (CCM
Mk1) platform is projected to fill this important capability
requirement for maritime special operations forces. However,
the committee understands that delays in the CCM Mk1 program
have created a capability gap in combatant craft that would
potentially result in the number of available combatant craft
falling below operational requirements, thus requiring a
bridging strategy until the CCM Mk1 is fully fielded by fiscal
year 2020. The committee believes this potential gap represents
a serious national security concern as special operations
forces are increasingly called upon to operate in a maritime
environment.
Therefore the committee recommends $66.9 million, an
increase of $60.0 million, for special operations combatant
craft systems to satisfy critical maritime requirements and
address the capability gap created as the NSW RIB and Mk V
Special Operations Craft fleets retire.
Special operations communications equipment and tactical radio systems
The budget request contained $87.5 million for special
operations communications equipment and electronics. The budget
request also contained $76.5 million for special operations
tactical radio systems.
The committee notes that military operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and elsewhere are increasingly
distributed and heavily reliant upon a robust communications
infrastructure and capability. The communications requirements
for special operations forces continue to grow at a rapid pace,
reflecting the remote locations from which these forces
operate, the close work with local security forces, and the
expansion of the U.S. footprint in key areas throughout the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee recognizes the
critical importance communications systems will have in
supporting a successful military strategy and protecting U.S.
forces.
Therefore, the committee recommends $150.3 million, an
increase of $62.8 million, for special operations
communications equipment and electronics to meet increased
communications requirements for special operations forces. In
addition, the committee recommends $101.5 million, an increase
of $25.0 million for special operations tactical radio systems
to meet increased tactical communications requirements for
special operations forces.
Standard missile-3 interceptors
The budget request contained $565.4 million for procurement
of Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) for the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA).
The request would support the production of 46 standard
missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB interceptors for delivery in fiscal
year 2014. The fiscal year 2011 budget request included plans
by MDA to procure 66 SM-3 Block IB interceptors in fiscal year
2012. However, the budget request procures 20 less SM-3 Block
IB interceptors than previously planned.
The SM-3 Block IB is a fundamental element of the
President's phased, adaptive approach (PAA) to missile defense
in Europe and in other geographic regions. In particular,
sufficient inventories of SM-3 Block IB interceptors are
necessary by 2015 to meet the President's planned deployment of
phase 2 of the European PAA, to include a planned inventory of
36 Aegis BMD ships and an Aegis Ashore site in Romania.
However, as noted in the February 2010 Ballistic Missile
Defense Review ``demand for U.S. BMD assets is likely to exceed
supply for some years to come.''
The committee is concerned that the current procurement
plan for SM-3 interceptors is insufficient to meet the
deployment plans of the PAA. At the same time, the committee
seeks to ensure the SM-3 Block IB interceptor is sufficiently
tested prior to MDA's planned ramp-up in interceptor
production.
MDA has delayed the first SM-3 Block IB flight test until
August 2011 to allow the Aegis BMD program office to resolve
ongoing technical issues with the divert and attitude control
system in the interceptor kill vehicle. In March 2010, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the
``Aegis BMD program is putting the SM-3 Block IB at risk for
cost growth and schedule delays by planning to begin
manufacturing in 2010 before its critical technologies have
been demonstrated in a realistic environment.'' In March 2011,
GAO reported that MDA agreed to delay the start of SM-3 Block
IB manufacturing until the Block IB had been successfully
flight tested, consistent with its recommendations.
The committee expects that MDA will only allocate
additional funding for SM-3 Block IB production in fiscal year
2012 if the first flight test is successful. Should the planned
SM-3 Block IB flight testing be further delayed or technical
issues remain unresolved, the committee would consider a
reallocation of these funds to procure additional SM-3 Block IA
interceptors.
The committee recommends $615.4 million, an increase of
$50.0 million, for Aegis ballistic missile defense to procure
additional SM-3 Block IB interceptors.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
The budget request contained $833.2 million for procurement
of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) procurement for
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
The budget request would support the procurement of 68
interceptors, a fifth THAAD battery consisting of 6 launchers,
and one Tactical Station Group. The fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $858.9 million included plans by MDA to procure 67
THAAD interceptors, a fourth THAAD battery consisting of 6
launchers, and additional launchers for batteries 1-3. However,
technical issues associated with a safety component in the
interceptor resulted in a production stop and delayed contract
award. As a result, the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10)
decreased THAAD procurement by $272.0 million, and only 22 of
the planned 67 interceptors were procured. Additionally, MDA
expects to procure fewer launchers in fiscal year 2011 than
initially planned.
The THAAD missile defense system is a fundamental element
of the President's phased, adaptive approach (PAA) to missile
defense in Europe and a regional missile defense capability
required by several combatant commanders. However, as noted in
the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, ``demand
for U.S. BMD assets is likely to exceed supply for some years
to come.'' According to MDA, the Army has requested that each
THAAD battery comprise 6 launchers per battery rather than the
currently funded configuration of three launchers per battery.
Additionally, the total procurement objective of 503 THAAD
interceptors, which is consistent with the recommendations from
the 2007 Joint Capability Mix-II study, has been deferred
beyond the Future Years Defense Program.
The committee is concerned that the reduction in THAAD
launcher and interceptor procurement funds in fiscal year 2011
will create a ripple effect in future years of fewer quantity
procurements and delayed deliveries. MDA plans to ramp-up THAAD
interceptor production from 22 in fiscal year 2011, to 68 in
fiscal year 2012, to near 68 interceptors per year in fiscal
years 2013-2016. However, the committee understands that this
increase is limited by a current manufacturing capacity of four
interceptors per month. A manufacturing capacity of six
interceptors per month would support MDA's planned production
increase, but would require additional tooling and test
equipment.
The committee recommends $883.2 million, an increase of
$50.0 million, for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
procurement to procure additional launchers and tooling and
test equipment to support the Missile Defense Agency's planned
ramp-up in interceptor production.
Transition of non-lethal weapons
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011, the committee noted the increasing importance of non-
lethal weapons (NLW) use in reducing non-combatant casualties
and in meeting escalation of force requirements. Additionally,
the Department has affirmed the need for NLW and the useful
contributions NLW make to meeting military objectives across
the operational spectrum.
Despite the Department's statements supporting the
development and employment of NLWs, the committee remains
concerned that the Department has not taken adequate steps to
transition NLW research and development efforts of the Joint
Non-Lethal Weapons Program and the individual service NLW
programs to specific procurement lines within the services. The
committee believes the inadequate linkage between the
development of NLW capabilities and the procurement and
subsequent fielding of NLWs negatively impacts warfighter
training with and use of NLWs.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the
Secretaries of the military departments to clearly identify a
procurement account for NLW line items in their future year
budget submissions. The committee's oversight of the
Department's NLW investments is limited due to the lack of
clear data on NLW budgets and programs, as programs are often
grouped in multiple categories and are often contained in
multiple service line items.
The committee encourages the Department to continue its
efforts to improve the development and fielding of NLWs, and to
address the concerns raised in the April 2009 Government
Accountability Office report 09-344 titled, ``DOD Needs to
Improve Program Management, Policy, and Testing to Enhance
Ability to Field Operationally Useful Non-Lethal Weapons.''
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for Procurement
at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Limitation on Retirement of C-23 Aircraft
This section would limit the Secretary of the Army from
retiring C-23 aircraft until 1 year after the Director of the
National Guard, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the
Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commander, U.S.
Northern Command, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
submits an intra-theater airlift study to the congressional
defense committees that incorporates a comprehensive review of
intra-theater airlift requirements for both title 10, United
States Code, and title 32, United States Code, operations. This
section would also require the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the report.
Section 112--Limitation on Procurement of Stryker Combat Vehicles
This section would limit the procurement of Stryker Combat
Vehicles to not more than 100 vehicles unless the Secretary of
the Army submits a waiver.
Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Airframes for Army UH-
60M/HH-60M Helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S Helicopters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter a multiyear procurement contract in accordance with
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, for up to 5
years for UH-60M/HH-60M helicopter airframes and, acting as the
executive agent for the Department of the Navy, for MH-60R/S
airframes.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Multiyear Funding for Detail Design and Construction of
LHA Replacement Ship Designated LHA-7
This section would amend section 111 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) by adding a third year of multiyear authority to
fully fund the LHA-7. Instead of just fiscal years 2011-12,
this section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to also
fund the ship in fiscal year 2013.
Section 122--Multiyear Funding for Procurement of Arleigh Burke-Class
Destroyers
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear procurement of Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers beginning with the fiscal year 2012 program year.
The Secretary is required to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees, 30 days prior to contract
award, containing the findings required by subsection (a) of
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.
Section 123--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Mission Avionics and
Common Cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S Helicopters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into one or more multiyear procurement contracts in
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code,
for up to 5 years for MH-60R/S mission avionics and common
cockpits.
Section 124--Separate Procurement Line Item for Certain Littoral Combat
Ship Mission Modules
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
provide a separate, dedicated procurement line for each of the
primary three mission modules for the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) commencing with the budget request for fiscal year 2013.
Currently, LCS mission modules are in one procurement line in
Other Procurement, Navy. The three primary mission modules are
for Surface Warfare, Mine Countermeasures, and Anti-Submarine
Warfare. Three distinct lines would allow the committee to have
visibility into the quantity of each type of module and the
cost of each type of module that is being requested each year.
This section also would require that any classified mission
modules or components of the modules be included in the
classified annex to the budget request.
Section 125--Life-Cycle Cost-Benefit Analysis on Alternative
Maintenance and Sustainability Plans for the Littoral Combat Ship
Program
This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
conduct a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis comparing
alternative maintenance and sustainability plans for the
Littoral Combat Ship program in accordance with the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-94, to be delivered to the
congressional defense committees with the President's budget
submission for fiscal year 2013.
With the commissioning of the USS Freedom and USS
Independence, the Navy is now in a position to develop a
maintenance and sustainability concept for these ships, which
will eventually comprise a large percentage of the fleet.
Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for F/A-18 Service
Life Extension Program
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year
thereafter for a program to extend the life of F/A-18 aircraft
beyond 8,600 hours until a date that is 30 days after the date
on which the Secretary of the Navy submits to the congressional
defense committees the report under section 114(a)(2) of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383).
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--B-1 Bomber Force Structure
This section would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to
retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft, but would require the Secretary
to maintain a combat-coded inventory of 36 B-1 bomber aircraft
and requisite number of training and testing aircraft to
support 36 combat-coded aircraft.
Section 132--Procurement of Advanced Extremely High Frequency
Satellites
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to enter into a fixed price contract to procure two Advanced
Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites, authorize
incremental funding of the two AEHF satellites over a period
not to exceed five years, and establish a limitation on the
total funds to be obligated and expended for the procurement.
This section would also require the Secretary of the Air Force
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on
contract details, cost savings, and plans for reinvesting the
cost savings into capability improvements for future blocks of
AEHF satellites.
The Air Force proposes to procure two AEHF satellites over
seven years using advanced appropriations authority as part of
its new Evolutionary Acquisition for Space Efficiency (EASE)
approach to space acquisition. The Air Force believes a block
buy of two satellites can drive down costs, improve stability
in the space industrial base, and allow for investments in
technology that will lower risk for future programs. However,
such an approach, if fully funded in a single fiscal year,
would consume a large portion of the overall space budget and
negatively impact other mission-critical programs.
While the committee supports the objectives of EASE, it has
reservations about its implementation. The committee does not
support the request for advanced appropriations authority and
notes that such authority has not been provided to the
Department in the past and would limit the oversight ability of
future Congresses. The committee is aware of Air Force plans to
begin advanced procurement of additional AEHF satellites
starting in fiscal year 2016, and the committee believes
incremental funding for one block of satellites should be
completed before procurement of additional satellites.
Therefore, the committee recommends incremental funding
authority over a period not to exceed five years for the
procurement of the two AEHF satellites.
The committee expects the Air Force to realize substantial
savings from the EASE block buy approach, enabled by a fixed-
price contract and fixed requirements. The committee also
expects the Air Force to reinvest any savings into a capability
insertion program, which is addressed in another section of the
report, where research and development activities are
competitively awarded and new technologies are matured for
insertion into future blocks of AEHF satellites or other
military communications satellites. Further, the committee
believes that the EASE approach must be viewed as a longer-term
strategy for space acquisition to fully realize the benefits of
the capability insertion program and to provide longer-term
stability in the industrial base.
The committee understands that the Air Force intends to
apply the EASE approach to the procurement of Space-Based
Infrared satellites in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The
committee discourages the use of advanced appropriations in
future budget requests.
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
This section would require the Director, Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization to continue to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees on the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund that details the
monthly commitments, obligations, and expenditures by lines of
operation.
Section 142--Contracts for Commercial Imaging Satellite Capacities
This section would repeal section 127 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383).
While the committee believes that commercial imagery
satellites are becoming a key part of the overhead imagery
architecture, it does not believe Congress should prescribe a
specific minimum telescope aperture size for commercial imagery
satellites that the U.S. Government does not own or operate.
Rather, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to
work with commercial imagery providers to communicate its
capability requirements and allow the commercial providers to
offer their technical proposals on how best to meet the
requirements.
Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Acquisition of
Joint Tactical Radio System
This section would limit the obligation of funds of the
Joint Tactical Radio System to not more than 70 percent of the
requested amount until the Secretary of the Army submits to the
congressional defense committees written certification that the
acquisition strategy for full rate production includes full and
open competition.
Section 144--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Aviation Foreign
Internal Defense Program
This section would require a report outlining U.S. Special
Operations Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal
Defense programs and strategies. This section would also
prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command from obligating more
than 50 percent of the funds available for fiscal year 2012 for
procurement of fixed wing non-standard aviation platforms until
the required report has been submitted to the congressional
defense committees.
Section 145--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Commercial
Satellite Procurement
This section would prohibit the Defense Information Systems
Agency and the Air Force from obligating more than 20 percent
of the funds available for fiscal year 2012 for commercial
satellite procurement until the Secretary of Defense provides
an independent assessment of the acquisition strategy.
Section 146--Separate Procurement Line Item for Non-Lethal Weapons
Funding
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
provide a dedicated procurement line item in future defense
budget submissions for non-lethal weapons (NLW). The committee
expects that each line item description will identify the
specific programs for which funds are being requested; provide
summary justification for the program; identify whether the
program is a joint or service-specific initiative; and the
amount of funding provided during the past fiscal year. The
committee also expects the Department to provide similar
information for all budget requests for research, development,
test and evaluation for NLWs.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $75.3 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation.
The committee recommends $75.6 billion, an increase of
$255.9 million to the budget request.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $9.7 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee
recommends $9.8 billion, an increase of $82.0 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Active protection systems technology development
The committee continues to believe that active protection
systems (APS) will be a critical component of all future Army
and Marine Corps combat vehicles including both tracked and
wheeled platforms, due to the anticipated advances in threats,
such as missiles, mines, improvised explosive devices, and
rocket-propelled grenades. The committee notes that section 216
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), required the Department of Defense to
conduct a series of tests of available APS systems, to inform
future APS research or procurement decisions. The committee
understands that the last of these systems will complete
testing in the summer of 2011. The committee notes that several
of the systems tested were developed, in part, using Department
of Defense research and development funds from the Future
Combat Systems program. The other systems tested were foreign
or commercially-developed.
The committee believes that the investments in sensor and
interception APS technologies to-date should not be wasted. The
committee notes that future upgrades of Abrams tanks, Bradley
Fighting Vehicles, Amphibious Assault Vehicles, as well as new
vehicles such as the Ground Combat Vehicle, will likely require
the incorporation of APS technology in order to achieve future
survivability requirements. For those and other vehicles, the
committee encourages the leveraging of effective APS
technologies that were developed with past Department of
Defense funding, if they meet requirements and are affordable.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2012,
that describes the results of the APS testing conducted under
section 216 of Public Law 110-181. The report should also
identify government-developed APS technologies that could be
used to equip combat vehicles and all funds that have been
allocated in fiscal year 2013 and beyond to further develop and
field these technologies.
Armed Deployable Helicopter
The budget request contained $166.1 million in PE 64220A
for the Armed Deployable Helicopter program. Of this amount,
$87.4 million was requested for the Kiowa Warrior program and
$78.7 million was requested for the Armed Scout Helicopter
(ASH) program.
The committee notes that the phase II analysis of
alternatives for the follow-on effort to the terminated Armed
Reconnaissance Helicopter program has not been completed and
that this program does not yet have firm requirements or an
approved acquisition strategy.
The committee recommends $43.2 million, a decrease of $35.5
million, in PE 64220A for the ASH program.
Army science and technology management
The committee recognizes the critical contributions the
science and technology community makes to providing the
military with technological capabilities needed to address
future military challenges. Innovative technology, weapon
systems, and other equipment are critical for the Nation to
meet challenges presented by 21st Century asymmetrical
conflict. The committee believes that Department of Defense
systems are more integrated now than 10 years ago, but these
defense systems must maintain a high level of jointness to
comply with a common operating environment and ensure
interoperability.
The committee is concerned that the recent Army decision to
disestablish the Research Development and Engineering Command
(RDECOM) on the basis of efficiency neglects the effectiveness
of the organization to protect longer term science and
technology (S&T) investments and to ensure integrated and
interoperable technology systems. Without a unified voice and
high level advocate on behalf of Army S&T, the committee is
concerned that the contributions of the S&T community will
largely be overlooked or ignored.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to deliver a report to the congressional defense committee
within 150 days after enactment of this Act. This report should
include an analysis of the efficiencies to be gained through
the disestablishment of RDECOM compared to the status quo, as
well as a description of how the new management structure will
maintain oversight, coordination and integration of Army S&T
planning and execution.
Bioinformatics initiative
The committee remains committed to military medical
research directed to pressing needs validated by the Surgeons
General. The committee is aware that the Army is developing
advanced medical information systems in conjunction with
established university research partners. The committee
supports the Army's efforts to develop further and expand the
utility of bioinformatics tools for Department of Defense
missions.
Among the goals for Army bioinformatics research are the
creation of an information hub for all Army medical genomic and
proteomic partners that will allow collaboration among the
funded sites to promote sharing of clinical data, bio-specimens
and research data; the development of a systems biology
analytical team to identify therapeutic and diagnostic targets
for both preventative and predictive medicine as well as key
areas of bio-surveillance and bioterrorism threat detection; a
fully developed capability that will integrate semantically
standardized electronic medical record data to generate
datasets of longitudinal clinical information from diverse
sources with personally identifiable information removed; the
capability to support advanced predictive modeling and
comparative effectiveness research on therapy for diseases of
military importance; and, bioinformatics and bio-statistical
support for advanced analysis of the large data sets produced
by Government and university research partners.
Development of personnel protection equipment for female soldiers
The budget request contained $19.5 million for soldier
systems-advanced development. Of this amount, $1.8 million was
requested for soldier protective equipment efforts to evaluate
integrated technologies that help expedite individual soldier
ballistic protection.
The committee understands that the Army is comprised of 14
percent women. The committee has heard concerns from a number
of service women who are deployed in Operation New Dawn (OND)
and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that due to the physical
differences between service men and women the current
interceptor body armor system's design may not be as
ergonomically effective for the female body type. The female
soldiers in communication with the committee noted issues of
restriction and discomfort and suggested this could impact
their operational effectiveness. The committee notes that the
current counter-insurgency and dismounted operations in OND and
OEF place service women in direct combat action with the enemy.
The committee believes there is merit in conducting an
evaluation as to whether there is an operational need to tailor
interceptor body armor (IBA) systems fielded to service women
specifically for the physical requirements of women.
The committee understands the Army's Natick Soldier Systems
Center (NSSC) is currently pursuing several programs to improve
upon organizational clothing and individual equipment for
soldiers to include female soldiers. The committee notes the
NSSC is evaluating the operational benefit for developing a
separate, female combat uniform for female soldiers to include
body armor. The committee understands the NSSC is conducting a
female sizing study for improved outer tactical vests and
should finalize patterns and deliver prototypes by the
conclusion of fiscal year 2012. Further, the committee is aware
that the NSSC has a science and technology program called
``Improved Geometry and Sizing for Ballistic Plates'' that
includes efforts to ergonomically improve the current IBA for
female soldiers. The committee commends the Army for
acknowledging this issue and encourages the acceleration of
these efforts to help determine the most effective
organizational clothing and individual equipment, to include
body armor and associated components, for military service
women.
The committee recommends $19.5 million, the full amount of
the request, for soldier systems-advanced development.
Ground Combat Vehicle
The budget request contained $884.4 million in PE 65625A
for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program.
The committee understands that in order to capture lessons
learned from the terminated Future Combat Systems (FCS) program
the Army established a red team to solicit recommendations that
would benefit the GCV program. The red team questioned the
urgency of the need for the GCV within the 7-year schedule. The
red team reported that the funds that migrated from the
terminated FCS program were driving the urgency of the 7-year
schedule, rather than a true capabilities gap. The committee
understands that the red team concluded that the Army should
either moderately improve an existing vehicle within the 7-year
timeframe or spend the time necessary to develop a new vehicle.
Because the red team's analysis was performed before the Army
revised its requirements for the current GCV program, the
committee believes that another red team assessment should be
conducted to examine whether the changes to the GCV
requirements are sufficient to place it on a path to success
within a 7-year timeframe.
In addition, the committee notes that the Army's initial
analysis of alternatives compared the GCV design to a broad set
of alternatives, including the current and upgraded Bradley
Fighting Vehicle. The analysis was based on combat modeling and
other quantitative evaluations that found the original GCV
design to be more advantageous than the alternatives in various
categories, including lethality and survivability, but it
presented a high-affordability risk at a cost of over $18.0
million per vehicle. Consequently, the Army updated its
analysis and reconsidered the design, making substantial trades
to achieve a lower cost vehicle. The revised GCV design
eliminated immature technologies and reduced the estimated cost
to $10.5 million per vehicle. The Army's updated analysis was
based in large part on qualitative assessments conducted by
subject matter experts, rather than the more rigorous
methodology used in the original analysis. In addition, the
updated analysis did not compare the new GCV design with the
original range of alternatives, but only with the unimproved
Bradley. The committee believes the new design has substantial
changes that may impact survivability and lethality and should
be compared to the full range of alternatives and evaluated
using the same methodology as the original design.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would restrict the use funds fiscal year 2012 until the
Secretary of the Army provides an updated analysis of
alternatives to the congressional defense committees that
includes a quantitative comparison of the current upgraded
Bradley Fighting Vehicle and other alternatives, against the
revised GCV design concept. In addition, the committee
encourages the Army to establish another red team prior to the
milestone B review to assess the cost, schedule, and technical
risks of the GCV acquisition strategy.
The committee recommends $884.4 million, the full amount
requested in PE 65625A for the GCV program.
Improved Turbine Engine Program
The budget request contained $62.1 million in PE 63003A for
aviation advanced technology.
The committee supports the Army's Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP). The investment in ITEP would provide a more
fuel efficient and powerful engine for the current Black Hawk
and Apache helicopter fleets. The committee notes that ITEP has
been identified by the Army to power the next-generation Joint
Multi-Role aircraft. The committee believes it is important
that the Army's ITEP acquisition strategy include full and open
competition. The committee also believes it is important that
the ITEP program baseline establishes a competitive acquisition
strategy into Engineering Manufacturing and Development and
validates operational performance with a flight demonstration
prior to making a production decision. The committee encourages
the Secretary of the Army to provide an update to the
congressional defense committees on the acquisition strategy to
maintain competition through flight demonstration.
The committee recommends $62.1 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
The budget request contained $251.1 million in PE 64804A
for Logistics and Engineer Equipment-SDD. Of this amount,
$172.1 million was requested for the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle (JLTV) program. The budget request also contained $79.8
million in PE 63635M for Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support
System. Of this amount, $71.8 million was requested for the
JLTV program.
The committee understands the JLTV program is expected to
replace at least one-third of the Army and Marine Corps light
tactical vehicle fleet beginning in calendar year 2016. The
committee understands the Army and Marine Corps have taken a
knowledge-based approach to development of the JLTV by
investing in the Technology Development phase, which includes a
focus on early testing of prototypes. The committee understands
that initial test results indicate that the JLTV program may
face many operational and technical challenges. The committee
notes that cost estimates are not yet available but base
vehicle costs have recently been projected to be at least
$350,000 per vehicle. Further, the committee understands that
the JLTV program schedule has been delayed four months and
notes the milestone B decision has slipped from October 2011 to
January 2012 in order to refine the program's capabilities
development document. In addition, the milestone C decision has
already slipped 17 months as a result of potential increased
development engineering efforts and is now expected in January
2016. The committee believes that there must be a clear match
between the JLTV program's requirements and resources, and
believes that this will be a challenge given fiscally
constrained budget environments.
The committee recommends $147.1 million, a decrease of
$25.0 million, in PE 64804A, and $46.8 million, a decrease of
$25.0 million, in PE 63635M for the JLTV program.
Medium Extended Air Defense System
The budget request contained $406.6 million in PE 64869A
for the Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
Combined Aggregate Program.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee explains its
concerns about the MEADS program and includes a provision that
would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds made
available for MEADS in fiscal year 2012 until the Secretary of
Defense either negotiates a multilateral termination of the
MEADS contract or restructures the MEADS program. The
limitation would also require the Secretary to submit to the
congressional defense committees written notification on
several elements.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-
10) provides the program with the full fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $467.1 million. The committee would support the use
of these funds, in addition to any funds made available in
fiscal year 2012, for costs associated with multilateral
termination of the MEADS contract. Should the Secretary further
restructure the MEADS program, the committee encourages the
Secretary to immediately identify and harvest promising MEADS
technologies, whether U.S. or partner-developed, transition
those technologies into a Patriot air and missile defense
system upgrade effort or other viable program of record, and
adequately resource that approach.
The committee recommends this reduction on the premise that
the Department is able to negotiate a multilateral contract
termination where the U.S. cost share is approximately 58
percent, consistent with the cost share agreement in the 2004
MEADS memorandum of understanding, or further restructure the
program.
The committee recommends $257.1 million, a decrease of
$149.5 million, in PE 64869A for the MEADS program.
Nett Warrior
The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 64827A for
Soldier Systems development. Of this amount, $25.5 million was
requested for the Nett Warrior, Increment 1 development
program.
The committee understands the Nett Warrior, Increment 1
program is intended to provide an integrated dismounted leader
situational awareness system for use during combat operations.
The system would also provide information and data to the
dismounted leader, allowing for faster and more accurate
decisions in the tactical fight, while simultaneously reducing
fratricide. The committee notes that Increment 1 will use
technically mature systems, including radios and communication
software, with program risk limited to the integration of the
systems. The committee is aware the program is already 3 months
behind schedule because of integration and weight challenges
and that the current program requirements are not stable.
Therefore, the committee recommends $17.9 million, a
decrease of $7.6 million, in PE 64827A for the Nett Warrior,
Increment 1 program.
Precision artillery munitions acquisition strategy
The budget request contained $42.6 million in PE 64814A for
continued Excalibur development and $13.8 million in PE 64802A
for continued Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) test and evaluation.
The budget request also contained $69.1 million for procurement
of M982 Excalibur artillery munitions but contained no funding
for the PGK program.
The committee is aware the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
conducted a Capability Portfolio Review (CPR) for Precision
Fires in 2010 which resulted in a significant decrease in the
quantity of Excalibur rounds in favor of investment in the PGK
program. The committee recognizes that the Excalibur 1B round,
scheduled to begin procurement in fiscal year 2012, is more
expensive than the projected cost of the PGK. However, the
committee notes that there appears to be significant
differences in the accuracy performance between the precision
Excalibur round and the near-precision PGK system in that the
Excalibur system significantly outperforms the PGK system.
The committee understands that since the Army concluded its
CPR, the Excalibur round has continued to be successfully fired
in Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom against
multiple targets. The Excalibur program was also recertified as
essential to national security following a Nunn-McCurdy review
triggered by the decrease in procurement quantity from the CPR.
The committee notes the PGK program has encountered continued
reliability problems with a greater than 3-year delay,
prompting the Army to delay PGK full-rate production from
October 2010 to November 2012. The committee is concerned about
these developments and believes the Army should revisit its mix
of artillery munitions that could include an increase in the
requirement for Excalibur precision guided rounds.
Therefore, the committee recommends $3.8 million, a
decrease of $10.0 million, in PE 64802A, for the PGK program.
Status of Future Combat Systems contract actions
The committee notes that the Army has terminated the Future
Combat Systems (FCS) and Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team
(EIBCT) development activities after spending approximately
$20.0 billion since 2003. The committee understands that the
Army has chosen to continue development of multiple legacy FCS
systems and capabilities within various funding lines, although
precisely which efforts the Army is continuing is still
unclear. The committee understands that the termination of
these two major programs has resulted in extensive contract
termination negotiations with the prime contractor and its
subcontractors, which has an associated cost and timeframe. The
committee believes that in order for Congress to make informed
funding decisions, the Army must provide an accounting of the
FCS legacy efforts that it expects to continue, as well as cost
and schedule projections for closing out the original FCS and
EIBCT development contracts. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2012 that shows
all current and projected funding in regards to FCS legacy
efforts. The report should include the status of all terminated
and pending contract actions resulting from the termination of
the FCS and EIBCT programs.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $18.0 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee
recommends $18.0 billion, an increase of $51.7 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program
The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 61103N for
the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and
the military services execute a program known as the Defense
University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP). DURIP
funds are used for the acquisition of major equipment to
augment current or develop new research capabilities in support
of defense relevant research.
The committee understands that DURIP proposals are
typically limited to $50,000 to $1.0 million, but that waivers
may be granted for larger awards. The committee believes that
these award levels have remained static for more than 15 years,
without regard to inflation and the increasing costs associated
with technologically sophisticated equipment. As it is vital
for cutting edge research to be supported by cutting edge
instrumentation, the committee encourages the Department and
the military services to make greater use of waivers to ensure
that there are adequate resources available to support the
instrumentation needs of the research community.
The committee recommends $28.9 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 61103N to provide for additional
competitive DURIP awards.
Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended Range Munition
The budget request contained $209.4 million in PE 26623M
for Marine Corps ground combat support research and
development. Of this amount, $12.2 million was requested for
the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) Precision Extended
Range Munition (PERM) program.
The committee understands the EFSS PERM program is part of
the EFSS mortar system program. The EFSS PERM was originally
intended as a sole source development effort, but is now being
transitioned to full and open competition for demonstration,
qualification and production and that a request for proposals
is expected to be released in fiscal year 2012. The committee
notes that the EFSS 120mm mortar system could be capable of
firing the Army Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI)
round, which would offer dismounted infantrymen and Marines
similar performance to the proposed EFSS PERM round. The
committee also notes that the PERM round will not achieve low-
rate initial production until fiscal year 2015 and that the
Army APMI round has already begun fielding. Therefore, the
committee recommends that the Marine Corps conduct a
comprehensive Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis prior
to beginning a new development program for the EFSS PERM round.
The committee recommends $12.2 million for the EFSS PERM
program.
Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of Alternatives
In March 2010, the Secretary of the Navy submitted a report
to Congress on Naval Surface Fire Support as directed by the
conference report (H. Rept. 111-288) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This report
includes comments and recommendations from both the Chief of
Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In the
report, the Commandant states that the Marine Corps concurs
with the findings of the Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of
Alternatives (AOA). In the report to Congress, however, the
Secretary of the Navy did not address the results of this AOA.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit the Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of
Alternatives to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Naval gunfire support
The committee is concerned about the Department of the
Navy's lack of progress in developing Naval Surface Fires in
support of Marine Corps operating forces. While the committee
is aware of the Navy's earlier efforts in this area that ended
in terminated programs, the requirement still exists and the
Navy's own Fire Support Analysis of Alternatives recommends the
development of a 5-inch guided projectile. The committee
expects the establishment of a program to develop this
capability. In testimony before the committee in recent years,
the Marine Corps has repeated the immediate need to fill the
requirement for Naval Surface Fires. The current security
environment, the truncation of the DDG-1000 program to three
ships, and the proposed termination of the Expeditionary
Fighting Vehicle program add urgency to the need for this
capability. The committee encourages the Navy to address this
long neglected capability deficit by assessing, through a
competitive demonstration, the capabilities of existing
technology to meet the Navy and Marine Corps requirements in
the fiscal year 2013 timeframe.
Navy remotely piloted demonstration and strike aircraft programs
The budget request contained $198.3 million in PE 64402N
for the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) technology
demonstration program, and $121.2 million in PE 64404N for the
Future Unmanned Carrier-based Strike System (FUCSS) program.
The committee supports the Chief of Naval Operations'
stated desire to investigate the feasibility of sea-basing
unmanned, low-observable aircraft on aircraft carriers to
potentially provide intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance
and limited strike capabilities. However, the committee is
concerned with the Navy's current execution strategy for both
programs.
In fiscal year 2011, the UCAS program experienced an over-
target baseline breach because the original schedule was too
aggressive and the level of effort required to demonstrate UCAS
goals was underestimated by Navy officials. Furthermore, the
UCAS program is not planning to demonstrate an aircraft carrier
landing until late in fiscal year 2013 and is not planning to
demonstrate autonomous aerial-refueling until late in fiscal
year 2014. Both are critical capabilities and necessary
precursors for informing subsequent FUCSS feasibility and
development.
The committee's concerns include: the Navy plans not to
accomplish a thorough FUCSS analysis of alternatives; the
desired aircraft fielding date of fiscal year 2018 was randomly
selected and not derived through a threat-based analysis; and
the current engineering and technology development strategy is
considered high-risk by Navy officials to meet the fiscal year
2018 date. Lastly, the Navy has been unable to articulate to
the committee the required capabilities and performance
characteristics of FUCSS, but plans to award multiple
development contracts in fiscal year 2012 prior to having been
fully informed by the UCAS program. The committee encourages
the Secretary of the Navy to develop a fair, open, transparent,
competitive acquisition strategy that is medium or less risk,
and incorporates critical knowledge points demonstrated by the
UCAS program into the FUCSS acquisition strategy.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would limit obligation of fiscal year 2012 FUCSS funds to
no more than 15 percent until 60 days after the Chairman of the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition submit certain certifications regarding the
acquisition of FUCSS to the congressional defense committees.
This provision would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide the congressional defense
committees a briefing, subsequent to a review of the Navy's
FUCSS acquisition strategy, not later than 90 days after the
date on which the aforementioned Department of Defense
officials submit the certain certifications to the
congressional defense committees.
Over-the-horizon vessel tracking
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
been conducting research to transition existing high frequency
radar for monitoring the health of coastal waters to over-the-
horizon vessel tracking. This effort tests new technology to
detect approaching vessels by filling the gap between microwave
radar, which works in harbors and near shore at close-in-scale,
and satellites, which track ships at the global ocean scale to
strengthen maritime domain awareness. The committee encourages
the Department to continue research into this area and
integrate promising technology and concepts into broader
maritime domain awareness initiatives.
Study on LHD Class steam plants and propulsion systems
The committee is concerned about management of future
lifecycle costs of WASP-class amphibious assault ships (LHD).
The first seven ships of the LHD-class were constructed using
steam propulsion, which requires extensive crew training to
safely operate and is more expensive to repair than gas turbine
or diesel propulsion. Further, LHD 1-7 steam propulsion plants
are inefficient at higher speeds, exacerbating well known Navy
fossil fuel dependence.
The committee notes that the Military Sealift Command has
installed machinery monitoring technologies in diesel-powered
ships to improve safety and reduce total ownership cost, and
that the technology is available for real-time monitoring of
steam plant systems. To this end, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study that examines the
feasibility of using a software-based monitoring system that
would provide LHD 1-7 steam plant operators real-time machinery
monitoring diagnostic and prognostic, predictive analytics for
mission critical systems, including main propulsion steam
turbines, electrical power generators, and auxiliary systems.
This study, to be submitted within 180 days of enactment,
should focus on options for monitoring systems that could
include:
(1) Providing plant operators early warning or
prognostic recognition of impending failures and
recommended remedial actions;
(2) Providing real-time recommended operator actions
to improve plant efficiency;
(3) Reducing fuel consumption;
(4) Minimizing component and sensor wear to enable
LHD 1-7 to meet full design service life; and
(5) Enabling more efficient maintenance planning by
automatic generation of maintenance work orders, and
immediate delivery of equipment health information to
both shipboard crews and shore-side support staff.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $27.7 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee
recommends $27.7 billion, an increase of $12.0 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program
are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force advanced materials research
The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63112F for
the development of advanced materials for weapon systems.
Congress has historically supported the Metals
Affordability Initiative (MAI) with budgetary increases to
ensure adequate funding is provided to this important
initiative, a peer review process to provide science and
technology funding for promising aerospace projects in the Air
Force advanced materials program. MAI, a joint government and
industry consortium, uses a process to improve the
manufacturing of specialty metals and consequently provides the
warfighter with metals of improved strength and durability,
often at a reduced cost.
The committee notes that the Air Force has increased the
level of funding it has dedicated to the cost-sharing
partnership with the consortium and encourages the Air Force to
continue budgeting for this initiative. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to expand the scope of
this initiative beyond the Air Force to fully leverage the
collaborative technology development and transition
opportunities available to better meet the requirements for
specialty metals across the Department.
The committee recommends $49.7 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 63112F to support the Metals Affordability
Initiative.
Air Force missile field monitoring technology
In October 2010, an incident occurred at a Minuteman-III
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) missile field at F.E.
Warren Air Force Base whereby for approximately one hour, the
ability of the Air Force to monitor the status of one
squadron's ICBMs was interrupted. In subsequent briefings to
the committee, the Air Force described its corrective measures
as being largely based on human-in-the-loop checklists and
procedure improvements. The committee believes the Air Force
should also consider improvements that leverage modern
technology, including modern automated systems and remote
sensing technologies, to monitor the status of Air Force ICBMs.
The committee therefore directs the commander of Air Force
Global Strike Command to provide a briefing by September 6,
2011, to the congressional defense committees on the current
capabilities to monitor the status of Air Force ICBMs; a
summary of potential technologies to improve the status
monitoring of ICBMs; the benefits, risks, technical maturity
costs, and schedules to implement such technologies; and any
recommendations for specific technologies the Air Force plans
to pursue.
Army and Air Force test, evaluation, range, and facility support
The budget request contained $270.9 million in PE 65601A
for Army test range and facility support. The budget request
also contained $654.4 million in PE 65807F for Air Force test
and evaluation support.
The committee notes that the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requires the Department
of Defense to rebuild its systems engineering and developmental
testing organizations to ensure that design problems are
understood and addressed early in the acquisition process. The
committee is concerned that the budget request would make deep
cuts to the test and evaluation workforce and undermines the
requirement in Public Law 111-23.
Therefore, the committee recommends $370.9 million, an
increase of $100.0 million, in PE 65601A for Army test range
and facility support. The committee also recommends $763.4
million, an increase of $109.0 million, in PE 65807F for Air
Force test and evaluation support.
Common propulsion technology development
The budget request contained $67.2 million in PE 63851F for
the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Demonstration/
Validation program. Of this amount, $40.1 million was requested
for common propulsion technology development.
The committee remains concerned about the health and long-
term viability of the solid rocket motor industrial base. The
committee notes that the demand for large solid rocket motors
(SRMs) has decreased significantly, particularly with the
decision by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
to retire the Space Shuttle and terminate the Constellation
program. The Air Force Minuteman III ICBM program and Navy
Trident II/D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile program rely
on this industrial base and are likely to bear the increasing
cost of SRMs as demand decreases and infrastructure costs get
passed to the Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee believes the sustainment of the SRM
industrial base is a national challenge that spans multiple
departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee includes a provision that recommends
the President develop a national rocket propulsion strategy.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee stated that ``the Department should invest in a
substantive defense-wide research and development (R&D)
activity'' for SRMs that could be leveraged for future
strategic strike, missile defense, and space launch systems. In
a March 2011 report to Congress on the SRM industrial base
sustainment and implementation plan, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that
the Department will consider ``expanding current research and
development (R&D) programs'' whose intent would be for ``the
Air Force and Navy to pursue development and maturation of
common technologies for future strategic missile system designs
. . . [and] maintaining design and engineering expertise in the
large-SRM industry.'' The report further states that the
Department would recommend starting such a program no later
than 2014. The committee supports such an expanded SRM research
and development program. The committee is concerned about
further erosion of the SRM industrial base and encourages the
Department to immediately start a competitive R&D program
rather than wait until 2014.
The committee therefore recommends $87.2 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 63851F for common propulsion
technology development.
Deep Space Climate Observatory Launch Service
The budget request contained $158.1 million in PE 65860F
for the Rocket System Launch Program. Of this amount, $134.5
million was requested for launch support services for the Deep
Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) mission.
The committee understands the Air Force would provide
launch services for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) DSCOVR mission upon its refurbishment in
fiscal year 2014. The committee is also aware of commercial
data purchase solutions that could meet the Government's space
weather data needs by fiscal year 2014 and preclude the need
for the Air Force to fund launch services. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to work with the NOAA to
consider a competitively acquired commercial solution.
The committee recommends $33.6 million, a decrease of
$124.5 million, in PE 65860F for launch support services for
the DSCOVR mission.
Electronic, Scheduling and Dissemination Upgrade
The committee is aware that the current electronic,
scheduling and dissemination (ESD) system for the Air Force
Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) faces several sustainment
challenges. The ESD system allows satellite operators at 40
geographically separated locations to request contact time on
16 shared AFSCN antennas and allows schedulers to de-conflict
overlapping requests to create and publish a schedule. The ESD
system must accommodate some 1,300 different vehicle
configurations for over 160 supported satellites to manage an
average 410 satellite contacts per day, to include up to 120
real-time mission changes per day. The ESD hardware is largely
commercial-off-the-shelf technology based on 1980's era
technology including the disk operating system and 286-
equivalent computers. For example, a majority of these items
are not available through either government supply systems or
commercial vendors, as the components and software are
technologically obsolete. The committee understands, based on
information provided by the Air Force, that the current ESD
system will only be fully sustainable through 2014. The
committee has learned from the Air Force that sufficient
funding is available to continue development of the ESD upgrade
through fiscal year 2011 and that the Air Force will seek
approval of a $20.7 million reprogramming request in fiscal
year 2011 to continue development though fiscal year 2012.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
submit a report that details the remaining ESD program costs
and associated fiscal year funding profile as well as an
updated integrated master schedule to the congressional defense
committees by December 1, 2011.
F-35 aircraft
The budget request contained $2.7 billion in PEs 64800F,
64800N, and 64800M for development of the F-35 aircraft, but
contained no funds for development of a competitive F-35
propulsion system. The F-35 is also known as the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF).
The competitive F-35 propulsion system program has been
developing the F136 engine, which would have provided a
competitive alternative to the currently-planned F135 engine.
For the past 5 years, the committee recommended increases for
the F-35 competitive propulsion system, and notes funds have
been appropriated by Congress for this purpose through the
first half of fiscal year 2011. Despite section 213 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181), which required the Secretary of Defense to
obligate and expend sufficient annual amounts for the continued
development and procurement of a competitive propulsion system
for the F-35, the committee is disappointed that the Department
of Defense (DOD) has, for the sixth consecutive year, chosen
not to comply with both the spirit and intent of this law, by
opting not to include funds for this purpose in the budget
request. According to the Department of Defense, the life-cycle
cost of the F-35 engine program is $110.0 billion. A January
10, 2011, report by the Congressional Research Service notes
that there has never been a separate engine competition for F-
35 engines. The committee notes that the Department of Defense
terminated the F136 contract on April 25, 2011.
On February 23, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
submitted to the committee an update of the 2007 Department of
Defense report, ``Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine
Acquisition and Independent Cost Analysis'' for the competitive
engine program, which noted that an investment of $2.9 billion
over 6 years in additional cost would be required to finish
F136 engine development and to conduct directed buys to prepare
the F136 for competitive procurement of F-35 engines in 2017.
This report also projected that long-term costs for either a
one-engine or two-engine competitive acquisition strategy would
be the same, on a net present value basis. Last September, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that this
estimate was based on two key assumptions made by the
Department of Defense in developing the $2.9 billion funding
projection that have significant impact on the estimated amount
of upfront investment needed. These assumptions were: (1) four
years of noncompetitive procurements of both engines would be
needed to allow the alternate engine contractor sufficient time
to gain production experience and complete developmental
qualification of the engine, and (2) the Government would need
to fund quality and reliability improvements for engine
components. GAO notes that past studies and historical data it
examined indicate that it may take less than 4 years of
noncompetitive procurements and that competition may obviate
the need for the Government to fund component improvement
programs. GAO concludes that if these conditions hold true for
the alternate engine, the funding projection for the alternate
engine could be lower than DOD's projection.
The committee notes that reports on the F-35 alternate
engine program completed in 2007 by the Institute for Defense
Analyses, GAO, and the Department of Defense all agree that
non-financial benefits of a competitive engine program include
improved contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial
base, improved operational readiness, better engine
performance, and technological innovation. The committee
further notes that the 2007 study by the Institute for Defense
Analyses on the JSF engine cost analysis noted that, ``In 2035,
the JSF would comprise 95 percent of the fighter attack force
structure.'' Among other reasons, the committee remains
concerned about proceeding with a $110.0 billion, sole-source
engine program for that percentage of the Department of
Defense's future tactical fighter fleets.
The committee is also concerned about the operational risk
of having a one engine program for the F-35 fleet, and notes
that a former F-35 Program Executive Officer has stated, ``The
Pentagon needs to carefully consider the operational risk of
having just one engine for the F-35 fighter jet. Competition
could bring faster technology development and lower costs. A
single engine could be worrisome if an engine problem ever
grounded the fighters. In the past, having a variety of
fighters meant the Pentagon could use other planes to offset
any groundings, like an 11-month engine-related halt in
Harriers in 2000. I simply think that we've focused too much on
the discussion about cost benefit and not the operational risk
benefit.''
The committee also notes that section 3, titled ``Scope of
Work'', of the 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by
all JSF partner nation senior defense officials regarding the
production, sustainment, and follow-on development of the Joint
Strike Fighter states that ``the production work will include,
but will not be limited to, the following: Production of the
JSF air vehicle, including propulsion systems, both F135 and
F136.'' The committee understands that this MOU is still
current.
The committee further notes that, ``The Final Report of the
Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel'' published on
July 29, 2010, states: ``History has shown that the only
reliable source of price reduction through the life of a
program is competition between dual sources.'' Consistent with
that view, the committee strongly supports the December 2010
announcement by the Department of Defense that the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) program would award a contract to 2
contractors for 10 ships each. The budget request contained
$1.9 billion through fiscal year 2016 for continued LCS
development. Like the LCS program, the F-35 competitive engine
program would also require development funding in the Future
Years Defense Program, and the committee is perplexed why the
Department would implement a dual-source acquisition strategy
for the LCS program and not for the F-35 competitive engine
program.
The committee believes that the F-35 competitive engine
program has its roots in the F-16 alternate engine program
which began in the early 1980s. Often called, ``The Great
Engine War'' the committee notes that Robert Drewes, in his
1987 book, ``The Air Force and The Great Engine War,'' wrote:
``Competition is the only sure way to get the best effort.
Competition did yield . . . some substantial initial benefits
to the Air Force . . . engine improvements [were offered] to
the Air Force earlier than the Air Force had been led to expect
without the competition. Furthermore, unit prices were lower
than . . . had previously been offer[ed]. Since the initial
split buy in February 1984, competition further induced [the
contractor] to grant even more concessions to the Air Force.
Warranty prices have been reduced significantly and
arrangements with the European Participating Governments have
improved.''
The committee believes it is too early to have terminated
the F136 development contract because it was 2 years after
initial operational capability for the F-15 that problems first
became apparent with the F-15 and F-16 F100 engine that
resulted in the first alternate engine program, an equivalent
point in time for the F-35, 7 years from now. The F-35 primary
engine has 1,000 flight hours. The Department of Defense
standard to achieve maturity on an engine requires 200,000
flight hours. In response to section 211 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364), on March 15, 2007, the GAO presented to the
committee, ``Analysis of Costs for the Joint Strike Fighter
Program,'' which stated that experience suggests that
competition between the F135 and F136 can generate savings and
benefits up to 20 percent if:
(1) Contractors are incentivized to achieve more
aggressive production learning curves;
(2) Annual completion for procurement is kept in
place over an extended period;
(3) Contractors produce more reliable engine,
resulting in lower maintenance costs; and
(4) Contractors invest additional corporate money to
remain competitive.
For these reasons, the committee remains steadfast in its
belief that continuing the F-35 competitive propulsion system
program would be the right course of action for the F-35
propulsion system.
The committee understands that the F136 contractor intends
to provide its own funds to continue F136 development for
fiscal year 2012. Accordingly, elsewhere in this title, the
committee includes a provision that would preserve and store
property related to the F136 contract, and would ensure that
the Secretary of Defense, at no cost to the Federal Government,
provides support and allows for the use of such property by the
contractor under a contract to conduct research, development,
test, and evaluation of the F136 engine, if such activities are
self-funded by the contractor.
F-35 alternative ejection seat
The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 64706F for
Life Support Systems. Of this amount, no funding was requested
for an F-35A alternative ejection seat.
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
has benefited from a common family of ejection seats in its
tactical aircraft fleet since the late 1970s. The committee
understands that preliminary internal Air Force studies have
determined that the potential exists for significant cost
savings and increased pilot safety with an alternative ejection
seat system for the F-35A. The committee also notes that the
Department of Commerce has expressed concern about risks to
national security if the United States becomes totally reliant
on foreign sources for ejection seat technology. Accordingly,
the committee believes the Department of Defense should be
particularly mindful of these issues in evaluating competitive
options for F-35A ejection seat program.
The committee understands that the Department of the Air
Force is conducting a business-case analysis to determine
whether an alternative F-35A ejection seat offers substantial
F-35A life-cycle cost savings and commonality benefits to the
Department of the Air Force tactical fighter fleets, while also
considering the impacts on the Department of the Navy F-35B and
F-35C programs as well as the F-35 program's international
partners. The committee believes that the F-35 program's
ejection seat requirement should be reviewed in the context of
this analysis. If a decision to change the F-35A's ejection
seat requirement is warranted by the business-case analysis,
the committee urges the qualification and integration of an
alternative ejection seat in the F-35A.
The committee recommends $11.2 million in PE 64706F for
Life Support Systems.
Hosted payloads
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Air Force, to ``conduct a study of
the options for hosting defense payloads on commercial
satellites'' which would ``identify feasible options that offer
potential savings and the specific actions required to take
advantage of these opportunities,'' and submit the report by
March 1, 2011. The committee is disappointed that it has not
yet received the report and that the study has only recently
begun.
The committee notes that the January 2011 National Security
Space Strategy concluded that ``hosting payloads on a mix of
platforms in various orbits'' can help achieve greater
resiliency in space. The committee remains concerned that the
Department of Defense has not devoted adequate attention and
focus on evaluating opportunities for hosting defense payloads
on commercial satellites. Such an approach may provide
augmentation or gap-filler capabilities for the warfighter, and
may be available sooner and at a lower cost than current major
space acquisition programs.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to expedite
the completion of this report and submit it to the
congressional defense committees in a timely manner. The
committee continues to support opportunities to host defense
payloads on commercial satellites, including communications,
space situational awareness, space weather, and classified
payloads. Specifically, the committee looks forward to
assessing potential cost savings, identifying funding
opportunities for hosted payloads, and identifying legal or
regulatory barriers that may hamper the government's
flexibility to take advantage of hosted payload opportunities.
KC-46A aerial refueling aircraft program
The budget request contained $877.1 million in PE 65221F
for the next generation aerial refueling aircraft, KC-46A.
The committee supports the attributes and benefits
regarding the KC-46A competition and acknowledges that the
source-selection process was conducted fairly amongst all
competitors. According to Department of Defense acquisition
officials, the competition resulted in at least a twenty
percent savings for the unit cost of the aircraft and a savings
of $3.0 to $4.0 billion as compared to the source-selection
competition held for the tanker in 2008.
The committee plans to closely monitor the KC-46A
engineering, manufacturing and development program to ensure
that the taxpayer dollars are wisely invested and that the
platform will result in a capability that enhances the
warfighter's global reach capabilities. The committee also
understands that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD, AT&L) will conduct
quarterly reviews of the Air Force's KC-46A program.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct an annual review of the KC-46A program and to
provide the results to the congressional defense committees
beginning on March 1, 2012. Furthermore, the committee directs
USD, AT&L to provide to the congressional defense committees
the results of each quarterly review of the KC-46A program
within 30 days after the date of completion of each review. At
each quarterly review briefing, USD, AT&L is directed to
provide notice of a major engineering, design, capability or
configuration change to the KC-46A, and cost for that change
when it becomes known, that is different from the baseline
aircraft offered in the final proposal related to Air Force
contract #FA8625-11-C600.
The committee recommends $849.9 million, a decrease of
$27.2 million, in PE 65221F for the next generation aerial
refueling aircraft because that funding is in excess to the
$818.0 million obligation authority limited by USD, AT&L for
the program for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
Lead-free electronic components
The committee understands that international efforts to
produce lead-free electronic components may lead to the
widespread use of tin-based solder products and finishes in
commercial electronic components. The committee further
understands that the Secretary of the Air Force may use lead-
free electronic components in the future through purchases of
commercial-off-the-shelf items. The committee notes, however,
that lead-free or tin-based solder products and finishes may
result in an increased failure rate for military systems due to
weaker solder finishes and tin whiskers. The committee believes
that the Air Force needs to establish protocols to assess the
risk and reliability of such components, including
determination of potential failure mechanisms, development of
test methodologies and models, and establishing reliability
rates. The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to
move rapidly to develop protocols for lead-free electronic
components.
Military satellite communications technology development
The budget request contained $421.7 million in PE 63430F
for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite
program. Of this amount, $142.2 million was requested for
Evolved AEHF military satellite communications (MILSATCOM).
The budget request for Evolved AEHF MILSATCOM reflected the
cost savings the Air Force expects to achieve in fiscal year
2012 as a result of its new Evolutionary Acquisition for Space
Efficiency (EASE) approach to space acquisition. The EASE
approach reinvests cost savings from satellite block buys into
a steady research and development program called the
``capability and affordability insertion program'' (CAIP). Such
an approach is envisioned to lower the cost and risk of follow-
on systems, by placing the risk of new technology development
and capability improvements outside of the critical path for
satellite procurement until such technologies and capabilities
are sufficiently mature for insertion into future satellite
block upgrades.
While the committee supports CAIP, it is concerned that
CAIP funds contained in the larger AEHF program element (PE)
may be more susceptible to use as an offset source within the
AEHF program than funds contained in a separate PE. The
committee is also concerned that CAIP funds may be directed to
specific contractors should they remain in a PE associated with
a legacy satellite program and its associated contractors.
The committee believes that CAIP funds should be applied to
a broad range of MILSATCOM technology development activities
and competitively awarded. The committee also expects the Air
Force to develop a spend plan for the funds, identify
objectives for each activity, and establish a process for
determining how each activity might transition to an existing
program or be established as a new program, as would be
required in a provision included elsewhere in this Act.
The committee therefore recommends the transfer of $142.2
million from PE 63430F for the Advanced Extremely High
Frequency satellite program to PE 64436F for next-generation
MILSATCOM technology development.
The committee recommends $279.5 million, a decrease of
$142.2 million, in PE 63430F for the AEHF satellite program.
Next generation long-range strike bomber program
The committee supports the decision to restart the
development of a new bomber aircraft. The committee
acknowledges that the current fleet of bomber aircraft are
still effective and relevant in meeting the combatant
commanders' warfighting requirements but believes that the
long-range strike requirements have been sufficiently analyzed
on numerous occasions over the last 18 years against forecasted
threats and that a recapitalization program must begin.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to
monitor critical aspects of the new bomber program and to keep
the committee informed of the program's progress in a timely
manner. The committee remains concerned with the workload being
levied on the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and
will monitor the acquisition governance structure to ensure
that AFRCO is staffed with acquisition officials that represent
an appropriate and sufficient cross-section of recent
operational experience, major defense acquisition program
management, requirements development, technology integration,
and cost estimation to effectively execute the bomber program.
The committee remains concerned that the Secretary of the
Air Force has not performed a comprehensive life-cycle cost
analysis comparing the development of one bomber platform,
integrating all long-range strike capabilities, to a ``family
of long-range strike systems'' to determine the affordability
of the Department of Defense's long-range strike portfolio
strategy.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Secretary of Defense to designate the
main propulsion system of the bomber aircraft as a major
subprogram, as well as require the Secretary of the Air Force
to develop a competitive acquisition strategy for the
propulsion system.
Operationally responsive space
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) established the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office to respond to the
needs of the joint force commander and to build an enabling
infrastructure to support the rapid deployment of space
capabilities. ORS capabilities have the potential to reduce the
fragility of the space architecture through rapid
reconstitution, provide augmentation or surge capabilities, and
offer a pathway for demonstrating new technology or operational
concepts. While ORS satellites would not have the performance
of those from larger, traditional space acquisition programs,
they are envisioned to be a quicker, lower cost way to get
``good enough'' capabilities on-orbit.
The committee is aware of two key ORS launches: ORS-1 is a
small electro-optical and infrared satellite developed in
response to a U.S. Central Command urgent need and planned for
launch in May 2011; and TacSat-4 is planned for launch in July
2011. The committee understands the ORS Office is also pursuing
a rapid response space works capability, as well as modular
plug-and-play mission kits to enable a reconfigurable
architecture and ultimately to demonstrate end-to-end solutions
to support the U.S. Strategic Command vision of achieving a 6-
day call up to launch.
The committee continues to support these ORS activities.
However, the committee notes that funding for the ORS program
has decreased over the past few fiscal years, from $133.8
million in fiscal year 2010, to $94.0 million in fiscal year
2011, to $86.5 million requested in fiscal year 2012. The
committee believes a steady level of effort and funds are
necessary to advance ORS capabilities so they become
sufficiently mature to provide rapid support to the warfighter.
Space-Based Infrared System
The budget request contained $621.6 million in PE 64441F
for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), but contained no
funds for data exploitation.
Two SBIRS highly elliptical orbit satellites are currently
on orbit and the first SBIR geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO)
satellite is expected to launch in May 2011, followed by a
second GEO satellite launch in April 2012. Each satellite
carries a scanning and staring sensor that provides missile
warning, and supports missile defense, technical intelligence,
and battlespace awareness missions.
The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not
provided funds for the exploitation of SBIRS data, particularly
the staring sensor, and notes previous congressional efforts to
include funds for such purpose.
The committee believes the Air Force and the broader
defense and intelligence communities have not fully utilized
the overhead persistent infrared (OPIR) data available from
SBIRS. In particular, the committee believes SBIRS data could
be further exploited to provide increased support to missile
defense, and encourages the Missile Defense Agency to work with
the Air Force and other OPIR experts, such as Sandia National
Laboratory, to explore the extent to which SBIRS can provide
some of the capability planned for the Precision Tracking Space
System (PTSS). The committee also believes SBIRS data could be
further exploited to provide new technical intelligence and
battlespace awareness capabilities.
The committee understands that a joint OPIR ground effort
has been established to focus on the longer-term needs of the
OPIR community. The committee anticipates such effort will
shape future budget requests for data exploitation capabilities
from SBIRS and other OPIR sensors.
The committee recommends $641.6 million, an increase of
$20.0 million, in PE 64441F, to be competitively awarded by the
Secretary of the Air Force for the development of SBIRS data
exploitation capabilities.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $19.8 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee
recommends $19.9 billion, an increase of $109.2 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
3-D advanced integrated circuit capabilities
The committee is concerned about the domestic capacity to
produce 3-D advanced integrated circuits in the United States.
The committee is aware that much of the commercial capacity has
been moved offshore, making the global supplier base for
defense microelectronics increasingly insecure and susceptible
to compromise through counterfeit or maliciously-altered
circuits.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a comprehensive assessment regarding 3-D integrated
circuits manufacturing capacity to serve the U.S. military and
other national security interests and to provide a report on
the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act. The report should include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the military requirements for 3-
D integrated circuits in future microelectronic systems
as a critical enabling technology for military
applications;
(2) An assessment of the current domestic commercial
capability to securely develop and manufacture 3-D
integrated circuits for use in military systems and;
(3) An assessment of the feasibility, as well as
planning and design requirements, for the development
of a domestic manufacturing capability for 3-D
integrated circuits at a number of locations within the
United States, including Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
Airborne Infrared
The budget request contained $46.9 million in PE 64884C for
the Airborne Infrared (ABIR) program for the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA).
According to MDA budget materials, ABIR is planned to
provide early precision tracking of ballistic missiles,
discrimination, and fire control quality data to enable early
intercepts. ABIR is also expected to increase the missile raid
handling capacity of the ballistic missile defense system. The
committee understands that ABIR technical feasibility has been
demonstrated in several recent flight tests and experiments.
The committee is aware, based on an April 2011 briefing by
Joint Staff officials on the Joint Capabilities Mix-III (JCM-
III) study, that ABIR provides a significant contribution to
the ballistic missile defense system. The JCM-III study further
recommended accelerating ABIR capability development.
The committee understands that no less than 12 Government
and contractor organizations participate in the ABIR program,
including several Government research laboratories. The
committee further understands that MDA issued a request for
information in fiscal year 2011 and plans to issue a request
for proposals in fiscal year 2012 for ABIR technology
development.
Therefore, the committee recommends $66.9 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64884C, to be allocated at the
discretion of the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to
accelerate ABIR development and experimentation.
Basic research international cooperation
The committee recognizes the importance of basic research
to the Department of Defense and is encouraged by the
Department's continued emphasis in supporting funding increases
in the budget request. Basic research is a key long-term
strategic investment by the Department that has a track record
of supporting the development of important technological
capabilities, many of which were not clearly foreseen at the
time. The committee is encouraged that basic research
investments continue to grow at a rate of 2 percent above
inflation, when most other areas of the President's budget
request are flat or declining.
The committee is also aware that the current basic research
strategic plan places significant emphasis on cyber
capabilities, including enabling capabilities such as quantum
information science. The committee encourages the Department to
utilize the basic research program to increase cooperation and
collaboration with our foreign allies and partners in the area
of cyber security. The committee believes that this could serve
as an important component in supporting the development of
critical future capabilities for our Armed Forces, as well as
boosting the capacity of our foreign partners.
Capabilities to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
The committee recognizes the value that Department of
Defense science and technology (S&T) efforts provide in
addressing the full range of military missions. S&T investments
are critical in providing technological options to address
known requirements, as well as hedge against uncertainty. The
committee notes that the preponderance of S&T investments are
in traditional areas like weapons systems, platforms, and
sensors. The committee is concerned that the current investment
strategy leaves gaps in areas of unconventional or irregular
threats.
Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR)
represents one mission area that has not been a traditional
focus of S&T investment. The committee notes that HA/DR
missions are particularly prominent as part of a broader
strategy of international engagement and show U.S. commitment
to the global commons. Recent examples include Operation
Unified Response in which the U.S. provided emergency disaster
relief in the wake of the earthquake in the Republic of Haiti
in 2010 and providing recent support following the earthquake
and tsunami in Japan in 2011.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should develop a strategy to focus more of its S&T investments
on HA/DR. The committee is aware of existing work that could be
accelerated and transitioned more widely, such as the
Sustainable Technologies Accelerated Research Transformative
Innovation for Development and Emergency Support initiative.
The committee also recognizes that there are other areas where
the Department of Defense has not traditionally focused many
resources, such as the development of thermostable vaccines,
where there are opportunities to collaborate with outside
entities that offer expertise in developing global health
technologies that could be pursued and better leveraged. The
committee believes that the Department's increasing role in HA/
DR missions will require greater technological options than are
currently available and should be addressed through S&T
development opportunities.
Composite technology for use in missile defense interceptors
The committee notes efforts by the Department of Defense
(DOD) to develop and test carbon fiber composite materials for
use in missile defense interceptors to improve performance and
withstand the operational environment experienced by such
interceptors.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue efforts to increase the performance of high thermally
conductive composites, such as carbon fiber composites, to
improve the performance of missile defense interceptors.
Conventional prompt global strike
The budget request contained $204.8 million in PE 64165D8Z
for conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capability
development. The request would fund hypersonic boost-glide
experiments, concept development and demonstration, alternate
payload development and test, test-range development, and
studies and analysis.
The committee notes that the first hypersonic technology
vehicle (HTV-2) flight test in April 2010 was unsuccessful.
According to the Department of Defense, a second HTV-2 flight
test is planned for August 2011 and the first flight test of an
alternative design, the advanced hypersonic weapon (AHW), is
planned for fiscal year 2012. The committee understands that
hypersonic technology is cutting-edge. The committee further
recognizes that designing a vehicle to glide through the
Earth's atmosphere at Mach 20, and developing the associated
thermal management and guidance and control technology, is a
significant scientific and engineering challenge.
While the committee values such innovation and scientific
discovery, it is also concerned about pursuing a weaponized
missile system, or any material development decision, before
demonstrating that the technology is feasible. The committee
believes a critical design review in fiscal year 2012 for an
operational demonstration of a conventional strike missile
(CSM) is premature.
The committee also questions the Department's apparent
focus on one specific system solution. As stated in the
President's February 2, 2011, report to Congress on
conventional prompt global strike, in response to Condition 6
of the New START Treaty resolution of ratification,
``preliminary discussions [regarding any specific acquisition
programs for CPGS weapon systems] . . . is informed by one
plausible configuration: the Air Force CSM utilizing the boost-
glide approach.'' The committee is concerned about the
affordability of CPGS given the current budgetary environment.
Based on briefings by the Department, the committee is
aware of other potential conventional long-range strike
capabilities that may be lower cost, carry less technical risk,
and provide a capability sooner than CSM. The committee
encourages a broader examination of the tradespace of CPGS
capabilities and concepts to meet warfighter requirements.
The committee recommends $179.8 million, a decrease of
$25.0 million, in PE 64165D8Z for CPGS capability development.
The committee encourages the Department to focus on basic
technology feasibility and believes its recommended reduction
can be partially offset by expected fiscal year 2011
unobligated funds.
Cyber test and evaluation
The committee recognizes the importance of information
technology (IT) and cyber security-related technologies in
providing critical capabilities to Armed Forces in the future.
The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-23) and the report ``Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform
Findings and Recommendations'' places significant importance on
conducting rigorous testing and evaluation in order to improve
defense acquisition outcomes. While the ``2010 Test and
Evaluation Strategic Plan'' addresses numerous capability gaps
in cyber testing, the committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense is not providing sufficient resources to
address rapidly increasing demands to conduct developmental and
operational test and evaluation (T&E) for future IT systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments,
to conduct an analysis of T&E resources needed to address the
capability gaps outlined by the ``2010 Test and Evaluation
Strategic Plan.'' The analysis should examine the following:
(1) Whether the Department of Defense is sufficiently
funding T&E at the level necessary to address cyber and
IT capability needs over the Future Years Defense
Program;
(2) Whether the Department of Defense has sufficient
numbers of technical personnel with the expertise in IT
disciplines to conduct T&E for cyber and IT systems
over the Future Years Defense Program; and
(3) Whether the Department of Defense has adequate
infrastructure to conduct T&E for cyber and IT systems
over the Future Years Defense Program.
The committee further directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services on the results of this analysis within 180 days
after date of the enactment of this Act.
Defense laboratory survey
The committee recognizes the key role that Department of
Defense (DOD) laboratories play in technology development,
scientific innovation, and acquisition excellence. DOD
laboratories are critical to maintaining the technological
superiority and competency of the military, and to monitor
global technology developments to prevent surprise and mitigate
adversarial developments. The committee remains committed to
ensuring that the Department of Defense laboratory system has
the resources and authority to support the scientific and
technological management of the military.
The committee is concerned, however, that there may be
certain regulations, instructions, policies and practices
instituted by the Department and the military services that may
lessen the laboratories effectiveness and efficiency, hindering
the innovative spirit that drives the laboratories. The
committee believes that an assessment of the possible
constraints on the mission of the various laboratories would be
beneficial to ensuring their long-term viability as leaders in
the pursuit of technological advancement.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to survey directors of the
Department of Defense laboratories to determine how to
streamline DOD regulations, instructions and policies impacting
the laboratories and to make recommendations to improve the
Department of Defense laboratory system. The committee further
directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering to provide a briefing on the results of this survey
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Armed
Services Committee within 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Directed energy research
The budget request contained $96.3 million in PE 63901C for
directed energy research programs for the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA).
The budget request supports the maintenance of the Airborne
Laser Test Bed (ALTB) as a science and technology test bed,
additional beam propagation and lethality testing, and further
maturation of Diode Pumped Alkaline-gas Laser System
technology.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee directed the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E) to submit a report on the Department's
review of directed energy technologies to the congressional
defense committees by July 1, 2010. The committee is
disappointed that it has not received this report.
The committee notes that the ALTB is the only megawatt-
class laser currently within the Department of Defense and
understands that it is providing risk reduction for future
airborne systems by performing wide-ranging laser science and
technology. However, the committee notes a March 2011
Government Accountability Office report on ballistic missile
defense that found, ``technical issues continued to affect the
test bed's experiments throughout fiscal year 2010 and into
early fiscal year 2011.'' The committee is concerned that these
technical issues, combined with recent ALTB flight test
failures, may delay important laser technology risk reduction
activities.
The committee supports the promising technologies and
technology demonstration activities currently being reviewed
which may warrant additional resources, and understands that
the review of these technologies and research activities is to
be included in the aforementioned DDR&E report. However, the
committee is concerned that the budget request does not include
sufficient funds to maintain the ALTB platform, support further
testing, continue technology development, and retain a uniquely
skilled workforce.
The committee recommends $146.3 million, an increase of
$50.0 million, in PE 63901C for directed energy research
programs for MDA, to be allocated at the discretion of the
Director, Missile Defense Agency, in consultation with the
Director, Defense Research and Engineering, to support
increased research, development, and testing of directed energy
technologies, including the use of the ALTB platform.
Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
executes a program known as the Engineer and Scientist Exchange
Program (ESEP). Its purpose is to promote international
cooperation in military research, development, and acquisition
through the exchange of defense scientists and engineers. The
primary goals of ESEP are as follows:
(1) Broaden perspectives in research and development
techniques and methods;
(2) Form a cadre of professionals with international
experience to enhance research and development
programs;
(3) Gain insight into foreign research and
development methods, organizational structures,
procedures, production, logistics, testing, and
management systems;
(4) Cultivate future international cooperative
endeavors; and
(5) Avoid duplication of research efforts among
allied nations.
The committee supports the goals of this program and
encourages the Department to make greater use of this program
to facilitate cooperation and collaboration with our foreign
allies and partners in the area of computer network operations.
The committee believes that this could help our foreign
partners build their own cyber operations capabilities, as well
as boost U.S. capacity in this area.
Fabrication of micro-air vehicles
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
developing an array of micro-air vehicles to provide small-unit
oriented sensing capabilities for tactical reconnaissance,
hazardous materials sensing and clandestine surveillance. Many
of the designs for these micro-air vehicles are based on
biomimetic constructions that leverage the unique
characteristics inherent in birds and insects. The committee is
aware that these biomimetic designs pose unique fabrication
challenges at the micro scale, particularly with regards to
robustness and maintainability. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to continue research and development in
the area of fabrication for micro-air vehicles, which the
committee believes represents an underappreciated challenge to
the widespread adoption and deployment of micro-air vehicles
for defense applications.
Ground-based midcourse defense
The budget request contained $1.2 billion in PE 63882C for
the ballistic missile defense midcourse segment for the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA).
The request supports the continued development, testing,
operations, and sustainment of the ground-based midcourse (GMD)
system, including the acquisition of 5 ground-based
interceptors (GBI); completion of the new 14-silo Missile Field
2 at Fort Greely, Alaska; placement of the six-silo Missile
Field 1 in Fort Greely, Alaska, in a mothball status; and
beginning preliminary design work to locate an In-Flight
Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) Data Terminal (IDT)
at an East Coast site by 2015.
The last two intercept flight tests of the GMD system, FTG-
06 in January 2010 and FTG-06a in December 2010, failed to
achieve intercept. The committee understands that the FTG-06
failure was principally due to a quality control issue
associated with a component in the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle
(EKV). The FTG-06a failure is still under investigation but is
also centered on technical issues involving the EKV.
The committee is troubled by these back-to-back flight test
failures and, when viewed in the context of the entire GMD
flight test history, questions whether there are more systemic
issues within the GMD program. The committee remains concerned
about the reliability of the GMD system and its overall
operational effectiveness. The committee notes that the GMD
system is currently the only missile defense system that
protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic
missile attacks. The committee believes the Department must
prioritize the GMD system and allocate sufficient resources to
sustain, test, and evolve it. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee includes a provision that would establish the sense
of Congress and require the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the congressional defense committees a plan by the Director,
Missile Defense Agency to address the GMD flight-test failures,
including the schedule and additional resources necessary to
implement the plan.
The committee is also concerned about the budget trends in
the GMD program and its potential impact on the reliability and
effectiveness of the system. In the fiscal year 2010 budget,
the GMD program was reduced by $445.3 million. The fiscal year
2011 budget request restored $324.2 million of this amount, but
the fiscal year 2012 request would reduce the program by $185.2
million. Furthermore, the Future Years Defense Program spending
profile for GMD is approximately $1.0 billion less than was
projected 1-year ago.
Furthermore, the committee has learned that the combination
of flight-test failures and MDA operations under reduced
spending limits resulting from continuing resolutions during
fiscal year 2011, before the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10)
was enacted, has resulted in several schedule delays within the
GMD program. In information provided to the committee, MDA
indicates that it plans to delay GBI manufacturing and fleet
upgrades; Stockpile Reliability Program component testing; new
capability development, modeling, testing, and fielding; and
missile defense complex communications upgrades at Fort Greely.
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in
April 2011, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency noted
that MDA also plans to delay flight testing of the two-stage
GBI to harvest its funds to fix the EKV.
The committee supports the need to investigate and resolve
the problems that plagued the EKV in the FTG-06a test, and
believes this should be done prior to conducting additional
intercept flight tests. However, the committee questions plans
by MDA to wait over 2 years to repeat the FTG-06a intercept
flight test given recent testimony by the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency that MDA's top priority is to resolve
the problem and successfully repeat FTG-06a.
Additionally, in testimony before the committee in March
2011, the Director, Missile Defense Agency acknowledged that
procurement of additional GBIs will be necessary in light of
recent flight-test results and that the Department should
reassess the number of GBIs it should procure.
The committee understands, based on information provided by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), that MDA has halted
deliveries of completed EKVs until the root cause is determined
and resolved, but has allowed the contractor to continue work
on components of the EKV that were deemed not part of the
December 2010 failure in order to keep the production line
moving and to allow a rapid recovery of deliveries once changes
or mitigations are implemented. The committee supports such an
approach and further believes MDA should begin acquiring long-
lead components, deemed not part of the December 2010 failure,
for additional GBIs. The committee further expects that MDA
would procure additional GBIs in fiscal year 2013. The
committee notes a GAO observation, contained it its October
2010 interim briefing to the congressional defense committees
on the GMD program, that GBI purchases after fiscal year 2013
may incur manufacturing line restart costs for third and fourth
tier suppliers, which might be higher than expected. The
committee notes that MDA plans to award a new development and
sustainment contract for the GMD system in June 2011, and urges
MDA to closely manage any contractor transition to minimize
mission impact during this critical period in the GMD program.
The committee recommends $1.3 billion, an increase of
$100.0 million, in PE 63882C for the ground-based midcourse
defense system to accelerate resolution of the EKV failure,
restore delays in testing, restore other program delays
described above, and begin acquisition of long-lead components,
deemed not part of the December 2010 failure, for additional
GBIs.
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System
The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) for its work in directed energy
technology, and in particular the High Energy Liquid Laser Area
Defense System (HELLADS) program. The committee believes that
advancing the development of directed energy weapons will
provide the Department with valuable technical capabilities to
counter a range of perceived future threats. The committee
recognizes that DARPA's innovative approach employed in the
HELLADS program offers a valuable technological alternative
that complements the approaches being pursued by the military
departments. The size, weight, and power reductions expected
from HELLADS are necessary steps if the Department wishes to
find suitable tactical applications for directed energy
weapons.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving
Institutions
The budget request contained no funds in PE 62228D8Z for
the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority
Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI) program.
The committee is aware that the HBCU/MI program serves a
number of objectives for the Department of Defense (DOD),
including:
(1) Enhancing research programs and capabilities in
scientific and engineering disciplines critical to the
national security functions of the Department;
(2) Encouraging greater participation in DOD programs
and activities;
(3) Increasing the number of graduates, including
underrepresented minorities in science, technical
engineering and mathematics fields; and
(4) Encouraging research and educational
collaboration with other colleges and universities.
The committee continues to support the objectives of the
HBCU/MI program, and the role it plays in expanding the breadth
and diversity of the scientific workforce. Furthermore, the
committee encourages the Department to explore ways to leverage
the participation of not-for-profit institutions to enhance the
goals of the HBCU/MI program.
The committee recommends $10.0 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 62228D8Z to support additional competitive
awards through the HBCU/MI program.
Industrial research and development activities
The committee continues to support the Department of
Defense's research and development enterprise, including the
key role played by the Department of Defense laboratories,
product centers, and other engineering facilities. The
committee believes that these facilities are critical to
maintaining the military's technological superiority, as well
as contributing to the economic health and scientific
competitiveness of the United States.
The committee also recognizes that the defense industrial
base makes significant investments that complement and
sometimes supplant government funding in order to promote
technological development. These industrial research and
development (IR&D) investments are important components to
creating a sustainable foundation for economic growth and
technological advancement. In an era of shrinking budgets and
fiscal constraint, the committee encourages the Department and
the defense industrial base to create additional information
sharing mechanisms that will increase visibility into these
IR&D investments and better leverage limited resources, reduce
the potential for duplication and waste, and improve government
to industry collaboration on research.
Israeli cooperative missile defense
The budget request contained $106.1 million in PE 63913C
for Israeli cooperative programs for the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA). Of this amount, $11.8 million was requested for
improvements to the Arrow Weapon System (AWS), $53.2 million
for continued development of the Arrow-3 interceptor, and $41.1
million for continued development of the David's Sling Weapon
System (DSWS).
The fiscal year 2012 request represents a decrease of
$103.8 million from the fiscal year 2011 appropriated level.
Since 1986, the United States and the State of Israel have
cooperated on missile defense. MDA has four major initiatives
with Israel to develop and improve the Israelis' indigenous
capabilities to defend against short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles: (1) AWS for defense against medium-range
missile threats; (2) the Arrow-3 interceptor, an upper tier
follow-on to AWS; (3) DSWS for defense against short-range
systems; and (4) Iron Dome for defense against long-range
rockets and short-range missiles. The United States and Israel
also participate in joint missile defense exercises and tests,
to enhance the interoperability and integration of U.S. and
Israeli missile defense systems.
The committee commends Israel for its rapid development and
deployment of the Iron Dome short-range rocket and missile
defense system. In April 2011, the Iron Dome system shot down
several rockets fired from the Gaza Strip aimed at Israeli
cities. The committee believes such attacks are a reminder of
the immediacy of the missile threat to Israel and the need for
supporting accelerated efforts to cooperatively develop, test,
and field missile defense capabilities for Israel.
However, the budget request does not support full-scale
development of the DSWS to ensure that a first battery will be
delivered in 2012. The budget request also fails to provide for
completion of development and testing of AWS enhancements and
acceleration of Arrow-3 interceptor development. The committee
is aware that steady progress continues to be made in meeting
the agreed Arrow-3 knowledge points.
The committee therefore recommends $216.1 million, an
increase of $110.0 million, in PE 63913C for Israeli
cooperative programs, to be allocated at the discretion of the
Director, Missile Defense Agency.
Medical Countermeasures Initiative and the Chemical and Biological
Defense Program
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
pursuing a new Medical Countermeasure Initiative (MCMI) within
the Chemical and Biological Defense Program designed to enable
rapid delivery of new medical countermeasures to dangerous
pathogens through a strategic partnership between the U.S.
Government and industry. The committee is also aware that MCMI
is designed to enhance force protection for military personnel
against emerging threats and infectious diseases and fill a
capability gap, which was underscored by the inability to
rapidly produce vaccine for the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus
pandemic.
The committee is also aware that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported in GAO-11-318SP
``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'' that most
Federal efforts and programs within the bio-defense enterprise
are fragmented and that the overarching enterprise lacks
strategic oversight mechanisms. GAO also concludes that there
is no broad, integrated national strategy that encompasses all
stakeholders with bio-defense responsibilities that can be used
to guide the systemic identification of risk, assessment of
resources needed to address those risks, and the prioritization
and allocation of investment across the entire Federal
Government. As such, neither the Office of Management and
Budget, nor the Federal agencies account for bio-defense
spending across the entire Federal Government.
While the committee understands the need to ensure rapid
delivery of advanced medical countermeasures to dangerous
pathogens, the committee is concerned that the Department is
initiating MCMI as a new-start program in a bio-defense sector
already identified by GAO as fragmented and disjointed. The
committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
a detailed briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, on the efforts taken by the
Department to ensure programmatic success in this area,
including but not limited to: cost, schedule, and performance
in the Future Years Defense Program; efforts to interface with
and implement cost-sharing mechanisms across industry; efforts
to enhance efficiencies and reduce fragmentation related to
Department of Defense equities within the interagency bio-
defense enterprise; and efforts taken to ensure interagency
collaboration such as cross-cutting information management and
communications, research and development, and acquisition
efforts.
Meeting airspace needs for defense-related Unmanned Aerial Systems
research
The committee notes that availability of special use
airspace is important to research related to Unmanned Aerial
Systems (UAS) and national defense needs. The proliferation of
technology enabling the use of UAS represents a clear future
threat to national security; however, lack of special use
airspace to research detection techniques is a potential
impediment to the Nation's ability to counter the threat. The
committee encourages discussions between the Air Force Research
Laboratory and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
explore ways for the FAA and the Department of Defense to work
together on problems related to integrating UAS into the
National Airspace System. The committee urges the Department of
Defense and the FAA to place a high priority on meeting
national defense needs for special use airspace related to UAS
research, including addressing defense needs for special use
airspace for research in ``detect and destroy'' technologies.
Missile defense adjunct sensor capabilities
The committee is aware of Department of Defense sensor
capabilities that are not funded by the Missile Defense Agency
but have the potential to contribute to the missile defense
mission. Such adjunct sensor capabilities, including the radars
on the Cobra Judy Replacement mobile maritime ship, could be
integrated with ballistic missile defense software and linked
with existing communications networks to provide additional
detection, tracking, and discrimination of ballistic missiles,
thereby improving sea- and land-based missile defense
capabilities. The committee urges the Missile Defense Agency to
work with the military services to identify such sensor
capabilities and pursue opportunities to conduct simulations,
experiments, and demonstrations to assess the feasibility and
benefit of integrating adjunct sensors.
Mitochondrial disease research
The committee believes that mitochondrial disease and
dysfunction is relevant to military medicine. In particular,
the role of the mitochondria as the ``power plant'' of the cell
implicates it in a whole range of questions pertaining to
energy levels and fatigue, which is directly related to human
performance. Therefore the committee encourages the Department
of Defense to include mitochondrial disease and dysfunction as
one of the types of diseases researched through the general
``Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program''.
Mobile applications development
The committee is aware that the military departments and
Defense agencies are pursuing future network strategies that
would leverage developments in the commercial marketplace.
These commercially-developed mobile devices, such as smart
phones and tablet computers, are in high demand by the Armed
Forces, and offer computational power, flexibility, and
technology refresh rates not currently achievable in military-
developed communications and computing devices.
The committee is also aware that some defense
organizations, such as the Army, the Defense Information
Systems Agency, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), have begun experimenting with mobile computing
devices to field relevant applications for military use. For
example, the Army held a competition in 2010 to spur
development of mobile device applications, and has established
a small, dedicated effort within Training and Doctrine Command
to focus on mobile applications development. DARPA has also
begun examining how the Department might support applications
development for mobile computing devices in the future.
The committee is concerned that the Department has not
devoted sufficient attention to these efforts, and thus the
necessary policy developments needed to support these
technology developments has been lagging. For example, the
process for test, evaluation, certification and accreditation
of these applications for network use has not been sufficiently
clarified and takes significantly longer than similar processes
in the commercial sector. This time lag and policy ambiguity
has resulted in some users bypassing security procedures in
order to get access to the capabilities these applications
provide.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
(DOD) Chief Information Officer to develop and issue a
Department of Defense Instruction within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act to clarify the process for
developing and using mobile applications on DOD networks. The
Instruction should address development, test, evaluation,
certification, accreditation, and mechanisms for making these
applications available to the user community. The development
of the Instruction should also be coordinated through the
working group process supporting the development of a rapid
information technology acquisition process as part of section
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 (Public Law 111-84).
Multidisciplinary research in cyber-related fields
The committee is encouraged by the importance placed by the
Department overall on research into cyber-related fields in the
budget request. The committee is concerned that the current
research emphasis has been on traditional computational and
mathematical sciences and insufficient emphasis has been placed
on the behavioral and economic aspects of cyber-related
activities to develop a solid understanding of how decision-
making and risk analysis are conducted. The committee
encourages the Department to create more multidisciplinary
research opportunities which combine traditional computational
scientific fields with social science disciplines in order to
provide a more quantitative scientific underpinning for
understanding the behavioral aspects of cyber security.
Nanotechnology research
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
pursuing research into a variety of nanotechnology applications
for defense purposes. New capabilities enabled by the unique
performance enhancements of nanostructure materials hold the
potential of transforming the technology landscape. The
committee encourages the Department to continue to make
investments in nanotechnology research that is needed to create
the next generation of sensors, electronics, weapons, and
manufacturing processes.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense lacks sufficient expertise in some emerging research
disciplines related to nanotechnology to support a long-term
research investment strategy. The committee is aware that a
dedicated federally funded research and development center
(FFRDC) could support the Department in this effort, but that
no such broad-based nanotechnology FFRDC exists.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a report to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act on how the Department of Defense receives support from
the research community on nanotechnology issues, including
identifying where within the existing FFRDC community that
expertise comes from, and assessing whether a dedicated FFRDC
is needed.
National Research and Education Center for Corrosion
The committee recognizes the critical role that academia
and university programs play in avoiding costly design and
development errors and encourages the Department of Defense to
strengthen its ties with researchers, service laboratories, and
educators in the field of corrosion. The committee recommends
that the Department of Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight expand university-related initiatives in the
Department of Defense Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation
Strategic Plan, which could include bachelor of science
programs in corrosion engineering; expansion of projects that
address high-cost areas in the Cost of Corrosion Baseline
Study; and outreach, communication, education, training, and
policy activities that support the warfighter. The committee
endorses the action of the Director of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight to establish a national research and education center
for corrosion and recommends that the Secretary of Defense
provide the necessary funding to support the faculty and
associated resources at the center.
Phased, adaptive approach
The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for
the progress it has made over the past year in the
implementation of the phased, adaptive approach (PAA) for
missile defense in Europe. The committee also appreciates the
Department's improved engagement with the committee on the
European phased, adaptive approach (EPAA).
As announced by the President in September 2009, the EPAA
is designed to: sustain U.S. homeland defense against long-
range ballistic missile threats; speed protection of U.S.
deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying
families against the near-term missile threat from Iran; ensure
and enhance the protection of the territory and populations of
all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, in
concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the
current and growing ballistic missile threat; deploy proven
capabilities and technologies to meet current threats; and
provide flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and
to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves.
The committee notes that NATO formally endorsed territorial
missile defense at its November 2010 Lisbon Summit and in its
new Strategic Concept, and welcomed the EPAA ``as a valuable
national contribution to the NATO missile defence
architecture.'' The Lisbon Summit Declaration further stated
that such a territorial missile defense capability would be
``based on the principles of the indivisibility of Allied
security and NATO solidarity.''
The committee has observed a range of DOD activities, many
in conjunction with the Department of State, to implement EPAA.
These include the March 2011 deployment of the Aegis ballistic
missile defense cruiser USS Monterey to the Mediterranean for a
6-month mission to provide some defensive coverage of south and
southeastern Europe as part of EPAA phase one, and ongoing
bilateral negotiations with Romania and the Republic of Poland
for the hosting of a land-based Aegis Ashore site as part of
phase two and phase three, respectively. The committee is
concerned, however, about the Department's plans for forward-
basing an AN/TPY-2 radar in southeastern Europe to meet the
2011 timeline for EPAA phase one, as a location has yet to be
determined.
The committee expects continued engagement with the
Department of Defense as the EPAA further evolves. The
committee understands that specific command and control
arrangements between the U.S. and other NATO members are still
being developed. The committee believes contributions by U.S.
allies are essential if EPAA is to be a NATO-wide capability
and reflect the burden sharing commitment underpinning NATO.
Additionally, at the committee's request, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the Department of
Defense's plans for EPAA implementation. In its December 2010
report, GAO expressed concern that ``DOD has not developed an
overall investment cost or an acquisition decision schedule.
The limited visibility into the costs and schedule for European
PAA constrains independent assessments of progress as well as
limits oversight.'' Furthermore, a September 2010 independent
assessment of EPAA by the Institute for Defense Analyses,
required by section 235 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), estimated the 27-
year total costs for the EPAA at $22.0 billion to $23.0
billion, which is significantly more than cost estimates
provided to the committee by MDA. As the committee continues
its oversight of EPAA, it expects MDA to further refine its
cost estimates.
GAO further observed that system schedules are highly
optimistic in technology development, testing, production, and
integration, leaving little room for potential delays. To this
point, the committee is concerned about the development of the
standard missile (SM)-3 Block IIA and SM-3 Block IIB
interceptors as well as the timeline for phase 4 of the EPAA,
which is planned to provide additional protection of the United
States. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes an
increase in SM-3 Block IIA funds.
Precision Tracking Space System
The budget request contained $160.8 million in PE 64883C
for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) for the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA).
The request would support trade studies and alternative
analyses, preliminary subsystem designs, and risk reduction
activities. According to MDA budget materials, PTSS is planned
to provide tracking, discrimination, and fire control quality
data to enable earlier intercept opportunities. PTSS is also
expected to increase the missile raid handling capacity of the
ballistic missile defense system. The program was a new start
in fiscal year 2011.
The committee is concerned about the acquisition approach
for PTSS, which is planned to leverage mature technology, and
be a less complex and lower-cost design than its predecessor,
two Space Tracking and Surveillance System demonstration
satellites launched in 2009 that are providing risk reduction
for PTSS. However, MDA is leveraging Government and military
laboratories to design and develop the first two PTSS
satellites for launch in fiscal year 2016. The committee sees a
dichotomy between MDA's plans for a technically mature, less
complex system and an approach that leverages labs, which
primarily focus on scientific research and advanced technology
development. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the
technical trades required to implement a less complex, lower-
cost design would lead to performance trade-offs that may
impact the ability of PTSS to provide sufficient ascent and
midcourse tracking.
Based on MDA descriptions, both PTSS and the Airborne
Infrared (ABIR) system are planned to provide larger raid size
tracking and support early intercept opportunities. The
committee is concerned about the affordability of continuing
both PTSS and ABIR given the current budgetary environment and
the committee's other missile defense priorities.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $160.8
million, in PE 64883C for the Precision Tracking Space System.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
additional funds to accelerate ABIR, based on recommendations
contained in the Joint Capabilities Mix-III study, and to
increase data exploitation from other overhead persistent
infrared sensors to include the Space-Based Infrared System and
a program discussed in the classified annex accompanying this
report.
Project Pelican
The committee continues to support the efforts within the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering to pursue a technology demonstrator for a rigid-
hull, variable-buoyancy hybrid air vehicle, known as ``Project
Pelican.'' As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010, the proposed capabilities have the potential to
revolutionize the future of intra-theater lift, as well as
other areas of importance, such as intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance, and communications relay.
However, the committee is cautiously optimistic about the
progress of the demonstrator vehicle, and cautions against
scaling this vehicle up to an operational system before the
technology is adequately validated. The committee is concerned
that airship technology has a history of being hampered by a
variety of operational constraints that the military has not
adequately dealt with since the last military airships were
retired more than 50-years ago. The committee believes the
Department should pursue a parallel path that demonstrates
robust concepts of operation as the technology is matured and
validated. Part of the process of developing concepts of
operation should include planning and analysis for addressing
operational and logistical constraints of using large airships,
such as basing, airspace management, and environmental issues.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to conduct a series of
tabletop exercises, in conjunction with the service acquisition
executives of the military departments and the combatant
commanders, to develop concepts of operations for how rigid-
hull, variable-buoyancy hybrid air vehicle technology might be
employed in future platforms. The committee further directs the
Assistant Secretary to brief the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the
results of the tabletop exercises within 270 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Scientific and engineering fellowships
The committee recognizes the importance of the various
fellowship and scholarship programs operated by the Department
of Defense and the intelligence agencies. The committee
strongly encourages the Department and other agencies to
aggressively examine ways to increase the participation of
diverse graduate level students in the physical sciences in
these programs. The committee also encourages the Department to
complement existing programs by partnering with non-profit
organizations for these purposes when doing so would be cost-
effective and beneficial.
Semiconductor development
The committee recognizes the importance of the development
of advanced integrated circuits by the semiconductor industry
for defense applications. The committee is aware that the
diminishing domestic semiconductor supply chain posses a
critical challenge to U.S. national security interests,
particularly with regard to the impact that counterfeit and
maliciously altered electronics could potentially have on
systems requiring a high-degree of trust. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue
working with industry and academia to pursue development of new
advanced domestic manufacturing technologies for
semiconductors.
Social media tools for collaboration
The committee is aware that the Defense Information Systems
Agency has been developing a range of collaboration tools as
part of the Net Centric Enterprise Services (NCES) program.
These collaboration tools are necessary for Department of
Defense personnel to carry out their missions. However, it is
unclear whether these tools can evolve rapidly enough to meet
the growing capability demands of the user community.
The committee understands that emerging social media
applications for the commercial marketplace have been developed
in parallel at a much faster pace, and also provide significant
capability for collaboration and information analysis. The
committee urges the Defense Information Systems Agency to
examine these social media tools to determine how they might be
better integrated into future increments of NCES to complement
traditional collaboration tools.
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor
The budget request contained $424.5 million in PE 64881C
for Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block IIA Co-Development for the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
The request would support the continued development and
testing of the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, which is being co-
developed in cooperation with the Government of Japan. The SM-3
Block IIA is being designed with a larger diameter missile and
more advanced kill vehicle technology than the SM-3 Block IA/IB
interceptor. Upon planned deployment in 2018 as part of phase 3
of the President's phased, adaptive approach to missile defense
in Europe, the SM-3 Block IIB is expected to provide expanded
coverage of Europe against intermediate range ballistic missile
threats, and may provide some limited intercontinental
ballistic missile intercept capability.
The committee is concerned about schedule risk in the SM-3
Block IIA program. The system preliminary design review (PDR)
is planned for fiscal year 2012, leading to a first flight test
planned for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. The
committee understands, however, that technical issues surfaced
during component-level PDRs involving the divert and attitude
control system in the kill vehicle, nosecone weight, and third
stage rocket motor. The committee understands the technology
maturation process and appreciates MDA efforts to retire
technology risk. However, the committee believes MDA will be
challenged in holding to its current schedule and is concerned
about the program's ability to meet its planned 2018 deployment
date.
The committee requests MDA to provide an updated schedule
and funding profile for the SM-3 Block IIA program should
either change in the near-term. The committee also notes that
arrangements for SM-3 Block IIA production have not been
determined with the Government of Japan, and the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to begin such discussions.
The committee recommends $464.5 million, an increase of
$40.0 million, in PE 64881C for SM-3 Block IIA Co-Development
to fund additional development and technology risk reduction
efforts, at the discretion of the Director, Missile Defense
Agency, to reduce schedule risk.
Study on possible establishment of a power and energy University
Affiliated Research Center
The committee recognizes the national security imperative
for diversifying fuel supply and reducing energy consumption.
The Department of Defense has many Department goals and laws
for reducing energy consumption including increasing the use of
renewable technologies.
Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC)
is one potential method for providing the Department of Defense
with long-term continuity for essential research, development,
and engineering capability enhancements in specific mission
areas. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a study to assess the cost and feasibility
of establishing a UARC that researches and develops power and
energy technologies to reduce energy demand, improve energy-
efficiency, and help achieve the overall mission requirements
of the Department of Defense and military services. The
committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 29, 2012. The report
should include recommendations regarding the potential
establishment of this UARC, the proposed funding required to
establish the UARC, and an analysis of potential locations.
Technology transition and insertion
The committee understands that rapid acquisition programs
are increasingly used in the place of dedicated technology
transition programs and that the Department did not request any
funds for fiscal year 2012 for the Defense Acquisition
Challenge program. The committee is concerned about the
effectiveness of technology transition within the Department
and the opportunity to insert innovative and cost-saving
technologies into Department of Defense acquisition programs.
The committee notes that technology transition is essential
to fulfilling the mandate of section 202 of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), which
requires acquisition strategies to ensure competition
throughout the lifecycle of major defense acquisition programs.
The committee believes that program managers are risk averse
and are not incentivized to pull new technologies into programs
of record in order to foster competition and reduce program
cost. Consequently, there is a need for mechanisms external to
a program of record to identify promising new technologies and
to reduce the risk of technology transition for major defense
acquisition programs. However, both the committee and the
Government Accountability Office have observed that the
Department's approach to funding transition is flawed and that
multiple, small funding sources for specific transition
activities offer a piecemeal solution to a more systemic
problem.
Accordingly, section 253 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to assess the feasibility
of consolidating technology transition accounts into one
account to be managed at the Department-level. Section 253 also
required the USD (AT&L) to submit a report to Congress on the
aforementioned assessment and include recommendations
concerning the streamlining and improvement of technology
transition activities throughout the Department. Unfortunately,
the USD(AT&L) has failed to comply with this statutory
requirement, which was required no later than October 1, 2009.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would repeal the Technology Transition Initiative, section
2359a of title 10, United States Code effective October 1,
2012. However, the repeal of that initiative is incumbent upon
compliance with section 253 of Public Law 110-417. The
committee expects the USD(AT&L) to comply with section 253 no
later than August 31, 2011, so the congressional defense
committees can understand the full ramifications of the repeal
or modification of technology transition and insertion
activities, such as the Technology Transition Initiative and
the Defense Acquisition Challenge program.
University Affiliated Research Centers
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense funds
a number of University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) to
support its research needs. Although permitted by law to award
research and development contracts non-competitively to
universities and other non-profit organizations, the Department
of Defense has chosen to limit the UARC program to
universities. The committee is concerned that by barring non-
profit research organizations from programs such as UARCs, the
Department is depriving itself from utilizing specialized
expertise that exists within non-profit research and
development organizations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to review the Department
of Defense's guidance pertaining to non-profit research
institutions to participate in UARCs and other research and
development contracting opportunities to ensure that these
organizations are not being unfairly excluded from
competitions. The committee further directs the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a
briefing on the results of this review to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services within
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Vertical lift consortium
The committee recognizes the essential role that vertical
lift aircraft serve as a critical enabler for the Department's
execution of time-sensitive and terrain-restricted combat and
humanitarian missions around the world. The committee notes
that the requirements of the combatant commanders for vertical
lift capabilities continue to increase. The committee supports
the Department's future vertical lift initiative to improve the
long-term state of military vertical lift aircraft. The
committee also supports the Department's efforts to promote the
formation of, and its subsequent engagement with the Vertical
Lift Consortium (VLC), a non-profit corporation with open
membership made up of large, small, and non-traditional U.S.
businesses and academia engaged in rotorcraft technology
development. The Department established an Other Transaction
Agreement with the VLC which provides a mechanism for it to
receive direct feedback regarding the development of realistic
and achievable requirements, and provides a simplified contract
vehicle for the competitive award of contracts for the rapid
and low-cost flight demonstration of vertical lift technologies
responsive to warfighter needs.
The committee notes that despite encouraging the
establishment of the VLC, the Department has yet to fund it.
The committee encourages the Department to take action to
either fund the VLC or to disestablish it in the near future.
In addition, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1,
2012, that states the Department's current and future plans for
the VLC.
Weaponization of rail-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's
interest in weaponizing rail-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems
(UAS) to respond to urgent requirements to protect U.S. and
coalition forces. The committee further understands there is an
urgent needs statement being staffed to meet requirements in
U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility.
The committee recommends that the Department of Defense
continue to pursue the conventional weaponization of rail-
launched UAS, like the RQ-7B Shadow and similar systems to
respond to urgent requirements to better defend U.S. and
coalition forces.
Weapons of Mass Destruction defeat technologies and capabilities
The committee notes that the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA) continues a strong partnership with each of the
services and U.S. Special Operations Command to develop and
field innovative weapons of mass destruction (WMD) defeat
technologies and solutions that reduce, eliminate and counter
the threat of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
high-yield explosive materials (CBRNE). In particular, the
committee supports DTRA's ongoing activities to develop and
demonstrate innovative munitions that incinerate and destroy
chemical and biological agents without incidental target agent
dispersal and area contamination. These technical capabilities
remain an area of particular interest to the committee since
the national intelligence community continues to assess
credible threats posed by terrorist groups, states, and state-
sponsored entities to acquire and weaponize CBRNE materials for
use against the United States and its allies. The committee
therefore encourages DTRA to continue development and
demonstration of innovative and emerging agent and functional
defeat technologies to ensure prompt transition of validated
capabilities to address national security requirements.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $191.3 million for operational
test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $191.3
million, the requested amount for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012
operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified
in division D of this Act.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation at the levels identified in
section 4201 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Ground Combat
Vehicle Program
This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds
to not more than 70 percent for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
program until the Secretary of the Army provides a report to
the defense committees containing an updated analysis of
alternatives that includes a quantitative comparison of the
most current upgraded Bradley Fighting Vehicle and other
alternatives against the revised GCV design concept.
The committee continues to support the Army's goal of
pursuing a modernized combat vehicle. However, before the Army
starts another major development program that could cost over
$30.0 billion, the committee must be convinced that the GCV
will be significantly more capable than an upgraded version of
current fielded platforms. The committee understands that the
Army wants the GCV to carry three additional soldiers, but the
committee believes that should not be the primary attribute
that drives the decision on continuing the project on its
current path. The committee believes that the GCV program
should not proceed beyond the technology development phase
unless the committee's issues and concerns are addressed.
Section 212--Limitation on the Individual Carbine Program
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a robust and comprehensive analysis of alternatives
(AOA) assessment, similar to a cost and operational
effectiveness analysis for the Individual Carbine (IC) program.
The section would also prohibit the IC program from moving
beyond its milestone C decision point until such analysis has
occurred and has been reported to the congressional defense
committees not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.
The committee expects the AOA to evaluate the operational
effectiveness and affordability of system alternatives that
satisfy the Army's needs for a primary small arms weapon
system, highlighting the relationship between cost, schedule,
and performance. The committee believes this AOA should include
commercial off-the-shelf solutions, solutions requiring minimal
developmental efforts, and current programs of record. The
committee expects that for each alternative, the analysis would
detail implications for doctrine, organizations, training,
leadership and education, personnel, and facilities.
The committee understands the objective of the IC program
is to procure and field a carbine that can achieve greater
accuracy, lethality, and reliability than the existing M4
carbine, while also providing better ergonomics, and use
current accessory items or accessory items with like-
capabilities. The committee notes that this program could
potentially be worth over $1.0 billion and could replace all M4
carbines in the current inventory. Because of the value and
significance of this program, the committee believes an
analysis of alternatives is required before any production
decision is made.
The committee is also aware that the Army is initiating a
competitive product improvement program (PIP) as a near-term
solution for system upgrades to the M4 carbine and encourages
the Secretary of the Army to consider these product
improvements as part of the required AOA. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider evaluating
commercial-off-the-shelf solutions as part of any PIP solution.
Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ohio-class
Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program
This section would contain four findings concerning the
number of submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers
(missile tubes) planned for the Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN) replacement, the composition of the deployed
nuclear deterrent force of the United States planned under the
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), and recent
testimony by the commander of the United States Strategic
Command.
This section would express a sense of Congress that:
(1) The long-term ability of the United States to
maintain a nuclear force sufficient to address the
range of mission requirements necessary to deter,
dissuade, and defeat potential adversaries and assure
allies and partners must not be comprised solely on the
basis of the promise of potential cost savings
resulting from the Department's decision to reduce the
planned number of missile tubes per Ohio-class
ballistic missile submarine from 24 to 16; and
(2) The planned Ohio-class ballistic submarine
replacement is expected to be in operations through
2080 and therefore near-term design decisions should
take into consideration uncertainties in the future
threat and strategic environment.
This section would also limit the obligation and
expenditure of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2012 for the Ohio-class
ballistic missile submarine replacement program to not more
than 90 percent until the Secretary of Defense submits to the
congressional defense committees a report summarizing the
analysis that supported the Department's decision to reduce the
planned number of missile tubes per submarine to 16. Reporting
elements would include: a description of the assumed threat and
strategic environment throughout the expected operational
lifetime of the program; a description of any assumptions
regarding changes in nuclear policy and strategy, and further
nuclear reductions; an identification of any missions or
requirements that may have increased risk; and a summary of the
cost comparison between 16 and 20 missile tube designs,
including the accuracy of the cost estimate.
Over the course of the last year, the committee has
received inconsistent information on the number of missile
tubes per hull planned for the Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarine replacement. In a May 13, 2010, report to Congress,
required by section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the President
outlined his SSBN force structure plans: ``The Secretary of
Defense, based on recommendations from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, has established a baseline nuclear force structure that
fully supports U.S. security requirements and conforms to the
New START limits. . . . The United States will reduce the
number of SLBM launchers (launch tubes) from 24 to 20 per SSBN,
and deploy no more than 240 SLBMs at any time.'' These plans
for 20 missile tubes per SSBN were reaffirmed in the joint
Department of Energy and Department of Defense February 16,
2011, update to the report required by section 1251. However,
on January 10, 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued an acquisition
decision memorandum for the Ohio-class submarine replacement
program whereby the Navy received milestone A approval to
proceed with a design based on 16 missile tubes.
The committee remains unclear as to the analysis and
assumptions that informed the Department's decision to reduce
the planned number of missile tubes per SSBN from 24 to 16, and
the rationale for its deviation from the baseline force
structure of 20 missile tubes per SSBN outlined in the report
required by section 1251, other than the promise of potential
cost savings. The committee seeks to hold the Department
accountable to providing it with such information.
Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Amphibious Assault
Vehicles of the Marine Corps
This section would limit the obligation of funds committed
for the amphibious assault vehicle until the Secretary of
Defense meets certain requirements.
The committee notes that the budget request contained no
funds for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and that the
Department is terminating the program. The committee continues
to be frustrated with the lack of transparency by the
Department, and its failure to inform Congress prior to making
major weapons systems decisions that have significant national
security implications. The committee agrees with the June 5,
2007, Nunn-McCurdy recertification letter submitted to
Congress, which stated there are no options other than a
restructured EFV program that could provide equal or greater
military capability at less cost. The recertification letter
also stated that initiating a new start program would increase
operational risk due to further delayed deliveries, and
pursuing an upgraded Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), while
entailing lower cost, would provide less military capability
due to the slow speed of the AAV. In addition, the
recertification letter stated that the Joint Requirements
Oversight Committee (JROC) affirmed the need for a high-speed
amphibious assault capability. The EFV's ability to accelerate
until the vehicle moves along the top of the water is what gave
it the capability to reach speeds in excess of 25 knots.
The Department briefed the committee on its rationale for
termination of the EFV program on April 7, 2011. The committee
remains concerned that the Department failed to conduct the
proper analysis prior to making the decision to terminate the
EFV program. The committee has yet to see the detailed analysis
that would show one way or the other whether or not other
alternatives may have been a more efficient solution rather
than terminating the EFV program. The committee questions the
Department's assumptions behind the decision to change the
deployment distance from 25 nautical miles to 12 nautical
miles. In addition, the committee believes that the Marine's
combat effectiveness will be negatively impacted as a result of
potential motion sickness stemming from riding in an amphibious
assault vehicle that is not up on plane for long periods of
time. The current AAV is launched from approximately 2 nautical
miles and can travel up to 6 knots in ideal sea state
conditions. During the April 7 briefing, the committee was told
that an upgraded AAV might be able to reach 10 knots and that
the speed requirement for the follow-on effort to the EFV, the
Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), would be somewhere in the
vicinity of 14 knots. The committee notes that a replacement
vehicle to the EFV would have to go 16 or 17 knots in order to
accelerate until the vehicle moves along the top of the water.
The committee is concerned that although no analysis has yet to
be completed, the Department has determined that it does not
have a high-speed water requirement as validated by the JROC in
2007.
The committee is concerned by what it believes is the
Department's current plan to spend approximately $3.0 billion
to upgrade the current AAV for it to go from a max speed of 6
knots to 10 knots, travel and then spend an additional $6.0 to
$7.0 billion on the ACV so that it can travel up to 14 knots.
The committee is concerned that the Department may not be able
afford both a comprehensive upgrade to the AAV, and a new start
ACV program. The committee believes that a more affordable plan
would be minor upgrades that are focused on survivability to
the current AAV, which would allow the Department to focus its
remaining resources on the ACV program. The committee
encourages the Department to develop an acquisition strategy
that would produce the ACV program within approximately 5 years
upon new start approval.
Section 215--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Propulsion
System for the F-35 Lightning II Aircraft Program
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds for performance improvements to the F-35 Lightning II
propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense ensures the
competitive development and production of such propulsion
system. This section would define the term ``performance
improvement,'' with respect to the propulsion system for the F-
35 Lightning II aircraft program, as an increase in fan or core
engine airflow volume or maximum thrust in military or
afterburner setting for the primary purpose of improving the
take-off performance or vertical load bring back of such
aircraft, and would not include development or procurement
improvements with respect to weight, acquisition cost,
operations and support costs, durability, manufacturing
efficiencies, observability requirements, or repair costs.
Section 216--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Joint Replacement
Fuze Program
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2012 for the Air Force for the joint/common
replacement fuze program for Air Force and Navy nuclear
warheads to not more than 75 percent until the Secretary of
Defense submits a report to the congressional defense
committees on the feasibility of the program. The committee
notes that an ongoing Air Force effort to modernize fuzes on
the Mk21 reentry vehicle through a depot refurbishment program
experienced significant schedule delays. A review of this
refurbishment program indicates that the Air Force failed to
conduct a feasibility study to determine whether the depot had
the expertise and capability to perform the refurbishment.
The committee understands that the Air Force and Navy are
pursuing a joint/common replacement fuze program for both
intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missile
reentry vehicles. The committee applauds their efforts to seek
efficiencies and share lessons learned through such a program.
However, the committee seeks to ensure that all stakeholders
have developed a full understanding of the feasibility of the
proposed replacement program before full development proceeds,
and avoid the pitfalls experienced in the Air Force
refurbishment program.
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Joint Space
Operations Center Management System
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2012 for release one of the Joint Space
Operations Center Management System (JMS) until the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
and the Secretary of the Air Force jointly provide to the
congressional defense committees the acquisition strategy for
JMS, to include a description of the acquisition policies and
procedures applicable to JMS and any additional acquisition
authorities that may be necessary.
This section would also express a sense of Congress that
improvements to U.S. space situational awareness and space
command and control capabilities are necessary, and the
traditional defense acquisition process is not optimal for
developing the services oriented architecture and net-centric
environment planned for JMS.
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Wireless
Innovation Fund
This section would prohibit the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency from obligating more than 10 percent of the
funds available for fiscal year 2012 for the Wireless
Innovation Fund until the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provides a report on how
the fund will be managed and executed.
Section 219--Advanced Rotorcraft Flight Research and Development
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a program for flight research and demonstration of
advanced helicopter technology in accordance with section
2226(f)(3) of title 10, United States Code.
Section 220--Designation of Main Propulsion System of the
Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Bomber Aircraft as Major
Subprogram
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate the main propulsion system of the next-generation
long-range strike bomber aircraft as a major subprogram and
would require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a
competitive acquisition strategy for the propulsion system.
Section 221--Designation of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
Development and Procurement Program as Major Subprogram
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
designate the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) as
a major subprogram of the CVN-78 Ford-class aircraft carrier
major defense acquisition program within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act. A major subprogram is defined in
section 2430a of title 10, United States Code.
The committee is aware that EMALS is progressing through
its land-based testing. However, earlier problems in
development have reduced almost all schedule margin in order to
make the date the equipment must be in the shipyard for
installation in the first ship of the class. The committee
acknowledges elevating EMALS to a major subprogram will provide
the proper oversight to this critical system as it continues
its development and production.
Section 222--Prohibition on Delegation of Budgeting Authority for
Certain Research and Educational Programs
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
delegating the authority for programming or budgeting of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions program to
an individual outside the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 223--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Future Unmanned
Carrier-based Strike System
This section would limit obligation of fiscal year 2012
FUCSS funds to no more than 15 percent until 60 days after the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,
and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development and Acquisition submit certain certifications
regarding the acquisition of FUCSS to the congressional defense
committees. This provision would also require the Comptroller
General of the United States to provide the congressional
defense committees a briefing, subsequent to a review of the
Navy's FUCSS acquisition strategy, no later than 90 days after
the date on which the aforementioned Department of Defense
officials submit the certain certifications to the
congressional defense committees.
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
Section 231--Acquisition Accountability Reports on the Ballistic
Missile Defense System
This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section 225 that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain an acquisition
baseline for each program element and designated subprogram
element of the ballistic missile defense system before the
program or subprogram enters engineering and manufacturing
development, and production and deployment.
This section would incorporate and expand upon annual
reporting requirements established in section 225 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383), to include reporting on schedules and
milestones, acquisition quantities, requirements, technical
capabilities, cost estimates, and test plans. Additionally,
this section would repeal section 225 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,
section 223(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and section 221 of the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 (Public Law 107-314), to reduce duplication in missile
defense reporting requirements.
Section 232--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Medium Extended
Air Defense System
This section would express the sense of Congress on the
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). This section would
also provide a limitation that no funds made available in
fiscal year 2012 for MEADS may be obligated or expended until
the Secretary of Defense either negotiates a multilateral
termination of the MEADS contract or restructures the MEADS
program, and ensures that specific deliverables will be
transitioned to a program of record by September 30, 2013.
This limitation would also require the Secretary of Defense
to submit written notification to the congressional defense
committees on several elements, including: MEADS termination
costs or program restructure costs; the program schedule and
specific deliverables; the specific technologies to be
harvested and the plans for transitioning such technologies to
a current program of record; and how the Secretary plans to
address the Department's air and missile defense requirements
in the absence of a fielded MEADS capability, including a
summary of the activities, and cost estimate and funding
profile, necessary to sustain and upgrade the Patriot air and
missile defense system.
In a Department of Defense MEADS fact sheet, dated February
14, 2011, and subsequent Medium Extended Air Defense System
Report to Congress, dated March 18, 2011, the Department
concluded that the completion of MEADS design and development
(D&D) would require an additional $2.0 billion, of which the
U.S. Government's share would be $1.2 billion, and extend the
schedule by 30 months at a minimum. The Department of Defense
estimated that an additional $800.0 million would be required
to complete U.S.-unique certification, test, and evaluation
requirements, and integration. Therefore, the Department of
Defense concluded that, ``The U.S. cannot afford to purchase
MEADS and make required upgrades to Patriot concurrently over
the next two decades,'' and decided to complete a proof of
concept effort, which is scheduled to be completed by 2014,
using the remaining D&D funds agreed to in a 2004 memorandum of
understanding. The Department argues that this effort would put
the D&D program on stable footing should the Italian Republic
and the Federal Republic of Germany wish to continue MEADS
development and production, although the U.S. has decided not
to pursue MEADS procurement and production. The budget request
contained $804.0 million across fiscal years 2012-13 for the
U.S. share of the proof of concept effort.
The committee is concerned about authorizing significant
funds for a program that the Department does not intend to
procure, and whose record of performance, according to the
February 14, 2011 Department of Defense fact sheet, ``might
ordinarily make it a candidate for cancellation.''
Additionally, the committee lacks confidence that the proof of
concept would result in viable prototypes and demonstrated
capabilities. The Chief of Staff of the Army testified before
the committee in March 2011 that he is ``not convinced'' the
MEADS proof of concept is viable.
Rather than focus on a proof of concept effort, the
committee believes the Department should immediately identify
and harvest promising MEADS technologies, whether U.S. or
partner-developed, and transition those technologies into a
Patriot air and missile defense system upgrade effort or other
viable program of record. The committee understands that the
Department must now sustain the Patriot system longer than
previously planned and expects the Department to provide its
plans for sustaining and upgrading the system. Several
countries in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia operate
Patriot systems. The committee believes a Patriot system
upgrade effort that includes promising MEADS technologies may
benefit not only the U.S., but many other countries with
Patriot systems.
In conjunction with the Department's Patriot sustainment
and upgrade plans, the committee expects the Department to
develop a cost estimate and funding profile for such plans and
to include those funds in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
The committee is aware that the Department's maximum
termination liability is approximately $846.0 million should it
unilaterally terminate the MEADS contract. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department to pursue multilateral
termination options to lower the contract termination liability
belonging to the United States.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a
reduction to the fiscal year 2012 budget request for MEADS on
the premise that the Department is able to negotiate a
multilateral contract termination or further restructure the
program.
Lastly, the committee wants to make clear its support for
international missile defense cooperation, and encourages the
Department to continue to pursue cooperative missile defense
activities that are affordable and benefit the security of all
parties.
Section 233--Homeland Defense Hedging Policy and Strategy
This section would make it the policy of the United States
to develop and maintain a hedging strategy to provide
protection of the United States:
(1) If the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
threat from the Middle East materializes earlier than
2020, or technical challenges or schedule delays affect
the availability of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB
interceptor planned for fielding in Europe by 2020 to
protect the United States as part of phase 4 of the
President's phased, adaptive approach;
(2) If the ICBM threat from East Asia materializes
more rapidly than expected;
(3) That improves or enhances the protection of the
United States beyond the ground-based midcourse defense
capabilities currently deployed for the defense of the
United States; and
(4) That includes plans for ensuring that hedging
capabilities are suitable to perform the assigned
mission, operationally effective, and use technologies
that are sufficiently matured and tested prior to
fielding.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees the Department
of Defense's homeland defense hedging strategy by December 5,
2011, or the date on which the Secretary completes the
development of such strategy, whichever comes earlier.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
currently developing a hedging strategy for the protection of
the U.S. homeland, to include continued development and
assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor as noted in
the February 2010 Department of Defense Ballistic Missile
Defense Review. The committee notes that during testimony
before the committee on October 1, 2009, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy stated, ''we keep the development of the
two-stage [ground-based interceptor] on the books as a hedge in
case things come earlier, in case there's any kind of
technological challenge with the later models of the [Standard
Missile-3].'' This section would clarify and expand such
policy.
Section 234--Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
This section contains five findings concerning the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, including recent
intercept flight test failures, its role in protecting the U.S.
homeland, reductions in the President's budget request for GMD,
schedule delays resulting from the flight-test failures and
Missile Defense Agency operations before the Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(Public Law 112-10) was enacted, and additional ground-based
interceptors (GBI).
Additionally, this section would express the sense of
Congress that the GMD system is currently the only missile
defense system that protects the U.S. homeland from long-range
ballistic missile threats.
This section would further require the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the congressional defense committees a plan by the
Director, Missile Defense Agency to address the GMD flight-test
failures, including the schedule and additional resources
necessary to implement the plan. This section would also
require the Secretary of Defense to provide written
certification that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency
has thoroughly investigated the root cause of the flight-test
failures, and that the plan, schedule, resources, and
prioritization for implementation of corrective measures are
sufficient.
Section 235--Study on Space-based Interceptor Technology
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study examining the technical and operational
considerations associated with developing and operating a
limited space-based interceptor (SBI) capability and submit a
report on such study to the congressional defense committees
within one year of enactment of the Act. The study would be
required to include an identification of the technical risks,
gaps, and constraints associated with developing and operating
such a capability; an assessment of the maturity levels of
various related technologies; the key knowledge, research, and
testing that would be needed for any nation to develop and
operate an effective SBI capability; and the estimated
effectiveness and cost of potential options for developing and
operating an SBI capability, including their effectiveness in
conjunction with existing and planned terrestrially-based
missile defense systems. Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by the Act for ballistic missile defense
technology, this section would require the Secretary to
obligate or expend $8.0 million on the study and report. The
report submitted to Congress would be required to be in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 241--Annual Comptroller General Report on the KC-46A Aircraft
Acquisition Program
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct an annual review of the KC-46A
aircraft acquisition program and provide the results of that
review to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2012, and annually thereafter through 2017.
Section 242--Independent Review and Assessment of Cryptographic
Modernization Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an independent assessment of the cryptographic
modernization program for the Department of Defense and submit
a report to Congress by March 1, 2012.
Section 243--Report on Feasibility of Electromagnetic Rail Gun System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committee within
180 days after the enactment of this Act in the feasibility of
developing and deploying the electromagnetic rail gun system to
be used for either land- or ship-based force protection.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 251--Repeal of Requirement for Technology Transition Initiative
This section would repeal section 2359a of title 10, United
States Code effective October 1, 2012.
Section 252--Preservation and Storage of Certain Property Related to
F136 Propulsion System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and carry out a plan for the preservation and storage
of property owned by the Federal Government that was acquired
under the F136 propulsion system development contract that
would: ensure that the Secretary preserves and stores such
property in a manner that would allow the development of the
F136 propulsion system to be restarted after a period of
idleness, provide for the long-term sustainment and repair of
such property, and allow for such preservation and storage to
be conducted at either the facilities of the Federal Government
or a contractor under such contract; identify supplier base
costs of restarting development; ensure that the Secretary, at
no cost to the Federal Government, provides support and allows
for the use of such property by the contractor under such
contract to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation
of the F136 engine, if such activities are self-funded by the
contractor; and identify any contract modifications, additional
facilities or funding that the Secretary determines necessary
to carry out the plan. This section would also prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise make available for fiscal
year 2012 for research, development, test, and evaluation,
Navy, or research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force,
for the F-35 Lightning II program for activities related to
destroying or disposing of the property acquired under the F136
propulsion system development contract. Additionally, this
section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committee, not later than
45 days after the enactment of the Act, on the Secretary's plan
for the preservation and storage of such property.
Section 253--Extension of Authority for Mechanism to Provide Funds for
Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of Technologies for
Military Missions
This section would amend Section 219 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-317; 122 Stat. 4389; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note), as amended
by subsection 2801(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2660) by
striking ``October 1, 2013'' and inserting ``September 30,
2016''.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $259.8 billion in operation
and maintenance (O&M) funds to provide for the training,
deployment, and sustainment of U.S. military forces. The fiscal
year 2012 O&M request includes $170.8 million in the base
budget; approximately 34 percent of the total request is for
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This is an 8 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2011 request, with reductions in
funding for the operations in the Republic of Iraq accounting
for the majority of the decrease.
While deployed Army forces have, in most cases, the
equipment, personnel, and training they require for their
missions, this deployed readiness has come at the continued
expense of non-
deployed Army units. The committee remains concerned about the
number of non-deployed units reporting that they are not ready
for combat operations, or would need additional time and
equipment to prepare for deployment. Restoring equipment
readiness is a key element of the Army reset process. The
fiscal year 2012 budget request moves an increasing share of
the enduring depot maintenance requirements back to the base
budget, providing funds for the restoration of equipment,
damaged or worn out by nearly 10 years of constant operations,
back to a level of combat readiness. The Army has increased
funding for home-station full spectrum training, reflecting
anticipated increases in training tempo as the Army commits
fewer units to combat operations. However, the Army has
transitioned its methodology for identifying training
requirements and resource allocations and is using the term
``Full Spectrum Training Mile'' as a metric. The committee is
concerned that this metric may not be the best tool for gauging
operations tempo and content of training.
In Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
Operation New Dawn, the Air Force has committed more than 370
aircraft to support combat operations and has been flying more
than 410 sorties per day in the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility. Detrimental effects on equipment as a result of
high operations tempo include engine and structural fatigue,
deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of component
failures. The increased tempo also delays routine maintenance.
Of the 5,500 aircraft inventory, 2.1 percent are either
grounded or restricted. As a result, the committee is concerned
that the Air Force has experienced significant shortfalls in
depot maintenance in its baseline program for Active and
Reserve forces which have been made up only through Overseas
Contingency Operations funding. Like the Army, the Air Force's
next-to-deploy forces are reporting high levels of readiness,
but this comes at the increasing expense of the non-deployed
forces that experience fewer opportunities to train with a full
complement of personnel and equipment. In addition, even with
the ongoing drawdown in the Republic of Iraq, the Air Force
intends to continue assigning airmen to joint expeditionary
tasks because of mission requirements in the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan.
Despite the drawdown in Iraq, naval operations tempo is
expected to remain high, as demand for the Navy's services is
up, including anti-piracy and ballistic missile defense
operations, as well as operations in support of U.S. Africa
Command, U.S. Pacific Command, individual augmentees in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the Arctic region. The budget
request for naval flight operations provides increased funds to
support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including
significant increases to a realignment of funding for Fleet
Replacement Squadrons and Chief of Naval Air Training to
consolidate all Navy and Marine Corps flight training and
tactical resources into a single budget activity. However, the
Navy's flying hour program only funds the Fleet Replacement
Squadrons at 88 percent of the requirement. The Navy's base
budget also funds 45 underway days per quarter for deployed
forces and 20 underway days per quarter for non-deployed
forces, as it did in fiscal year 2011. These levels are below
the Navy's peacetime readiness requirements based on the
continuing assumption that overseas contingency operations will
reduce training and routine deployment opportunities.
The Marine Corps recently concluded a Force Posture Review
that emphasized ``rebalancing'' the Marine Corps to better
``focus on future contingencies.'' As such, the fiscal year
2012 budget request reflects some initial investments in
special skill sets needed to move the Marine Corps toward a
force more fully attuned to the lessons learned during nine
years of combat. The top line for Marine Corps O&M decreased
slightly, mostly attributable to a reduction in equipment
maintenance as a result of the shifting of equipment that was
scheduled to return from Iraq for depot-level repair to
Afghanistan in support of combat operations. The committee is
concerned about the level and composition of prepositioned
stocks and the Navy's proposal to retrograde two prepositioned
Maritime Support Program vessels to Jacksonville, Florida, in a
reduced status.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
increasing its emphasis and resources regarding energy security
requirements. Diversification of the energy supply is a
national security imperative and the Department is leading
change as the consumer of approximately 80 percent of the total
Federal energy usage. The Department has made great strides to
become more energy efficient, reduce its energy consumption,
and supplement with alternative energy technology both on
installations and in contingency operations. Through multiple
fiscal year 2012 investments such as the Energy Conservation
Investment Program, the Installation Energy Test Bed, and the
Operational Energy Capability Improvement program, the
Department is focusing on energy security for assured access to
power for the military services. The committee has taken great
strides in this year's bill to ensure energy projects provide
an appropriate return on investment.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
Flight Simulator Training Hour Restoration
As part of the Department of Defense's efficiencies
initiative, the budget request cut the Army Guard and Air Force
Active and Reserve Components flying hours program for training
with the intent that simulators would be used to backfill the
training requirements.
The committee recommends restoring the reduction to the
flying hours program for the training of the Army Guard and Air
Force Reserve Components. The committee is concerned that the
reduction was levied on the Reserve Components without
considering their lack of access to the high-fidelity,
networked simulators that are resident in the active Army and
Air Force.
Marine Corps Expeditionary Forward Operating Base
The budget request included no funds for the Marine Corps
Expeditionary Forward Operating Base (ExFOB). Due to its
demonstrated success in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
the committee recommends $9.0 million specifically for the
ExFOB to fund future phases of the program. The committee
recommends $414.4 million, an increase of $9.0 million, for
Operations and Maintenance Marine Corps, specifically for the
Marine Corps ExFOB.
Operational Energy Capability Improvement
The budget request contained $20.4 million for Operational
Energy Capability Improvement. The committee recognizes the
significant contribution this program will make in
demonstrating energy reduction technologies and process in
contingency operations. The committee recommends $30.4 million,
an increase of $10.0 million, for Operational Energy Capability
Improvement.
Strategic Environmental Research Program
The budget request contained $15.0 million for the
Strategic Environmental Research Program. The committee
recognizes that the Installation Energy Test Bed invests in
innovative technologies that will benefit most Department of
Defense installations and result in increased energy security
and decreased energy consumption. The committee recommends
$45.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for the
Installation Energy Test Bed in the Strategic Environmental
Research Program.
Energy Issues
Energy-Efficient Tires
The Department of Defense is taking significant action to
reduce energy consumption. As tires get replaced in the
Department of Defense's fleet vehicles, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider replacement
tires with a low rolling resistance as one method of reducing
fuel consumption.
Navy Green Fleet Initiative Including Harbor Tugs
The committee recognizes the advancements the Navy is
making to reduce energy consumption. The Secretary of the Navy
set a goal to deploy a ``Great Green Fleet'' of vessels powered
entirely by alternative fuels by 2016. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the House
Committee on Armed Services on the Navy's plan to include the
Service Craft fleet as part of the Navy's ``Great Green Fleet''
and include plans to test and certify alternative fuels on this
fleet, specifically on the Yard Tug class vessels, by December
31, 2011.
Support of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Operational Energy Plans and Programs
The committee is encouraged by the good work accomplished
to date in the newly established Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs
(OEPP). Approximately 75 percent of the Department of Defense's
energy use is operational energy, and the OEPP has been the
driving force behind reducing defense spending in this area.
While the Department of Defense continues its efficiency
reviews, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
give special consideration to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs
to ensure it is able to continue necessary hiring actions and
to support its critical missions.
Logistics and Sustainment Issues
Aircraft Landing Gear Systems Sustainment
The committee is aware that aircraft landing gear systems
are one of the more critical and complex subsystems on an
aircraft. The system consists of complex structures, actuators,
wheels, brakes, tires, steering, and anti-skid systems. The
structural components are non-redundant flight safety critical
items designed for the absolute minimum weight and size
necessary to perform their critical functions. The committee
notes that it is not unusual to have critical crack sizes that
are below the threshold necessary for detection and mitigation
techniques used for other aircraft structures. As a result of
these unique and challenging design constraints, aircraft
landing gear systems are typically leading drivers of aircraft
accidents and mishaps. The committee recognizes that many
landing gear technical issues are common for heavyweight or
lightweight aircraft, and the U.S. Air Force Landing Gear
Engineering Group has excellent engineering insight into
festering problems before they result in catastrophic mishaps.
The committee encourages the U.S. Air Force to ensure that best
practices are in place, including any recommendations from the
Landing Gear Engineering Group, and that the service is
proactive, not reactive, in the prevention of catastrophic
failures.
Department-Wide Depot Workforce Development
The committee has been made aware that the maintenance
depots supporting the military services are no longer able to
sustain certain cooperative training programs designed to
develop the future depot workforce. The committee is concerned
that maintenance depots are not being properly funded for these
cooperative training programs which are intended to enable the
maintenance depots to meet future workforce requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the
military departments to develop and begin executing integrated
workforce development plans for their respective maintenance
depots, and to submit to the congressional defense committees
copies of their respective plans within one year after the date
of enactment of this Act. Specifically, the plans should
emphasize apprenticeship opportunities, encourage flexibility
in hiring to allow the new trainees to shift across the
maintenance depots to better structure the workforce to meet
future reset and depot maintenance workloads, and provide
adequate resources to sustain essential training activities.
Improved Corrosion Prevention and Control Practices
In its report, ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars and
Enhance Revenue'' (GAO-11-318SP) the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) stated that, ``The Department of Defense estimates
that corrosion costs the department over $23 billion each
year.'' To target funding toward corrosion prevention and
control, the Department established a separate program element
and line item in the budget request. The Department of Defense
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight uses much of the funds
for projects designed by the military departments to develop
and test new technologies, currently costing up to $0.5 million
per project. During the 6 years that the Department of Defense
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight has been funding
corrosion projects, the average estimated return on investment
for those projects has been 50-to-1. GAO reported that the
Department of Defense is currently asking the military
departments to validate the actual return on investment for the
projects funded in fiscal year 2005 compared to the original
estimates. To date, validations have been completed for 10 of
the 28 corrosion projects funded in fiscal year 2005.
If the corrosion prevention and control projects accepted
from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010 had been fully
funded, GAO reported that the Department potentially could have
avoided $3.6 billion in corrosion-related costs, assuming those
projects achieved the same level of cost-effectiveness as was
estimated for all accepted projects in those years. In April
2010, GAO reported that the corrosion requirements for the
fiscal year 2011 budget request identified $12.0 million for
projects, leaving an unfunded requirement of about $35.0
million. If fully funded, that $35.0 million could result in a
potential cost avoidance of $418.0 million. Similarly, by
underfunding all of its estimated corrosion prevention and
control requirements, GAO stated that the Department may be
missing an opportunity for additional cost avoidance totaling
$1.4 billion.
GAO noted that these calculations are highly contingent on
the accuracy of estimated return on investment data provided by
the Department of Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight, and most of these calculations have not been
validated by the military departments or an independent entity.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to fund the
Department of Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight
sufficiently to ensure that return on investment estimates for
funded corrosion prevention and control projects are validated.
Additionally, in order to maximize available resources, the
committee encourages the Department to take full advantage of
corrosion analysis networks that provide the best available
data and expertise for researching, understanding, controlling,
preventing, predicting, and solving corrosion-related problems.
Increased Competition for the Operation and Sustainment of Major Weapon
Systems
The committee continues to support competition throughout
the lifecycle of a weapon system and is concerned that although
the Weapon Systems Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) calls
for increased competition in the sustainment of major weapon
systems, the military departments are not aggressively pursuing
opportunities to foster and promote competition. Congressional
guidance has been unambiguous on the need for increasing
competition to reduce costs and improve contractor efficiency,
yet high aggregate percentages of sustainment workload and
parts continue to be contracted through sole-source
arrangements.
Furthermore, the committee has repeatedly called for
fostering competition in life-cycle sustainment to include
competition for new parts, repair parts, and touch labor
associated with overhauls and maintenance. Section 805 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84) requires the Secretary of Defense to implement
product support strategies for major weapon systems and to
leverage both industry and Department of Defense Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence to achieve competition,
performance, and cost savings. Section 805 further stipulates
that product support managers should maximize competition at
the system, subsystem, and component levels. Despite this
guidance, the committee is aware that the military departments
continue sole-source relationships with original equipment
manufacturers even when other qualified suppliers exist,
foregoing potential savings that could total in the billions of
dollars.
In one such case, the Air Force persists in maintaining a
sole-source relationship for sustainment of C-17 engines, which
are 91 percent common with commercial variants that have many
certified parts suppliers and sustainment contractors.
According to Air Force Materiel Command documents, the engine-
related portion of aircraft sustainment falls between 25 and 35
percent of the total sustainment cost of the aircraft. By
introducing competition for sustainment of commercial-
derivative engines, the committee believes the Air Force could
see estimated cost savings of as much as 30 percent. This would
equate to more than $2.0 billion in annual savings if applied
across the Air Force's inventory of commercial derivative
engines. In the current budget-constrained fiscal environment,
the committee believes the military departments should not pass
up any opportunity to reap the benefits of competition at the
system, subsystem and component levels. Therefore, the
committee has included a provision elsewhere in this title that
would amend section 202 of Public Law 111-23 to clarify the
requirement for competition during life-cycle sustainment also
shall include the subsystem and component levels.
Laser Peening Technologies
The committee is aware that laser peening technology, a
surface enhancement processing treatment for metals, has
achieved considerable success in commercial aerospace and power
generation applications, reducing costs by enabling
improvements in the metal structure and mitigating high-cycle
fatigue failures of a system, thus extending the system's
lifetime. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
examine the potential cost savings that may be derived from
adopting this technology broadly across the military services,
particularly for use on engines, aircraft structures, land
vehicles and weapon systems. The committee notes that this
technology could reduce costs associated with problems of
fatigue failure, stress corrosion cracking, and component shape
corrections. The committee further notes that the cost savings
derived from the use of laser peening technology could fund a
wider deployment of the technology, with the goal of slowing
the rate of replacement of highly stressed components and
parts.
Long-Term Corrosion Strategies of the Military Departments
The committee is concerned that the military departments,
by not aligning their corrosion control and prevention efforts
with the Department of Defense Corrosion Prevention and
Mitigation Strategic Plan, are incurring higher-than-necessary
life-cycle costs for military equipment sustainment. Therefore,
the committee directs the corrosion control and prevention
executive (CCPE) of each military department to develop a long-
term strategy for addressing corrosion prevention and control
within the military departments by April 1, 2012. The military
department's strategy should support the existing Department of
Defense-level strategy published by the Director of Corrosion
Policy and Oversight.
The military department's strategy should include all areas
of responsibility for the CCPE as described in section 2228 of
title 10, United States Code. The military department's CCPE
should coordinate the long-term strategy with the Department of
Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to assure
consistency with overarching Department of Defense strategies
and conformity to Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to evaluate the long-term strategies developed by
the military departments' CCPEs for adherence to section 2228
of title 10, United States Code, for consistency with
overarching Department of Defense strategies, and for
conformity to Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67, and
report on the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and House Committee on Armed Services by July 1, 2012.
Parts Supply Recapitalization
The committee recognizes the need for the Department of
Defense's supply chain to respond rapidly to changing threat
environments with parts that are trusted, assured, reliable,
and interoperable and ensure maximum logistics support of the
warfighter. The committee is aware of commercial efforts
involving precision manufacturing in conjunction with platform-
based engineering and system design and believes the Department
could leverage commercial production technologies to improve
supply chain management, streamline production, and ensure
faster delivery of parts.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to
consider the establishment of pilot programs, in partnership
with industry, to demonstrate rapid, adaptable parts production
systems with the following capabilities:
(1) Surge capacity and the flexibility to respond
quickly to increased demand;
(2) Increased speed to market and cost savings in the
procurement of machined parts;
(3) Rapid adaptability to changing machine and
production environments; and
(4) Cyber capabilities that mitigate overproduction
and counterfeiting.
Study on Reducing Navy Small Boat Maintenance Costs
The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy
is not taking advantage of the prospective return on investment
and reduced life-cycle sustainment costs that could be achieved
through greater investment in corrosion control and prevention
measures for the Navy's small boats. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study on
strategies to reduce maintenance and repair costs associated
with small boat storage and harboring and submit a report on
the results to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by October 31, 2011. At a
minimum, the study shall investigate the potential for reduced
maintenance and repair costs of the Navy's small boat fleet
through the use of advanced boat lift as well as storage and
harboring equipment, including an evaluation and business case
analysis of the impact of these strategies for potential
improvements to small boat acquisition costs and life-cycle
sustainment. In the report to the committee, the Secretary
should include recommendations regarding the potential
establishment of improved boat corrosion control and prevention
as:
(1) A key performance parameter for the selection of
boat maintenance and storage equipment;
(2) A key performance parameter for sustainment;
(3) A requirement for the Naval Sea Systems Command
to incorporate into its acquisition strategies prior to
issuing a solicitation for procurement contracts.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the report submitted by the Secretary of the
Navy for completeness, including the methodology used in the
Navy's analysis. The Comptroller General should submit a report
of the assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services within 60 days after the
date the Secretary of the Navy delivers the study report to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services.
Sustainment Planning
The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's
successful use of modeling and cost-benefit analysis to support
efficient logistics and sustainment and manage total life-cycle
product support costs of the Navy's T-6, T-34, and T-45
training aircraft. The committee notes that these efforts are
in keeping with the goals of section 805 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) regarding life-cycle management and product support
strategies for major weapon systems. Such tools apply a
strategic decision analysis approach to the evaluation of
multiple alternatives and quantitatively assess the impact of
uncertainty to provide relevant insight into decision-making.
The committee is particularly interested in the application of
these predictive analytical tools to assist the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter program office in sustainment planning.
In light of this proven modeling and analytical capability,
the committee directs the assistant secretary of each military
department with the responsibility for weapon system
sustainment planning to review, using predictive analytical
tools, current contractor logistics support (CLS) contracts to
ensure that the appropriate source of repair is being used and
is providing a cost savings to the taxpayer. The committee also
directs the assistant secretaries concerned to require that
future CLS contracts be assessed with the same tools prior to
contract award.
Readiness Issues
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Operational Considerations and Force
Structure
The committee recognizes the progress made by the
Department of Defense to develop and field Aegis ballistic
missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The committee, however,
remains concerned about the force structure and inventory
demands for Aegis ships resulting from the Phased Adaptive
Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe, announced in
September 2009, and the Department's plans to tailor the PAA to
other geographic regions such as East Asia and the Middle East.
As noted in the 2010 ``Ballistic Missile Defense Review,''
``the demand for missile defense assets within each region over
the next decade will exceed supply.''
In particular, the committee would like to further
understand the concept of operations for Aegis BMD capabilities
and how operational considerations affect Aegis BMD force
structure. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
previously testified before the committee on October 1, 2009
that when an Aegis ship is in missile defense mode, it
``consumes all of the radar's activity,'' and a second ship is
required for ship protection. Aegis BMD ships also support
multiple missions such as maritime security, anti-submarine
warfare, and surface warfare. While this multi-mission
functionality provides flexibility and mobility, it may also
place further force structure demands on the Aegis fleet and
creates operational and performance tradeoffs for each ship.
Additionally, as reported in June 2010, a Navy Fleet Review
Panel assessment observed that Aegis SPY radar ``manpower,
parts, training and performance are in decline'' and the
decline in Aegis radar readiness may affect the Navy's ability
to meet its missile defense mission requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
a report to the congressional defense committees, by December
5, 2011, that assesses how operational requirements and
considerations, such as force protection, other mission
requirements, geographic trade-offs, and readiness and
availability, affect the Aegis BMD concept of operations and
the implications of such operational requirements and
considerations on force structure required to support combatant
commanders' missile defense missions. Similarly, such
assessment should also address how the Navy balances its
various mission requirements and the impact of missile defense
requirements on its force structure demands and operational
tempo. The assessment should also describe any recent Aegis BMD
deployments, for example, to support the July 2009 Democratic
People's Republic of Korea missile launches, and how
operational requirements and considerations influenced the
Aegis BMD force structure and concepts of operation to address
the combatant commanders' mission requirements.
Army Unit Manning Effects on Readiness
The committee recognizes the Army has struggled to maintain
the readiness of its forces over the past decade and that
personnel issues have continuously been one of the most
important drivers of readiness.
The committee is concerned about the Army's current
shortage of warrant officers, certain enlisted specialties, and
the growing burden of filling units as combat-related medical
issues have increased the number of non-deployable personnel.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct an assessment of Army personnel
readiness and submit a report on the findings to the
congressional defense committees by February 28, 2012. At a
minimum, the report should include:
(1) A list of Army units that are reporting degraded
readiness;
(2) An analysis of the extent to which the personnel
component of readiness is affecting overall readiness;
(3) Army personnel strengths and how they are matched
to requirements;
(4) Army policies and established business rules for
calculating personnel readiness;
(5) The Army's processes for meeting manning goals
throughout the Army's force generation cycle; and
(6) The extent to which the Army has developed plans
to address actual or projected unit manning shortages
for specific occupational specialties or pay grades.
Distribution and Use of Bottled Water in Contingency Operations
The committee is concerned that logistics convoys continue
to be vulnerable to attack in contingency operations. Logistics
convoys in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan provide delivery
of fuel, bottled water, and other supplies to forward operating
bases. According to the Marine Corps Energy Assessment Team in
2009, hauling bottled water made up 51 percent of the
logistical burden in Afghanistan. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to assess the impact of the distribution
of and alternatives to bottled water in contingency operations
and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 29, 2012, that includes the following:
(1) The total quantity of bottled water that is
distributed by convoys in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, and the associated cost with the purchase
and distribution of bottled water;
(2) An assessment of the current water filtration
technologies including reverse osmosis systems
available, as well as those systems being developed to
support clean, filtered water with the necessary
minerals for forward operating bases;
(3) An assessment of how the Department of Defense
will reduce its demand for bottled water while ensuring
access to clean, safe water for service members in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
(4) An assessment of how plastic waste is being
minimized and discarded, and what precautions are being
taken to prevent exposure to toxic fumes on forward
operating bases in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
as a result of the destruction of plastic waste;
(5) A cost assessment of the Fully Burdened Cost of
Water in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; and
(6) An assessment of water purification plants
available for use by the United States military in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Federal Fire Protection
The committee notes that a Department of Defense (DOD)
Inspector General Report ``Fire Emergency and Services
Program,'' (D-2003-121) found that staffing and apparatus
shortfalls could adversely impact firefighter safety and
installation missions. The committee is concerned that since
that report was issued, conditions have not improved, and fire
houses, personnel, and other fire suppression resources at
military bases may be below minimal safety standards. In
addition, the committee is concerned that not all the military
departments may be fully compliant with the DOD Fire and
Emergency Services Program (DOD Instruction 6055.06) which
outlines policy and criteria for the allocation, assignment,
operation, and administration of DOD fire departments and
related fire prevention functions and establishes the DOD Fire
and Emergency Services Quality Working Group. The committee
believes it is imperative that military base commanders operate
base fire departments at or above National Fire Protection
Association standards as they apply to staffing, equipment, and
other readiness capabilities.
Installation Emergency Management Programs
The committee is aware that Department of Defense
Instruction 6055.17 establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for developing,
implementing, and sustaining Installation Emergency Management
(IEM) programs at Department of Defense installations
worldwide. The committee understands that the intent of the IEM
program is to provide a fully integrated emergency management
capability to address ``all hazards'' including manmade or
natural disasters, as well as the ability to interoperate with
regional civilian emergency responders but is concerned that
funding in the budget request for fiscal year 2012 is
fragmented distributed in multiple budget elements. To prevent
a funding approach that is potentially inadequate, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense and the
respective Secretaries of the military departments to consider
centrally funding Installation Emergency Management under a
single defense-wide funding line in future years.
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Instrument Landing System Replacement
The committee is concerned that the Instrument Landing
System (ILS) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar,
California, is an outdated MK-1F model that is no longer
logistically supportable and is operating at its extreme
tolerance for certification for usage within the National Air
Space (NAS). The ILS is a critical safety of flight capability,
without which MCAS Miramar could potentially lose its ability
to operate as a designated aerial port of debarkation and
embarkation for the military service and commercial aircraft
traffic. A 2009 Marine Corps study found that, even with
significant upgrades, the current ILS is no longer able to meet
current Federal Aviation Administration ILS flight inspection
requirements for NAS usage. Therefore, the committee encourages
the Secretary of the Navy to identify funding options for a
replacement ILS to mitigate the impacts to future air
operations and to ensure aircrew safety.
Material Readiness of the Navy's Amphibious and Surface Combatant Ships
In the 1990s, the Navy began implementing a number of
initiatives that were designed to reduce costs associated with
operating and manning its surface fleet. These initiatives
included a shift from engineering maintenance cycles to
condition-based maintenance cycles, reducing crew sizes, and
moving to more computer-based training. However, over the past
decade the Navy has increased its operational tempo as it has
called upon its surface fleet to support overseas contingency
operations while still retaining its traditional forward
presence mission. The net effect of the increased pace of
operations and decreased depot, intermediate, and
organizational maintenance has been a decline in the material
condition of some ships. This decline has been documented
through periodic readiness reporting and other reports, such as
the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). INSURV inspection
results are a key indicator that the Navy uses to judge ship
material readiness and offer an independent assessment.
Based on the results of all these reports, the Navy
launched a number of initiatives designed to better maintain
the material conditions of its surface ships. Given the cost of
new ships, and size of the current fleet relative to current
and projected requirements, it is critical that the Navy's
efforts to maintain its ships succeed and help its ships to
meet or exceed their expected lifespan. The committee directs
the Comptroller General of the United States to review the
Navy's initiatives to improve the material condition of its
surface ship fleet and report the results to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services. This review should focus on the Navy's amphibious
ships, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. For each of these
types/classes of ships, the Comptroller General should compare
data on the actual material condition compared to the projected
condition, considering information such as the following:
(1) The projected service life when the first ship of
the class was designed or delivered;
(2) The current age of the class;
(3) The age at which any ships of the class were
decommissioned;
(4) Any changes in maintenance policy for the class;
and
(5) Any deferments of major availabilities.
In addition, for a 2-year period starting March 2009, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) should assess the
reported readiness of ships prior to and after undergoing
INSURV inspections, as well as the INSURV results to identify
any factors affecting the ships' ability to meet inspection
requirements and to sustain the material condition of the ship
following the INSURV. Finally, GAO should evaluate the extent
to which the Navy's initiatives, including those stemming from
the Department of Defense's efficiency initiative, address any
of these underlying factors, and determine whether the Navy has
established metrics to gauge improvements in the material
condition of the ship types identified for this report.
Modified Tables of Equipment
The committee is concerned that current modified tables of
equipment (MTOE) may not fully encompass the equipment required
for future missions and may not entirely account for equipment
used in recent and current contingencies. In order to help the
committee more completely assess future needs, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to examine
the Army and Marine Corps' modified tables of equipment, and to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 28, 2012.
At a minimum, the review should examine:
(1) What equipment used in operations in Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and
Operation New Dawn should be added to MTOEs;
(2) The process by which equipment is nominated for
inclusion in MTOEs;
(3) Items that should be removed from MTOEs; and
(4) The military services' respective strategies for
future sustainment of MTOEs outside of Overseas
Contingency Operations funds.
Naval Air Station North Island
The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's plan
to increase the number of MH-60 Seahawk helicopters stationed
at Naval Air Station North Island, California and understands
the important mission of these aircraft. The committee urges
the Navy to continue working with the City of Imperial Beach
and the City of Coronado to identify mitigation measures,
develop a noise reduction strategy, and communicate in advance
with the local communities, whenever practical, the potential
impact of increased flight activities at Naval Air Station
North Island and Naval Outlying Field Imperial Beach.
Review of Department of Defense's Mix of Live and Simulated Training
The Department of Defense prepares U.S. forces to conduct
military operations by providing personnel with live training
and through the use of technology, such as simulators and other
virtual training devices. These virtual training devices allow
military personnel to replicate many of the interactions and
procedures they may encounter on the battlefield with fewer
constraints, such as the high costs of live training and timely
access to training ranges. In an effort to achieve greater
efficiency, maximize training opportunities, and potentially
reduce training costs, each military service is in various
stages of developing concepts and training programs that
integrate live and simulated training. In announcing the
results of the Department's recent efficiency initiative, the
Secretary of Defense identified various efficiencies and
potential savings related to modifying training programs or
concepts in support of flying hour requirements, including the
use of simulators.
In order to better understand the potential benefits of the
military services' efforts, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to review the status
of military services' programs, including factors that were
considered in determining the appropriate mix of live and
simulated training, actual or planned adjustments to existing
training approaches, and the impact on their ability to achieve
training objectives, related funding plans as well as the basis
for any projected cost savings, and metrics they intend to use
to evaluate the impact of any increased use of simulators and
other virtual training devices on their ability to train the
force. The review also should include training for the Reserve
Components and whether the Reserve Components have the
necessary access to simulated training to supplement any
reductions in live training. In reporting on each of the
military services, the Comptroller General may take a phased
approach to undertaking its review and reporting results to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services.
Security Force Assistance
The committee understands that while the U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) has traditionally been the
proponent for security force assistance, the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review identified the need to strengthen and
institutionalize general-purpose force capabilities for
security force assistance. Moreover, the committee understands
that the Secretary of Defense has proposed USSOCOM divestiture
of the security force assistance mission as part of the
Department's efficiency initiative.
The committee is concerned about USSOCOM's divestiture of
the security force assistance mission and the growing use of
general-purpose forces to carry out the security force
assistance mission in support of Operation New Dawn and
Operation Enduring Freedom without any formal
institutionalization of the mission within the conventional
force.
In order to better understand the current and future
security force assistance mission, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the
Department's plans to institutionalize security force
assistance in the general-purpose force and to report the
results of this review to the congressional defense committees
by March 31, 2012. At a minimum, this review should evaluate:
(1) The extent to which the Department has defined
and differentiated intended roles, missions, and
required capabilities for security force assistance for
both general purpose forces and special operations
forces;
(2) The extent to which the Department has
incorporated lessons learned from current operations;
and
(3) The extent to which the Army has developed its
concept for regionally aligned brigades and has
identified costs associated with implementing the
concept.
U.S. Army Full Spectrum Training Mile
The committee is aware that the Army has transitioned its
methodology for identifying training requirements and resource
allocations and is using the term ``Full Spectrum Training
Mile'' (FSTM) as a metric. The committee is concerned that this
metric may not be the best tool for gauging operations tempo
and content of training.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Army's transition to FSTM as a
readiness metric and to submit a report on the findings to the
congressional defense committees by February 28, 2012. At a
minimum, the review should examine:
(1) The methodology behind the new metric, to include
vehicles covered;
(2) Cost estimates and assumptions; and
(3) The model suitability for budgeting, forecasting,
and training.
Other Matters
Air Force Environmental Cleanup
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a
robust environmental cleanup program with significant resources
dedicated to it. The committee is concerned that the Department
of the Air Force has been too focused on process and studies in
its environmental restoration program and is behind the other
services in completing its cleanup activities. The committee
encourages the Air Force to expedite its process and make
significant progress in its cleanup activities.
Briefing on the Use of the Overseas Contingency Operations Budget for
Military Equipment Reset
The committee is concerned that current Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance regarding the use of
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) reset funds to mitigate
home station equipment shortfalls resulting from overseas
contingency operations may be too restrictive. Further, the
committee recognizes that current OMB interpretation may
unnecessarily restrict cost-equivalent equipment modifications
through the OCO budget. While the committee understands that
base budgeting is a viable solution to these shortfalls over
the long term, current policy fails to provide the more
immediate readiness improvements that OCO funding can provide.
Therefore, no later than August 31, 2011, the committee directs
the Secretaries of the military departments to provide the
congressional defense committees a briefing on current reset
policy. At a minimum, this briefing should address:
(1) Operational equipment shortfalls attributable to
current policy;
(2) Degradation in equipment readiness attributable
to current policy; and
(3) Production inefficiencies caused by current
policy.
Department of Defense Personnel Security Clearance Program
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
designated the Department of Defense Personnel Security
Clearance Program as a high-risk area due to long-standing
delays in the clearance process as well as concerns over
clearance documentation. While the Department's security
clearance program remained on GAO's high-risk list since 2005,
several GAO reports highlighted the significant progress that
the Department has made in timeliness, development of quality
assessment tools and adjudicative guidance. Therefore, in 2011
the Department's security clearance program was removed from
the GAO's high-risk list.
The committee notes that much of that progress is due to
the Department's role in the Joint Security and Suitability
Reform Team which was formed to transform and modernize the
security clearance process across the Federal Government. The
work of this team was cited in the committee report (H. Rept.
111-491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011. While the Department's security clearance
program is no longer on GAO's high-risk list, the committee
will continue to monitor the Department's efforts to ensure
that the improvements are sustained.
Department of Defense Unexploded Ordnance Cleanup Report
The committee supports the Department of Defense's
environmental cleanup activities. The committee recognizes that
the Military Munitions Response Program includes more than 256
sites requiring investigations and cleanup activities. The
committee is concerned that remedy in place and remedy complete
timelines in some locations, such as Hawaii, are long. The
committee is aware that the Department of Defense is exploring
new technologies for unexploded ordnance identification and
cleanup that may result in significant savings and expedite
cleanup efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January
31, 2012. At a minimum, the report should include:
(1) What new technologies the Department of Defense
is developing for unexploded ordnance identification
and cleanup;
(2) How those technologies may accelerate cleanup
timelines for all installations, and specifically those
in Hawaii;
(3) Estimated timeline for adopting new technologies;
and
(4) Estimated savings anticipated as a result of
these new technologies.
Disposal of Surplus Property
The committee is aware that the U.S. military has long-
standing processes for disposing of property that has been
declared excess to the needs of the Federal Government. With
the redeployment of U.S. military forces from the Republic of
Iraq, excess property that is not needed by the Government of
the Republic of Iraq is then made available to State and local
governments.
The committee commends the Department of the Army and the
Office of the Secretary of Defense for developing procedures to
assist State and local governments and their appointed
representatives to have visibility on the excess property being
made available in order to determine if the property is
something they may be able to use and in sound enough condition
to warrant the costs associated with transporting the property
from the theater of operation to its final destination. The
committee is aware that some of the excess items from Iraq and
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are being sent to the
Sierra Army Depot, California, where representatives of the
State and local governments have access to screen the
equipment. The committee encourages the Army to continue to
improve these processes and to take such steps as necessary and
reasonable to allow the State and local governments'
representatives to screen property in a forward location such
as the State of Kuwait, thereby improving visibility and access
to available surplus property and reducing overseas
transportation charges for undesirable equipment,
Additionally, while the Army has been proactive in this
regard, the committee is unaware of similar procedures being
established by the other military departments. Therefore, the
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness to review the disposal
processes of the other services and, if necessary, work with
the military services to establish procedures to provide access
to surplus property of those military services to State and
local governments. Such review shall be completed by February
1, 2012.
Expedited Security Clearance Processing for Wounded Warriors
The committee notes that there is a strong demand by
Federal Government agencies for individuals with high level
security clearances which few military personnel possess.
Expediting security clearance processing would facilitate the
hiring of individuals who have had their military careers cut
short due to a disability. Therefore, the committee included
section 351 in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) that amended
section 1564, title 10, United States Code, which provides for
the use of expedited procedures for completing background
investigations for the granting of security clearances in
certain circumstances. Section 351 authorizes the Secretary of
Defense to use this authority to assist the transition to a
civilian career for military personnel who have been retired or
separated for a physical disability pursuant to chapter 61 of
title 10, United States Code; this authorization also includes
the spouse of such military personnel. The Department is
authorized to expend funds to conduct an expedited security
clearance once the individual has applied for a Federal
Government position for which he or she is qualified and for
which a security clearance is required.
The committee is concerned that the Federal Government's
internal human resources processes may not allow for timely
consideration of the qualifications of an individual who has
submitted an application but is awaiting processing of a
security clearance in order to be considered for a Federal
Government position. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to establish a policy for Department of
Defense hiring actions that ensures employment applications for
these individuals are not disqualified in the initial human
resources screening process on the basis of a lack of a
clearance. Such policy should ensure that appropriate human
resources offices proactively contact the eligible candidates
to ensure that the expedited security clearance processing
moves forward, even if there is no guarantee of ultimate
employment. In addition, the policy should ensure that if the
eligible candidate is not offered employment under that
particular hiring action, that the expedited clearance review
is completed, which would facilitate the ability of the
individual to apply for future Federal Government positions.
The Secretary of Defense shall provide a copy of the policy to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services not later than December 15, 2011.
Federal Facility Agreement for Environmental Cleanup at Tyndall Air
Force Base
The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not
signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) with the
Environmental Protection Agency to guide its environmental
cleanup activities at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. FFAs
provide the procedural framework for cleanup activities under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (Public Law 96-510). The Air Force and the
Environmental Protection Agency have been negotiating this FFA
for more than 2 years, and the committee is concerned that lack
of consensus between the two agencies has had a detrimental
effect on mitigating the potential exposure for individuals to
environmental hazards. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to engage a third party arbiter, such as the Council
for Environmental Quality, by July 31, 2011 to expedite
conclusion of this agreement in order that environmental
cleanup of the site can be achieved.
Joint Space Operations Center
The Joint Space Operations Center is responsible for the
operational employment of worldwide joint space forces and
maintains space data for all man-made objects orbiting the
Earth. The committee wants to ensure the continuity of this
important capability. Therefore, the committee directs the
Commander, Air Force Space Command to develop a continuity of
operations (COOP) plan for the Joint Space Operations Center
(JSpOC) and to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 2, 2012 on the details of the COOP plan and
any resources required to implement the plan.
Key Enabler Explosive Ordnance Disposal Requirements
The committee recognizes that the services have taken
extraordinary efforts to revitalize the capability and increase
the capacity of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) force.
The committee recognizes that the EOD force is a key enabler
for combatant commanders and will continue to be vital for the
foreseeable future. However, the committee remains concerned
that the services have not adequately rebalanced EOD force
structure and maintained full-spectrum capabilities to ensure
success in a wide range of contingencies, as directed by the
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to establish a new consolidated budget justification display
that fully identifies the services' baseline EOD budgets and
encompasses all programs and activities of the EOD force for
each of the following functions:
(1) Procurement;
(2) Operation and Maintenance; and
(3) Research, development, testing and evaluation.
In order to help the committee more fully assess future
requirements, the committee further directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on Explosive Ordnance Disposal force
structure planning to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2012.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the Department's force structure plan
and report the findings to the congressional defense committees
within 120 days of completion of the secretary's report.
Satellite Operations Efficiencies
The Air Force Satellite Control Network consists of
satellite control centers, tracking stations, and test
facilities located around the world. For many Air Force
satellite systems, mission control centers (MCC) are located at
the Consolidated Space Operations Center at Schriever Air Force
Base Colorado. For other satellite systems, including other
Department of Defense (DOD) satellites, MCCs have been fielded
in various geographic locations. These centers are staffed
around the clock and are responsible for the operations and
command and control of their assigned satellite systems.
Today, efforts are underway to modernize these various
satellite operations centers from their initial point-to-point
architectures using proprietary data-transfer protocols to
interoperable network architectures using standard protocols.
While the committee commends such efforts, it remains concerned
that these operations centers require more resources than their
commercial system counterparts. The committee recognizes the
importance of the Department's satellite operations
capabilities and understands that some DOD-unique requirements
may preclude the adoption of certain commercial practices.
However, the committee believes there is opportunity to improve
satellite operations and create greater efficiencies by
leveraging commercial best practices.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide an assessment to the congressional defense
committees by February 6, 2012, to include: an assessment of
the Department's efforts to modernize its satellite operations
capabilities, a comparison of the Department's satellite
operations concepts with those in other Government entities and
commercial industry, and an identification of practices that
the Department could adopt to improve its satellite operations,
consistent with Department of Defense mission requirements.
Wounded Warrior Service Dog Programs
The committee recognizes that over 32,000 soldiers have
been severely wounded in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom and that the majority of those
wounded return with severe injuries such as amputations,
traumatic brain injuries, or the loss of vision.
For many of these most severely wounded warriors, service
dogs provide crucial therapy, assistance, and rehabilitation.
Currently, there is a waiting list of more than 200 disabled
veterans and active military personnel seeking assistance dogs
provided to military agencies and hospitals by non-governmental
organizations. Given the growing need for service dogs and
their impact on the lives of wounded service members, the
committee believes that the Department of Defense should expand
its participation in non-governmental organization programs
that facilitate the connection between service dogs and wounded
warriors.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize appropriations for operation
and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section
4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions
Section 311--Designation of Senior Official of Joint Chiefs of Staff
for Operational Energy Plans and Programs and Operational Energy Budget
Certification
This section would modify section 138(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to require the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
identify a senior operational energy official. This section
would also change the date of the required operational energy
budget certification.
Section 312--Military Installation Implementation of Land Management
Plans and Sustainability Studies
This section would modify section 2694 of title 10, United
States Code, by expanding on the Department of Defense's
conservation activities.
Section 313--Improved Sikes Act Coverage of State-Owned Facilities Used
for the National Defense
This section would amend The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) to
include State-owned National Guard facilities, defines state as
any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Virgin
Islands, and would add a provision for funding integrated
national resource management plans.
Section 314--Discharge of Wastes at Sea Generated by Vessels of the
Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1902(b)(2) of title 33,
United States Code, to codify discharge practices in the sea
for ships owned or operated by a branch of the Armed Forces.
The committee recognizes the success the Navy has had with
minimizing its trash and discharge at sea, both in open oceans
and in special areas in accordance with existing regulatory
frameworks. This section would codify the current Navy
discharge practices in the open ocean and would create a
reporting requirement for any exceptions necessary for the
purpose of securing the safety of the ship, the health of the
ship's personnel or saving life at sea.
Section 315--Designation of Department of Defense Executive Agent for
Alternative Fuel Development
This section would require the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OEPP) to
recommend and the Secretary of Defense to designate a service
secretary as the executive agent for alternative fuel
development. The Assistant Secretary of Defense OEPP would
direct the policy, and the executive agent would collaborate
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research and
Engineering as well as the Department of Energy.
The committee is encouraged that the service secretaries
have tested and certified their fleets to accept alternative
fuels or blends. The committee notes that the Department of
Defense has multiple investments and activities for the
development of alternative fuels. This section would require
the Department of Defense to streamline those investments and
eliminate redundancies.
Section 316--Favorable Consideration of Energy-Efficient Technologies
in Contracts for Logistics Support of Contingency Operations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to give
favorable consideration to defense logistics support contract
proposals in support of contingency operations that include
energy efficient or energy reduction technologies or processes.
The committee continues to be concerned about the high demand
for fossil fuel in contingency operations and the security
challenges it creates for logistics convoys.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Section 321--Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair
This section would amend section 2460 of title 10, United
States Code, to revise the definition of depot-level
maintenance and repair. The study on the future capability of
the Department of Defense (DOD) maintenance depots directed by
section 322 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) found that the
existing statutory definition was ambiguous and subject to
interpretation by the individual military services. The
committee is concerned that these ambiguities are directly
impacting the development of core logistics capabilities and
allocation of sustaining workloads. To resolve those
ambiguities, this section would adopt the definition in DOD
instruction 4151.2, which is the generally recognized and
accepted definition currently used by the Department.
Section 322--Core Logistics Capabilities
This section would eliminate the exclusion for special
access programs from the core logistics capability requirements
determination and would align the exemption for the nuclear
refueling of aircraft carriers with the exemption in section
2460 of title 10, United States Code. The study on the future
capability of the Department of Defense maintenance depots
directed by section 322 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
found that the existing core determination process should be
revised to ensure that it is visible and readily understood.
This section also would amend section 2464 of title 10,
United States Code, to require an annual report on the core
logistics capability requirements; the depot maintenance
workload requirements to cost-effectively support core
logistics capabilities; and the depot maintenance workload
beyond the core requirement needed to ensure that no more than
50 percent of the non-exempt depot maintenance funding is
expended for performance by non-Federal Government personnel in
accordance with section 2466 of title 10, United States Code.
The report also would include: the allocation of workload for
the Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence as
designated in accordance with section 2474 of title 10, United
States Code; and the depot maintenance capital investments
requirement to ensure that core logistics capabilities are
established not later than four years after a non-exempted
weapon system achieves initial operational capability as
required by section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code.
The committee believes that an annual report on the core
determination process and the workload outcomes resulting from
that process will enhance oversight, align capital investment
to support current and emerging core capabilities, and better
align sustainment planning with acquisition and development.
Section 323--Designation of Military Industrial Facilities as Centers
of Industrial and Technical Excellence
This section would amend section 2474, title 10, United
States Code, to include military industrial facilities in the
designation of Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence
(CITE). Designation as a CITE would facilitate the ability of
each of the military industrial facilities to enter into
public-private partnerships while also improving their core
competencies. The committee believes that this change could
help further strengthen the Department of Defense's organic
manufacturing and repair industrial base.
Section 324--Redesignation of Core Competencies as Core Logistics
Capabilities for Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence
This section would amend section 2474 of title 10, United
States Code, to change the designation of core competencies as
core logistics capability in order to better align the depot
maintenance workload allocation for each Center of Industrial
and Technical Excellence, as designated by section 2474 of
title 10, United States Code, with the recognized core
logistics capabilities of the designee.
The study on the future capability of the Department of
Defense maintenance depots directed by section 322 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) found that the Department's
organic depot maintenance system may face substantial workload
reductions in the near term as a result of reduced operations,
anticipated changes to inventory and expected funding
pressures. The committee is concerned that depot maintenance
workload allocations for the Centers of Industrial and
Technical Excellence are not aligned with the core logistics
determination process required by section 2464 of title 10,
United States Code, resulting in inefficiencies, a lack of
organizational integration, and an inability for public and
private-sector depot maintenance providers to respond to
workload uncertainties.
Section 325--Permanent and Expanded Authority for Army Industrial
Facilities to Enter into Certain Cooperative Arrangements with Non-Army
Entities
This section would amend section 4544 of title 10, United
States Code, to repeal the cap on the number of cooperative
arrangements that may be entered into and would make the
authority permanent.
In addition, this section would amend the reporting
requirement mandated in section 328 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to
assess the effective use of the authorities provided under
section 4544, title 10, United States Code, and to make
recommendations for improvement to each category of Army
industrial facility to compete for contracts.
Section 326--Amendment to Requirement Relating To Consideration of
Competition Throughout Operation and Sustainment of Major Weapon
Systems
This section would amend section 202(d) of the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) to
include a subsystem or component of a major weapons system in
the requirement for consideration of competition throughout
operation and sustainment of major weapon systems.
Section 327--Implementation of Corrective Actions Resulting from
Corrosion Study of the F-22 and F-35 Aircraft
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take corrective
actions resulting from the corrosion study of the F-22 Raptor
and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and implement the
recommendations of the Government Accountability Office
regarding the study.
The committee notes that despite a projected 38-to-1 return
on investment from corrosion mitigation and control projects
planned for implementation in fiscal year 2012 through the
Office of the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, the
Department of Defense consistently underfunds corrosion
efforts. With an estimated annual cost of corrosion of $22.0
billion, the committee urges the Department to give more
serious consideration to the $37 avoided for every $1 invested
for corrosion mitigation and control actions such as those
recommended for the F-22 and F-35 aircraft.
Subtitle D--Readiness
Section 331--Modification of Department of Defense Authority To Accept
Voluntary Contributions of Funds
This section would modify section 358(g) of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) to permit the Secretary of Defense to accept
voluntary contributions in amounts that shall remain available
until expended for the purpose of offsetting the cost of
mitigation measures. This section also would permit the
Secretary of Defense to accept voluntary contributions to
conduct studies of potential mitigation measures.
Section 332--Review of Proposed Structures Affecting Navigable Airspace
This section would modify section 44718 of title 49, United
States Code, to permit the Federal Aviation Administration to
develop procedures for the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security to review and comment on
aeronautical studies.
Section 333--Sense of Congress Regarding Integration of Ballistic
Missile Defense Training Across and Between Combatant Commands and
Military Services
This section would express the sense of Congress on
improving the integration of ballistic missile defense training
across and between combatant commands and military services,
identifying and addressing training gaps in integrated missile
defense training, and identifying the capabilities and funding
needed to effectively and adequately integrate training.
Subtitle E--Reports
Section 341--Annual Certification and Modifications of Annual Report on
Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment
This section would amend sections 2229 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to annually
certify that U.S. military prepositioned stocks meet current
operations plans. This section also requires the Secretary of
Defense to provide additional information on the health,
status, and composition of prepositioned stocks in the
Secretary's annual report to the congressional defense
committees.
The committee remains concerned that the Department's
approach to establishing requirements, managing, and resourcing
prepositioned stocks may be unnecessarily increasing strategic
risk and contingency response times. The committee is also
concerned that the Department has not sufficiently coordinated
prepositioned stocks requirements, management, and planning
with its strategic airlift and sealift planning and
requirements.
Section 342--Modification of Report on Maintenance and Repair of
Vessels in Foreign Shipyards
This section would modify section 7310(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to include vessels that are operated
pursuant to a contract entered into by the Military Sealift
Command, the Maritime Administration, or the U.S.
Transportation Command.
Section 343--Additional Requirements for Annual Report on Military
Working Dogs
This section would amend section 358 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to require the Secretary of Defense to provide
additional information on the use of military working dogs on a
contracted basis, the status of the Department's breeding
programs, and the future military working dog force structure.
The committee remains concerned that the Department may
rely too heavily on contracted military working dogs and may
not be fully utilizing the Department's domestic breeding
programs leading to increased costs to the taxpayer.
Section 344--Assessment and Reporting Requirements Regarding the Status
of Compliance with Joint Military Training and Force Allocations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a biennial assessment of the military departments
compliance with the joint training, doctrine, and resource
allocation recommendations that are promulgated by the Joint
Staff. The assessment also would include the effectiveness of
the Joint Staff in carrying out the missions of planning and
experimentation formerly accomplished by U.S. Joint Forces
Command. The results of the first assessment would be provided
to the congressional defense committees by March 31 of 2012,
and every even-numbered year thereafter.
Section 345--Study of United States Pacific Command Training Readiness
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), to complete a
study by February 28, 2013, on current and future training
requirements for the Armed Forces assigned to USPACOM's area of
responsibility.
Subtitle F--Limitations and Extensions of Authority
Section 351--Adoption of Military Working Dog by Family of Deceased or
Seriously Wounded Member of the Armed Forces Who Was the Dog's Handler
This section would amend section 2583(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the adoption of a military
working dog by the family of a deceased or seriously wounded
member of the Armed Forces who was the handler of the dog.
Section 352--Prohibition on Expansion of the Air Force Food
Transformation Initiative
This section would prohibit the Air Force from expanding
its Food Transformation Initiative beyond the initial six bases
in the pilot program until 270 days after the Secretary of the
Air Force provides a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. This report
would include a description on the impact of the initiative on
non-appropriated funded employees; a detailed information
technology plan, including funding for implementation; and a
description of performance metrics for measuring the
initiative. In addition, the report would include an estimate
of cost savings; an explanation of the tracking of appropriated
and non-appropriated funds; an explanation of any barriers
encountered and recommended remedies; and a plan for addressing
recommendations expected to be made by the Government
Accountability Office following its review of the initiative.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee expressed its initial concern regarding the Air
Force's Food Transformation Initiative. As a result, the
committee required a review of the initiative by the
Comptroller General of the United States, which is due in July
2011. While the Air Force was prohibited from moving forward
with expansion of the initiative until 90 days after that
review, the committee is concerned that the Air Force intends
to continue expanding this initiative without fully assessing
the full impact at the six initial bases, and addressing any
problems encountered at these bases.
Section 353--Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure of Funds for the
Migration of Army Enterprise Email Services
This section would prohibit the Army from obligating more
than 2 percent of the funds available for fiscal year 2012 in
procurement and operations and maintenance accounts for the
migration of enterprise email services until the Secretary of
the Army provides a business case analysis comparing the
relative merits and cost-benefit analysis of transitioning to
Defense Information Systems Agency enterprise email services.
Section 354--One-Year Extension of Pilot Program for Availability of
Working-Capital Funds to Army for Certain Product Improvements
This section would extend the Department of the Army
Product Improvement Pilot Program authorized by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), to October 1, 2014.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 361--Consideration of Foreclosure Circumstances in Adjudication
of Security Clearances
This section would allow special consideration during
security clearance adjudications to be given to members of the
Armed Forces who may have a housing foreclosure on his or her
credit report. The committee notes that the recent housing
crisis and resulting foreclosures are a potential problem for
members of the Armed Forces since a foreclosure could
jeopardize their ability to apply for or renew a security
clearance.
Section 362--Authority To Provide Information for Maritime Safety of
Forces and Hydrographic Support
This section would amend part IV of subtitle C of title 10,
United States Code, by inserting after chapter 667 a new
chapter authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to maximize the
safety and effectiveness of Navy, Joint, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, and coalition forces by collecting marine
weather and ocean data, modeling of that data, and forecasting
potentially hazardous meteorological and oceanographic
conditions.
Section 363--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds under Reciprocal Fire
Protection Agreements
This section would amend section 1856d(b) of title 42,
United States Code, which allows the Department of Defense to
allocate reimbursements for fire protection services to the
appropriation fund or account from which the expenses were paid
subject to the same provisions and restrictions as the original
funding. This section would add flexibility to the
reimbursement process beginning in fiscal year 2012 by
permitting the Department to allocate reimbursements to the
fund or account currently available for fire protection
activities should the period of availability for obligation
under which services were originally provided have expired.
Section 364--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To Be
Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Printing and Reproduction
This section would reduce by 10 percent the printing and
reproduction budgets for each of the military departments and
the defense agencies.
The committee notes that the budget request contained
$357.0 million for printing and reproduction services,
Department-wide. While the committee recognizes that paper
copies often are necessary to facilitate mission
accomplishment, the committee believes that the Department
should reduce spending on high-quality, glossy color prints
(such as the ones accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget
rollout, and other reports and briefings to Congress).
Utilizing double-sided, plain, black-and-white copies still
accomplishes the goal, while achieving considerable savings. In
addition, the committee urges the Department to consider
technologies, such as electronic documentation and
transmission, to process information without the use of paper
printing and reproduction. This section would generate $35.7
million in savings in fiscal year 2012.
Section 365--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To Be
Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Studies, Analysis and
Evaluations
This section would reduce by 10 percent the budget request
for studies, analyses, and evaluations performed by each
military department and the defense agencies. The committee
notes that the Secretary of Defense has emphasized the need to
fund the core mission of the Department of Defense, realigning
funds from non-essential cost areas to areas of direct mission
support. The Secretary of Defense has implemented an initiative
to eliminate unnecessary Department of Defense boards and study
groups, and this section would support the Secretary's efforts
to reduce unnecessary costs. This section would generate a
savings of $24.0 million in fiscal year 2012.
Section 366--Clarification of the Airlift Service Definitions Relative
to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet
This section would amend section 41106 of title 49, United
States Code, to clarify that the application of current law is
limited to contracts for airlift services using aircraft of a
type the Department of Defense has determined are eligible for
participation in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program.
Section 367--Ratemaking Procedures for Civil Reserve Air Fleet
Contracts
This section would amend section 9511a of title 10, United
States Code, to codify the authority of the Department of
Defense to offer scheduled and expansion contract airlift
business to Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carriers according
to the amount of airlift capability they commit for CRAF
activation. Commercial air carriers in the CRAF program commit
airlift capability to be activated for the Department's use
during wartime. In exchange for such a commitment, the
Department contracts with the participating carriers for its
peacetime or routine airlift requirements. The committee is
aware that competitive contracts for this activity are
generally not feasible because oftentimes none of the air
carriers have commercial operations in the needed locations and
therefore have no basis for providing a reasonable offer. The
committee notes that this type of entitlement-based contract is
done in conjunction with statutorily mandated ratemaking
procedures that have served as an effective means of
determining fair and reasonable rates while furthering the
objectives of the CRAF program.
Section 368--Sense of Congress on Proposed Federal Aviation
Administration Changes to Flight Crew Member Duty and Rest Requirements
This section would express a sense of Congress that the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
should make every effort to ensure that any changes to
guidelines, regulations, and rules of the FAA, including
changes to flight crew member duty and rest requirements, fully
consider the impact of such changes on the Civil Reserve Air
Fleet carriers, U.S. Transportation Command and the Department
of Defense.
Section 369--Policy on Active Shooter Training for Certain Law
Enforcement Personnel
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and promulgate guidelines to ensure civilian and
military law enforcement responsible for force protection at
U.S. military installations receive Active Shooter Training.
The committee recognizes this training was a recommendation of
the Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort
Hood entitled ``Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood.''
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee supports the budget request for the
authorized end strengths for the Armed Forces in fiscal year
2012. The budget request reduces the end strength of the Active
Duty Army by 7,400 personnel to 562,000, which is a planned
reduction of the temporary end strength increase authorized in
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). Notwithstanding support for the
Army's reduction, the committee remains concerned with the
continued impact of the high number of non-deployable soldiers
on Army readiness, individual dwell time, and the Army's
ability to ensure deploying units are fully manned. Based on
data provided to the committee by the Army during briefings, 17
percent, which is approximately 20,000 personnel, of soldiers
in the Army's deploying combat units are not deployable, and
this figure is growing at an unsustainable rate. In addition,
there are approximately 9,000 soldiers processing through the
Permanent Disability Evaluation System after being found
medically unfit for service. The Army could potentially face a
deployable inventory deficit of 30,000 soldiers for its mission
requirements by fiscal year 2017 if these challenges are not
addressed. While the Army could take measures to partially
reduce the number of non-deployable personnel in its combat
units, the committee believes that more dramatic measures will
be required to reform the Permanent Disability Evaluation
System, which still requires disabled soldiers to remain on
Active Duty for 1 year or more as they are processed through
the system.
The committee is also concerned with the Navy's request of
a reduction in the active authorized end strength by 3,000
sailors. The Navy has been challenged over the past several
years as sailors deployed as individual augmentees to overseas
contingency operations to execute non-traditional Navy
missions, which has drained needed manpower from the fleet. The
Navy has undertaken an efficiency task to increase readiness in
the fleet by eliminating approximately 7,200 shore billets and
assigning those personnel to sea billets. The committee will
closely monitor this process as well as the Navy's reduction of
manpower and the impact on operations and requirements.
The Secretary of Defense, as part of an additional $78-
billion efficiencies reduction in the Department budget top
line, has proposed to significantly reduce the size of the
active Army by 27,000 soldiers and the active Marine Corps by
15,300 Marines beginning in fiscal year 2015 through fiscal
year 2016. The committee is concerned the impact this force
reduction will have on individual dwell time on both services,
especially for the Army since this reduction of 27,000 soldiers
is in addition to a planned reduction of 22,000 temporary end
strength by fiscal year 2013. The committee has heard
repeatedly in hearings and briefings over the past several
years that achieving an individual dwell time ratio of 1 to 3
is critical to maintaining the health of the Active Component
Army and Marine Corps and their families. In his statement for
the record submitted to the committee during the fiscal year
2012 Department of Defense posture hearing, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that, ``For our Army combat units,
we do not expect to begin to reach our interim goal of 1:2
deploy-to-dwell ratios until 2012.'' This appears to be the
best ratio that can be obtained for the foreseeable future; and
the new standard. The projected force reductions are based on
an assumption that the combat commitment in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the
end of 2014. It remains unclear to the committee what the level
of forces in Afghanistan would need to be reduced in order to
allow the force reduction to begin without an adverse impact on
troops and their families. More importantly, the manpower
reductions appear to have no relationship to the requirements
of overall national military strategy or to future war fighting
requirements.
The committee is committed to working with the Department
to ensure that the proper analysis of end strength requirements
is completed prior to the proposed reductions beginning. It is
imperative the military maintain sufficient manpower to support
current and future requirements that have been generated by a
Nation at war for almost 10 years.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September
30, 2012:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Change from
FY 2011 -------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized Committee FY 2012 FY 2011
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.............................................. 569,400 562,000 562,000 0 -7,400
Navy.............................................. 328,700 325,700 325,739 39 -2,961
USMC.............................................. 202,100 202,100 202,100 0 0
Air Force......................................... 332,200 332,800 332,800 0 600
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOD........................................... 1,432,400 1,422,600 1,422,639 39 -9,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum
Levels
This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of
September 30, 2012. The committee recommends 562,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 325,739 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 202,100 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
332,800 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air
Force.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for
Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of
September 30, 2012:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Change from
FY 2011 -------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized Committee FY 2012 FY 2011
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................... 358,200 358,200 358,200 0 0
Army Reserve...................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0
Navy Reserve...................................... 65,500 66,200 66,200 0 700
Marine Corps Reserve.............................. 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0
Air National Guard................................ 106,700 106,700 106,700 0 0
Air Force Reserve................................. 71,200 71,400 71,400 0 200
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total..................................... 846,200 847,100 847,100 0 900
Coast Guard Reserve............................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of
September 30, 2012:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Change from
FY 2011 ---------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized Committee FY 2012 FY 2011
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................. 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0
Army Reserve.................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Naval Reserve................................... 10,688 10,337 10,337 0 -351
Marine Corps Reserve............................ 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard.............................. 14,584 14,833 14,833 0 249
Air Force Reserve............................... 2,992 2,662 2,662 0 -330
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................... 78,846 78,414 78,414 0 -432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2012:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Change from
FY 2011 ---------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized Committee FY 2012 FY 2011
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve.................................... 8,395 8,395 8,395 0 0
Army National Guard............................. 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................... 10,720 10,777 10,777 0 57
Air National Guard.............................. 22,394 22,509 22,509 0 115
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................... 68,719 68,891 68,891 0 172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2012 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status
Technicians
This section would establish the maximum end strengths for
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual
status technicians as of September 30, 2012:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Change from
FY 2011 ---------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized Committee FY 2012 FY 2011
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Air National Guard.............................. 350 350 350 0 0
Army Reserve.................................... 595 595 595 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................... 90 90 90 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................... 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on
Active Duty for Operational Support
This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b)
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve
Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2012 to provide
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count
against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section
412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the
limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Change from
FY 2011 ---------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized Committee FY 2012 FY 2011
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve.................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Naval Reserve................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve............................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard.............................. 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Military Personnel
This section would authorize appropriations for military
personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in
section 4401 of division D of this Act.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERVIEW
The committee recognizes that after almost 10 years of war,
the Department of Defense must remain flexible and continue to
adapt its policies to maintain a viable All-Volunteer Force.
The committee continues its efforts to provide needed
flexibility to the Department in order to manage the total
force. For example, the committee has included several
provisions which enhance the management of the Reserve
Component and increase the flexibility of the Marine Corps to
manage its field grade officers. The committee also supports
the need to provide flexibility for individuals during their
military career and has extended authorities for service
members to pause their active service in order to meet personal
or professional needs and then return to active service.
In addition, the committee has proposed reductions to the
statutory authorizations in the numbers of general and flag
officers on active duty, complementing the efforts of the
Secretary of Defense to reduce such officers across the
Department. Further, the committee has provided funds to
support local educational agencies heavily impacted by military
dependent enrollments.
The committee also recognizes the selfless sacrifices that
our military men and women and their families are making on
behalf of the Nation and has included provisions that would
improve the overall well being and readiness of the force. Just
as important as those still serving, the committee believes its
commitment to our service members does not end once they are
out of the military. The committee has included several
provisions to improve the oversight and function of Arlington
National Cemetery, Virginia, and the Armed Forces Retirement
Home. The Department of Defense and the military services have
a history of partnering with local communities through
community service projects, mentorship programs, and education
programs to enhance the community and maintain a civic
relationship with communities that support its installations.
The committee commends the military services and the Department
of Defense for their efforts and encourages the Department to
continue to seek ways to expand these partnerships.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Community College of the Air Force
The Community College of the Air Force provides enlisted
members of the U.S. Air Force the opportunity to earn their
associate degree in a variety of areas. The committee believes
that program and funding efficiencies may be gained by allowing
enlisted members from the other services to participate in this
program. The committee requests the Secretary of Defense to
review the feasibility and cost of allowing enlisted members
from the other services, including the U.S. Coast Guard, to
participate in the Community College of the Air Force's
associate degree program, and to provide a briefing on the
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Critical Language Training at Reserve Officer Training Programs and
Senior Military Colleges
The committee believes foreign language skills are critical
to national security and has provided the Department of Defense
the flexibility to establish programs to ensure a viable pool
of foreign language speaking service members and national
security personnel. Section 529 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)
authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish language
training centers of excellence at universities, senior military
colleges, and other institutions of higher learning to develop
a foundation of expertise in critical and strategic languages
and regional studies. The military is increasingly placed in
roles where language skills are critical in day-to-day
operations. Therefore, the committee recommends the Secretary
of Defense to develop a program to establish language training
centers, and also encourage the Secretary of Defense to include
the Reserve Officer Training Corps and senior military college
programs within the National Security Education Program.
Expanding the Use of On-Line Education in the Department of Defense
Educational Activity
The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA)
educates eligible Department of Defense military and civilian
dependents from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade in schools
located overseas and in the U.S. and its territories and
possessions. The committee recognizes that the technology to
support successful online education exists in the civilian
education sector and is concerned that DODEA may not be taking
full advantage of online school programs that already exist and
are successfully serving current military families. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
potential cost-savings and achievement benefits of introducing
a K-12 online learning environment into the DODEA school
system, and to report his findings to the committee by April 1,
2012. The report shall identify existing online educational
opportunities for DODEA students, alternative online school
opportunities currently used by military families, and
recommendations, as appropriate, for enhancing and funding
DODEA's expansion of the use of online education.
Review for Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee noted that it believes that the statutory authority
to conduct a review for Hispanic American service cross
recipients from World War I exists in underlying law, section
552 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107). In H. Rept. 111-491, the committee
directed the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy,
and the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed
Services notification of the reviews conducted within 180 days
of the date of enactment of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The committee anticipates receiving notification on this
subject in June and looks forward to a full report on the
actions that they have taken to ensure that the service of
Hispanic American World War I veterans is properly recognized.
Use of Electronic Media for Family Support Programs
The committee continues to encourage the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to
provide service members and their families a balance between
work and family life and to promote quality of life programs.
Given the high operations tempo experienced by many service
members during the past nearly 10 years of war, the committee
believes it is critical that widely dispersed military families
far removed from military installations, particularly families
of Reserve Component service members, have access to the tools
necessary to effectively manage their lives during times of
stress. Assistance in personal finance, stress management,
grief counseling, and general morale and wellbeing management
is a critical component of family support initiatives. The
committee understands that these types of support services can
be provided through a variety of cost-effective media options,
to include audio books, compact disks, digital video disks, and
other electronic media delivered through the Internet. Further,
the committee believes that programs using such media options
offer a flexible capability to target needed services to
specific families on demand over a wide geographic area in a
cost-effective manner. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report, by March 31, 2012, on the current use of
electronic media for delivering family support programs within
the Department of Defense, the potential for greater use of
commercially procured electronic media to support family
programs, a survey of vendors capable of providing such
services who are already sanctioned by the General Services
Administration, and the Secretary's view of the propriety and
cost-effectiveness of increasing the use of electronic media to
support family programs.
Wounded Warrior Implementation
Section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-181) provided the authority enabling
military technicians (dual status) to continue to be employed
as technicians when the loss of their military membership in
the Selected Reserve is the result of a combat-related
disability. The National Guard Bureau issued implementing
instruction in June 2009 to the state-level National Guard
Headquarters. Unfortunately, the implementation guidance may
not have been distributed to all pertinent levels of personnel
and dual-status technicians may not have been informed of this
program. Therefore, the committee directs the National Guard
Bureau to reissue the implementing instructions to the state
and territory headquarters with additional guidance to ensure
the information is disseminated to the lowest level possible.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally
Section 501--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Marine Corps Officers
on Active Duty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel
This section would increase the grade table allowance for
Marine Corps officers serving on active duty in grades major,
lieutenant colonel, and colonel. For example, with an officer
strength of 17,500, the Marine Corps could promote 485
additional officers to the grade of major, 286 additional
officers to the grade of lieutenant colonel, and 37 additional
officers to the grade of colonel.
Section 502--General Officer and Flag Officer Reform
This section would eliminate 14 authorizations for general
and flag officers in joint duty assignments and add up to 7
officers serving in intelligence positions to count against the
joint duty assignment limit. This section would also eliminate
11 Air Force general officer authorizations and would require
that the superintendents of the service academies be counted
against their respective service's general and flag officer
limits. This section would require that the directed changes
take place between January 1, 2012, and October 1, 2013. The
committee applauds the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to
reduce the number of general and flag officers on active duty,
which numbered 967 as of July 2010, by 102 over the next 2
years. However, the committee was disappointed that the
Secretary made no substantial proposal in the budget request to
reduce the statutory limits imposed not only on the number of
general and flag officers on active duty, but also on the
statutory limits on the number of general and flag officers
serving in each grade. For example, at present, the military
services are statutorily authorized to have as many as 658
general and flag officers on active duty to meet in-service
requirements, as well as up to another 324 general and flag
officers for joint duty assignments. In addition, the numbers
of general and flag officers actually on active duty are
increased because several are excluded from counting against
the statutory limits. Such exemptions include the
superintendents of the military service academies, the general
and flag officers assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, and the Attending Physician to Congress.
The effect of allowing the statutory limits and exemptions to
remain in place would be to create what the committee believes
is excessive room for the military services and the joint
commands to generate future increases in the number of general
and flag officers on active duty, notwithstanding the policy
controls that the Secretary of Defense intends to impose to
limit future growth.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Section 511--Leadership of National Guard Bureau
This section would establish the position of and criteria
for the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, with the
officer holding that position, following appointment by the
President and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
serve in the grade of lieutenant general. This section would
require that both the Chief and Vice Chief of the National
Guard Bureau be designated by the Secretary of Defense as
general officers to be counted against the pool of general and
flag officers in joint duty assignments established by section
526(b) of title 10, United States Code. This section would also
establish a chain of succession for both the Chief and Vice
Chief of the National Guard Bureau should either or both be
absent or disabled. Finally, this section would authorize the
incumbent holding the position of Director of the Joint Staff
of the National Guard Bureau to continue to serve in the
current grade of major general as the acting vice chief until
the appointment of an officer to be the vice chief.
Section 512--Preseparation Counseling for Members of the Reserve
Components
This section would amend section 1142 of title 10, United
States Code, to require individual preseparation counseling be
made available to members of the Reserve Component. This
service is currently available for service members whose
discharge from active duty is anticipated as of a specific
date. This section would also clarify the 90-day requirement
for preseparation counseling for Reserve Component members who
have less than 90-days before release from active duty due to
operational requirements. This allows preseparation counseling
to begin as soon as possible within the remaining period of
service.
Section 513--Clarification of Applicability of Authority for Deferral
of Mandatory Separation of Military Technicians (Dual Status) until Age
60
This section would amend section 10216(f) of title 10,
United States Code, to clarify that the Secretary of the Army
and the Secretary of the Air Force may each implement policies
to allow military technicians (dual status) who reach their
mandatory separation date before age 60 the ability to apply
for continued service. This section would also amend section
10218(a)(3)(A)(i) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that if a military technician (dual status) is given the
opportunity to apply for continued service and is found to be
qualified, the Secretary concerned may appoint the technician
to another position as a military technician (dual status).
Section 514--Modification of Eligibility for Consideration for
Promotion for Reserve Officers Employed as Military Technicians (Dual
Status)
This section would remove from promotion eligibility those
Reserve officers of the Army and Air Force employed as dual
status military technicians who had been retained on the
Reserve Active-status list beyond the mandatory removal date
normally required after reaching their maximum number of years
of service.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Section 521--Findings regarding Unique Nature, Demands, and Hardships
of Military Service
This section would state the findings of Congress with
regard to the nature, demands, and hardships of military
service. This section would state that there is no
constitutional right to serve in the military; military
operations often require extraordinary sacrifices, to include
the ultimate sacrifice; successful units are characterized by
high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
military living and working conditions are often Spartan and
primitive characterized by forced intimacy and little privacy;
and the Armed Forces must maintain policies that allow for
recruiting of persons who can be expected to maintain the high
standards for morale, good order and discipline, and unit
cohesion.
Section 522--Policy Addressing Dwell Time and Measurement and Data
Collection regarding Unit Operating Tempo and Personnel Tempo
This section would amend section 991 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a
policy that addresses dwell time for members of the Armed
Forces. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to establish a system for tracking and recording the
number of days each member of the Armed Forces is deployed,
prescribe policies and procedures for measuring operating tempo
and personnel tempo, and maintain a central data collection
repository to provide information for research, analysis,
interagency reporting, and evaluation of programs and policies.
This section would define the term ``dwell time''.
Section 523--Authorized Leave Available for Members of the Armed Forces
Upon Birth or Adoption of a Child
This section would increase the number of days of non-
chargeable leave from 21 to 42 that a service member may be
granted following adoption of a child, if the service member is
the primary caregiver of the child. The section would also
provide that the other service member of a dual military couple
may also be awarded 10 days of non-chargeable leave that may be
taken at the same time as the primary caregiver is on adoption
leave. This section would bring the adoption leave authority in
line with the non-chargeable leave provided to service members
who delivered a newborn child and dual military couples who
were able to conceive a child naturally.
Section 524--Extension of Authority To Conduct Programs on Career
Flexibility To Enhance Retention of Members of the Armed Forces
This section would extend from December 31, 2012, to
December 31, 2015, the authority for the Secretaries of the
military departments to inactivate service members from active
duty in order to allow them to meet personal or professional
needs and return them to active duty following the period of
inactivation.
Section 525--Policy on Military Recruitment and Enlistment of Graduates
of Secondary Schools
This section would require a secretary of the military
department to treat persons who receive a diploma from a
legally operating secondary school or otherwise completes a
program of secondary education in compliance with the education
laws of the State in which the person resides the same as a
person who receives a diploma from a secondary school, as
defined by section 7801 of title 20, United States Code. This
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe a policy on recruitment and enlistment that
incorporates following: (1) Means for identifying qualified
persons to enlist; (2) Means for assessing how qualified
persons fulfill their enlistment obligation; and (3) Means for
maintaining data by each diploma source which can be used to
analyze attrition rates. As a part of the policy, this section
would require the Secretary of each military department to
develop a recruitment plan that includes a marketing strategy
for potential recruits with all types of secondary educations
credentials, and to develop a communication plan to ensure the
policy and recruitment plan are understood by military
recruiters.
The committee understands the Department of Defense's
current recruiting policy is based on attrition data rather
than secondary education diploma source. The committee believes
the current policy needs to be revised to account for both the
increasing numbers and the quality of alternative delivery
methods of secondary education content, such as charter
schools, online high schools, homeschooling, and hybrid
schools. The committee also recognizes and encourages the
Department of Defense, as well as the military services to
continue to develop assessments and tools to better predict
performance, behaviors, and attitudes in order to minimize
attrition.
Section 526--Navy Recruiting and Advertising
This section would add $983,000 to Operations and
Maintenance, Navy, Line 440 for Recruiting and Advertising for
the professional development of youths, ages 11 to 17, to
promote interest and skill in seamanship and aviation while
instilling qualities that mold strong moral character.
Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters
Section 531--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel
Decisions Relating To Correction of Military Records
This section would establish guidelines for judicial review
of decisions by the boards for correction of military records
operated by the Secretaries of the military departments. The
guidelines would ensure that boards for correction of military
records issue concise written statements that consist of the
factual and legal basis for decisions that deny requested
actions, along with a statement of the procedures and timing
associated with seeking a judicial review. Further, the
guidelines would require that judicial review be pursued within
1 year of a final decision by a board for correction of
military records. The guidelines would also ensure that service
members seek review of their issues in the most efficient
manner possible that reduces costs for both the individual and
the Government.
Section 532--Clarification of Application and Extent of Direct
Acceptance of Gifts Authority
This section would expand the eligibility of members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense to receive gifts from
non-profit organizations, private parties, and other sources
outside the Department of Defense. The expansion would make
eligible all members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat
operation or a combat zone designated by the Secretary of
Defense. Under current law, only those persons with a combat-
related injury are eligible. This section would also require
that the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
would apply retroactively to injuries and illnesses incurred on
or after September 11, 2001.
Section 533--Additional Condition on Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Policy
This section would amend the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-321) to require the Chief of Staff
of the Army, the Chief Naval Operations, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to submit
to the congressional defense committees their written
certification that repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law
specified in section 654 of title 10, United States Code, will
not degrade the readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, and morale
of combat arms units and personnel of their respective armed
force that are engaged in combat, deployed to a combat theater,
or preparing for deployment to a combat theater.
Section 534--Military Regulations Regarding Marriage
This section would affirm the policy of section 3 of the
Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) that the word ``marriage''
included in any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the
Department of Defense applicable to a service member or
civilian employee of the Department of Defense shall mean only
a legal union between one man and one woman.
Section 535--Use of Military Installations as Site for Marriage
Ceremonies and Participation of Chaplains and Other Military and
Civilian Personnel in Their Official Capacity
This section would establish that marriages performed on
DOD installations or marriages involving the participation of
DOD military or civilian personnel in an official capacity, to
include chaplains, must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act
(1 U.S.C. 7), which defines marriage as only the legal union
between one man and one woman.
Subtitle E--Member Education and Training Opportunities and
Administration
Section 541--Improved Access to Apprenticeship Programs for Members of
the Armed Forces who Are Being Separated from Active Duty or Retired
This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the secretary concerned to permit a
member of the Armed Forces to participate in an apprenticeship
program that provides employment skills training and assists
them in transitioning into new careers in civilian life.
Section 542--Expansion of Reserve Health Professionals Stipend Program
To Include Students in Mental Health Degree Programs in Critical
Wartime Specialties
This section would expand the categories of health
professional students eligible to receive a stipend to include
students enrolled in an institution in a course of study that
results in a degree in clinical psychology or social work.
Section 543--Administration of United States Air Force Institute of
Technology
This section would amend chapter 901 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section establishing a position of
commandant of the United States Air Force Institute of
Technology who is either an active duty officer of the Air
Force in a grade not below the grade of colonel or a civilian
who was retired from the Air Force in the grade not below the
grade of brigadier general. This section would also establish a
position of Provost and Academic Dean at the United States Air
Force Institute of Technology.
Section 544--Appointments to Military Service Academies from
Nominations Made by the Governor of Puerto Rico
This section would amend section 4342(a)(7) of title 10,
United States Code, to increase the number of nominations to
the military service academies by the Governor of Puerto Rico
from 1 to 3.
Section 545--Temporary Authority To Wave Maximum Age Limitation on
Admission to United States Military Academy, United States Naval
Academy, and United States Air Force Academy
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to waive the maximum age limitation for admission to
a military service academy from 23 to 26 for an otherwise
qualified candidate. The candidate must be either (a) an
enlisted member of the Armed Forces who was prevented from
being admitted to a military service academy before they
reached the maximum age as a result of service in a theater of
operation for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring
Freedom, or Operation New Dawn; or (b) a candidate who possess
an exceptional record that sets them apart from other
candidates, as determined by the secretary concerned. This
section would limit the number of candidates admitted to each
academy under this waiver authority to five per academic year.
The Secretary of each military department shall track the
number of graduates using this waiver authority who remain in
the Armed Forces beyond the active duty service obligation.
This section would require the secretary concerned is required
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
April 1, 2016, that displays the number of applications for
waivers, the number of waivers granted by the secretary, the
number admitted to the academy utilizing the waiver, and the
number of graduates who were enlisted prior to admission to an
academy that have remained in the service past their active
duty service obligation, beginning with the class of 2009.
Section 546--Education and Employment Advocacy Program for Wounded
Members of the Armed Forces
This section would add $15,000,000 to Operations and
Maintenance, Defense Wide, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Line 260 for the purpose of an Education and Employment
Advocacy pilot program to engage Wounded Warriors early in
their recovery.
Subtitle F--Army National Military Cemeteries
Section 551--Army National Military Cemeteries
This section would establish the general authority of the
Secretary of the Army to develop, operate, manage, administer,
oversee, and fund the Army National Military Cemeteries,
consisting of Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, and the
U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, District of
Columbia, in a manner and to standards that fully honor the
service and sacrifices of the deceased members of the Armed
Forces whose last resting places are in the respective
cemeteries. This section would require the Secretary to
promulgate regulations and policies for the Army National
Military Cemeteries, to include eligibility for interment and
inurnment, and mandate that annual budget requests for the
cemeteries be provided to the congressional defense committees,
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In promulgating eligibility
regulations for interments and inurnments, the Secretary should
ensure that they are consistent with the relevant provisions of
title 38, United States Code. This section would place the
cemeteries under the direct jurisdiction of Headquarters,
Department of the Army, and authorize the position and set
forth the responsibilities of the Executive Director of the
cemeteries, who would report directly to the Secretary of the
Army. This section would also require that by 1 June 2012 there
be an operational electronic database at Arlington National
Cemetery for recordkeeping and full accounting of all records
of each specific gravesite and niche location at that cemetery
and the identification of the individual interred or inurned at
each specific gravesite and niche location. This section would
also specify the qualifications, duties, and supervisory chain
for the superintendents of the respective cemeteries.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of the
Army to appoint an Advisory Committee on Arlington National
Cemetery to provide periodic consultation and advice on the
administration of Arlington National Cemetery, as well as on
the erection of memorials and master planning for the cemetery.
The committee urges the Secretary to include a representative
from the National Cemetery Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, as a member of the Advisory Committee to
facilitate consistency and enable best practices to be
interchanged. Finally, this section would require not only the
Secretary of the Army to periodically inspect the cemeteries,
but would also direct the Inspector General of the Department
of Defense to inspect the cemeteries during fiscal years 2012
and 2014. The Secretary would be required to provide the
congressional defense committees a plan for corrective actions
not later than 120 days following any inspection directed by
the Secretary or conducted by the Inspector General.
Section 552--Inspector General of the Department of Defense Inspection
of Military Cemeteries
This section would require the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to inspect the cemeteries at the United
States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and
the United States Air Force Academy to determine: the adequacy
of and adherence to the statutes, policies, and regulations
governing those cemeteries; the adequacy of the system employed
to fully account for and accurately identify the remains
interred or inurned in each; the history and adequacy of the
oversight efforts of the Secretaries of the military
departments who have jurisdiction for these cemeteries; and
other matters. This section would also require the Inspector
General to follow-up on that part of the 2010 report of the
special inspection of Arlington National Cemetery pertaining to
the Soldiers' and Airmen's National Cemetery. The follow-up
inspection would be to determine whether the Secretary of the
Army has fully and completely addressed the issues raised and
the recommendations made in the 2010 report. This section would
require the Secretaries of the military departments to submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2012, on the findings
and recommendations of the inspection of their respective
cemeteries, together with a plan for corrective action.
Finally, this section would require the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense to inspect a statistically valid
sample of the other cemeteries, both inside and outside the
United States, that are under the jurisdiction of the
Secretaries of the military departments. The purpose would be
to assess the adequacy of and adherence to the statutes,
policies, and regulations governing the management, oversight,
operations, and interments and inurnments by those cemeteries.
This section would also require the Inspector General to submit
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2012, on the
findings of these inspections, and then the Secretaries of the
military services would be required to submit a plan for
corrective actions to the same committees by April 1, 2013.
Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home
Section 561--Control and Administration by Secretary of Defense
This section would establish that the administration of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, to include the provision of
health care and medical care for the residents, is a
responsibility of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 562--Senior Medical Advisor Oversight of Health Care Provided
to Residents of Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would clarify the oversight responsibilities
and reporting requirements of the Senior Medical Advisor with
regard to the health care provided to the residents of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Section 563--Establishment of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory
Council and Resident Advisory Committees
This section would establish one Armed Forces Retirement
Home Advisory Council, replacing the local boards established
for each of the two facilities of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home. This section would specify the required expertise of the
members of the advisory council and require the Secretary of
Defense to designate a member to be the chairperson of the
advisory council, who would be responsible for the operation of
the council. This section also would require resident advisory
committees at each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home. These committees, consisting of residents elected by the
residents of each facility, would serve as a forum for ideas,
recommendations, and issues to be discussed with the management
of each facility.
Section 564--Administrators, Ombudsmen, and Staff of Facilities
This section would eliminate the positions of deputy
director and associate director in each facility and establish
the position of ombudsman. The ombudsman of each facility would
have the authority to communicate with the administrator of the
facility, the Chief Operating Officer of the Retirement Home,
the Senior Medical Advisor, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness. This section also would make a
technical change in the title of the person responsible for the
operations of each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home
from ``Director'' to ``Administrator''.
Section 565--Revision of Fee Requirements
This section would repeal the obsolete transitional fee
requirements for the Armed Forces Retirement Home and establish
permanent fee requirements.
Section 566--Revision of Inspection Requirements
This section would revise the interval of inspections that
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense would be
required to make of each facility of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home from annually to not less often than every 3
years. This section also would clarify requirements for
reporting and corrective actions.
Section 567--Repeal of Obsolete Transitional Provisions and Technical,
Conforming, and Clerical Amendments
This section would clarify that former members of the Coast
Guard are eligible to be residents of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home and that senior personnel officer and senior
enlisted members of the Coast Guard are eligible to serve on
the Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory Council. This section
also would repeal obsolete transitional provisions enacted as
part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107), and make technical, conforming and
clerical amendments.
Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness Matters
Section 571--Revision to Membership of Department of Defense Military
Family Readiness Council
This section would clarify the appointment options for
family member representatives serving on the Department of
Defense Military Family Readiness Council to include parents of
members of the military services and would further designate
Reserve Component representation on the council.
Section 572--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational
Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees
This section would provide $30.0 million for assistance to
local educational agencies that have military dependent
students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in
average daily attendance per year. The section would also
provide $10.0 million for assistance to local educational
agencies that experience significant increases and decreases in
the average daily attendance of military dependent students due
to the military force structure changes, the relocation of
military forces from one base to another, and from base
closures and realignments.
Section 573--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents who
Are Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend title 2 of the Service Members
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that
issued a temporary custody order based solely on a service
member being deployed or anticipating deployment to reinstate
the custody order that was in effect immediately preceding the
temporary order unless the court finds reinstatement is not in
the best interest of the child. This section would also
prohibit courts from using deployment or the possibility of
deployment against a service member when determining the best
interest of a child.
Section 574--Center for Military Family and Community Outreach
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
establish a Center for Military Family and Community Outreach
in cooperation with an historically black university to train
social work students, social work faculty members and social
workers to understand military life and enhance their
competencies in providing services to military families.
This section would also add $1,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance, Army to establish a Center for Military Family and
Community Outreach.
Section 575--Mental Health Support for Military Personnel and Families
This section would add $3,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps for a collaborative program to train
active duty military personnel to recognize combat stress
disorder, suicide risk, substance addiction, risk-taking
behaviors and family violence.
Section 576--Report on Department of Defense Autism Pilot Projects
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on any pilot projects that the Department of
Defense is conducting on autism services to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Subtitle I--Improved Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the
Armed Forces
Section 581--Director of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
This section would require that the director of the Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Office be a general or flag
officer or an employee of the Department of Defense in a
comparable senior executive service position.
Section 582--Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault
Victim Advocates
This section would require a full time Sexual Assault
Response Coordinator and a full time Sexual Assault Victim
Advocate be assigned to each brigade or equivalent unit level
of the armed forces. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a training and certification
program for Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual
Assault Victim Advocates.
This section would also add $45,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance for Defense Wide Activities for Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates and
sexual assault prevention training and education, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 583--Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel and
Services of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault
Victim Advocates
This section would entitle a member of the Armed Forces who
is the victim of a sexual assault to legal assistance provided
by a military legal assistance counsel who is certified as
competent to provide such duties and assistance provided by a
qualified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. This section would
also entitle a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who is
the victim of a sexual assault and resides on or in the
vicinity of a military installation, to the extent practicable,
legal assistance provided by a military legal assistance
counsel who is certified as competent to provide such duties as
well as assistance provided by a qualified Sexual Assault
Victim Advocate. This section would also require the Secretary
of Defense to implement a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator-
led process by which a member or dependent who is the victim of
a sexual assault may decline to participate in the
investigation of the sexual assault.
Section 584--Privilege in Cases Arising Under Uniform Code of Military
Justice Against Disclosure of Communications Between Sexual Assault
Victims and Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates and
Certain Other Persons
This section would create a confidentiality privilege in
military tribunals for communication between sexual assault
victims and Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Sexual
Assault Victims Advocates, and DOD SAFE Help line personnel.
Section 585--Maintenance of Records Prepared in Connection with Sexual
Assaults Involving Members of the Armed Forces or Dependents of Members
This section would require the Department of Defense to
maintain records relating to sexual assault involving members
of the Armed Forces or their dependents for not less than 100
years and provide the victim permanent access to the records
maintained by the Department. In addition, this section would
require that the victim be provided a copy of the court-martial
proceedings in certain circumstances.
Section 586--Expedited Consideration and Priority for Application for
Consideration of a Permanent Change of Station or Unit Transfer Based
on Humanitarian Conditions for Victim of Sexual Assault
This section would require the secretary concerned to
expedite the consideration and approval of an application for a
permanent change of station or unit transfer submitted by a
member of the Armed Forces who is a victim of sexual assault.
Section 587--Training and Education Programs for Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Program
This section would require the Secretary of each military
department to provide sexual assault training and education for
members of the armed forces at each level of professional
military education. This section would also require sexual
assault training and education for civilian employees.
This section would also add $45,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance for Defense Wide Activities for Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates and
sexual assault prevention training and education, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Subtitle J--Other Matters
Section 591--Limitations on Authority To Provide Support and Services
for Certain Organizations and Activities Outside Department of Defense
This section would amend section 2012 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the service secretary concerned to
request funds for projects under this authority in the annual
budget submission to Congress. This section also would limit
the annual obligation of funds to $10.0 million, beginning in
fiscal year 2012. The heavy reliance on the Reserve Component
over the past 10 years has reduced the need for sustainment
training requirements of the Reserve Component.
Section 592--Display of State, District of Columbia, and Territorial
Flags by Armed Forces
This section would amend section 2249b of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new subsection requiring the Secretary
of Defense to ensure that whenever the official flags of all 50
states are displayed by the armed forces, the flags of the
District of Columbia and the territories of the United States
shall also be displayed.
Section 593--Military Adaptive Sports Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish a military adaptive sports program to provide
adaptive sports programs to eligible wounded and injured
members of the Armed Forces.
Section 594--Wounded Warrior Careers Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a career-development program with the Education and
Employment Initiative for severely wounded warriors of the
armed forces and their spouses. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees plans for a cost-benefit analysis of the results of
the services provided to severely wounded warriors and their
families.
This section would add $1,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide to carry out a career program for
severely wounded warriors and their families.
Section 595--Comptroller General Study of Military Necessity of
Selective Service System and Alternatives
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to study the criticality of the Selective Service
System to the Department of Defense in meeting future manpower
needs of the Armed Forces that are in excess of the ability of
an all-volunteer force to provide and to determine the fiscal
and national security impacts of disestablishing the Selective
Service System. In addition, the section would require the
study to assess alternatives to disestablishing the Selective
Service System, as well as alternatives to registration for
Selective Service. The Comptroller General's report of the
study would be due not later than March 31, 2012, to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Section 596--Sense of Congress Regarding Playing of Bugle Call Commonly
Known as ``Taps'' at Military Funerals, Memorial Services and Wreath
Laying Ceremonies
This section expresses the sense of Congress that the bulge
call known as Taps should be sounded by a live solo bugler at a
military funeral, memorial service or wreath laying ceremonies.
Section 597--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Yellow Ribbon Day
This section would provide a sense of Congress supporting
the goals and ideals of Yellow Ribbon Day in honor of members
of the Armed Forces who are serving overseas apart from their
families and loved ones.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible
compensation programs are central to maintaining a high
quality, combat ready force. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an across-the-board pay raise of 1.6 percent to
ensure that military pay rates keep pace with pay raise levels
in the private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost
Index. The committee recommends that the authorities for a wide
array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other
compensation benefits set to expire on December 31, 2011, be
extended for an additional year.
The committee also recommends a series of provisions that
would consolidate and simplify travel and transportation
authorities to enhance the utility, flexibility, efficiency,
and relevancy of the law in response to a complex and changing
travel and transportation environment.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Commissary and Exchange Privileges for Non-Department of Defense
Federal Employees Overseas
The committee is aware of interest in extending shopping
privileges at military commissaries and exchanges to non-
Department of Defense (DOD) government agency employees serving
at locations outside the United States, and particularly those
serving in U.S. territories and possessions (the territory of
Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, the territory of American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands). The committee recognizes that
current policies generally restrict the access of non-DOD
employees serving outside the United States. The committee
understands that the limited exceptions to the rule are
confined to employees serving at the location outside the
United States on transportation agreements as defined in 41 CFR
302-2.12. The committee believes that it may be cost efficient
and in the best interests of U.S. missions outside the United
States for all Federal employees to have access to available
military commissaries and exchanges when the employee's agency
reimburses the cost of extending such privileges to the
Department of Defense. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 31, 2012, on the feasibility,
propriety, and cost of a proposal for non-DOD Federal agencies
to reimburse the Department of Defense for the cost of
extending commissary and exchange privileges to employees of
the agency serving outside the United States on transportation
agreements.
Consolidation of Disability Evaluation System
The committee is encouraged by the initial feedback that
the Department of Defense Integrated Disability Evaluation
System has reduced the time required to deliver benefits from
the Department of Veterans Affairs to wounded warriors.
However, the committee remains concerned that service members
with similar disabilities are receiving disparate disability
ratings because of different standards, policies, and
procedures used by the Physical Evaluation Boards operated by
the military departments. The committee believes that achieving
consistent disability ratings regardless of service is an
important objective that will ensure service members are
treated equitably. The committee believes that one method for
ensuring such consistent outcomes is to operate a consolidated
disability evaluation system within the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
August 1, 2012, on the feasibility, propriety, cost, and
recommended legislation to implement such a consolidated
disability evaluation system, if the Secretary determines that
recommended legislation is appropriate and necessary.
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act
The committee recognizes that the members of the Armed
Forces and their families endure many financial hardships as a
result of the intense operations tempo required to support
ongoing military operations in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee believes that
one of the most important benefits military families receive is
the savings provided by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA),
the military exchanges, and other nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities of the Armed Forces. The committee notes that
the implementation of the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-222) requires a 3-
percent withholding tax to be collected from contractors doing
business with the Government. The committee understands that
one of the major consequences of the implementation of the Tax
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 will be
higher prices that manufacturers will charge for goods sold to
all nonappropriated fund instrumentalities of the Armed Forces
to help offset the 3-percent withholding tax.
The committee remains convinced that the Secretary of the
Treasury, through the resources of the Internal Revenue
Service, has the ability to certify that the limited number of
manufacturers that customarily contract with nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities are not delinquent in paying taxes. The
committee believes that the judicious use of the Internal
Revenue Service's capability to determine the tax status of
manufacturers can be used to exempt DeCA, the Army and Air
Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the
Marine Corps Exchange, the Veterans Canteen Service, the Coast
Guard Exchange Service, and all morale, welfare, and recreation
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities from the requirement to
implement the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of
2005 without a loss of revenue to the U.S. Government.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2012 Increase in Military Basic Pay
This section would increase basic pay for members of the
uniform services by 1.6 percent, effective January 1, 2012.
This raise would match the pay raise rate in the private sector
as measured by the Employment Cost Index.
Section 602--Resumption of Authority To Provide Temporary Increase in
Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances
This section would extend the authority for the Secretary
of Defense to temporarily increase the basic allowance for
housing rates in an area where the housing market has been
disrupted by one or more bases experiencing significant growth
in assigned military personnel or a major disaster until
December 31, 2012.
Section 603--Lodging Accommodations for Members Assigned to Duty in
Connection with Commissioning or Fitting Out of a Ship
This section would expand the authority of the Secretary of
the Navy to provide lodging or compensation for housing to
enlisted service members when such members are deprived of
their quarters onboard ships that are under construction or
repair. This section would provide the Secretary special
authority for compensation of service members deprived of their
quarters onboard a ship under construction at shipyards
affected by the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 activities,
specifying the shipyard at Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Bath,
Maine.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the Selected
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to
certain high-priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the
Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons
with prior service, and income replacement payments for Reserve
Component members experiencing extended and frequent
mobilization for active duty service until December 31, 2012.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Health Care Professionals
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the
Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay
for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically
short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental
officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the
accession bonus for medical officers in critically short
wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental
specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties
until December 31, 2012.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2012.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37
Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would extend the authority for the general
bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus
authority for officers, the special bonus and incentive pay
authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay
and bonus authorities, the special health professions incentive
pay and bonus authorities, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay
or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus,
and the retention bonus for members with critical military
skills or assigned to high-priority units until December 31,
2012.
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for
active members, the accession bonus for new officers in
critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military
occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the
incentive bonus for transfer between Armed Forces, and the
accession bonus for officer candidates until December 31, 2012.
Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Referral Bonuses
This section would extend the authority for the health
professions referral bonus and the Army referral bonus until
December 31, 2012.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Generally
Section 621--One-Year Extension of Authority To Reimburse Travel
Expenses for Inactive-Duty Training outside of Normal Commuting
Distance
This section would extend the authority for the secretary
concerned to reimburse members of the Selected Reserve for
travel expenses resulting from inactive-duty training when the
location of the training is outside normal commuting distance
from the member's permanent residence until December 31, 2012.
Section 622--Mandatory Provision of Travel and Transportation
Allowances for Non-Medical Attendants for Seriously Ill and Wounded
Members of the Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretaries concerned to
provide non-medical attendants a per diem allowance or
reimbursement for the actual and necessary expenses of the
travel, or a combination of the two, to support their travel
when performing non-medical attendant duties. This section
would result in the addition of a new budget item to section
4401 of division D relating to military personnel accounts for
non-medical attendant per diem in the amount of $20,000,000.
Subtitle D--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and Transportation
Authorities
Section 631--Purpose
This section would define the purpose of this subtitle is
to consolidate and reform travel and transportation authorities
in chapter 8 of title 37, United States Code, as required to
address the complexities and changing nature of travel. This
section would state that this initiative would meet mission
needs and the needs of the members of the uniformed services by
providing the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries
concerned the authority to prescribe and implement travel and
transportation policy that is simple, efficient, relevant, and
flexible.
Section 632--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and Transportation
Authorities of the Uniformed Services
This section would provide the definitions, the general
authorities, and, where required, more specific authorities
that would be the guidelines used by the Secretary of Defense
and the secretaries concerned to prescribe travel and
transportation programs. This section would also authorize the
Secretary of Defense to conduct pilot programs to test
alternative methods for performing and reimbursing travel, for
limiting the need for travel, and for reducing the
environmental impact of travel. This section would also provide
administrative guidelines for implementing the reform
initiative, to include the need to issue regulations.
Section 633--Old-Law Travel and Transportation Authorities Transition
Expiration Date and Transfer of Current Sections
This section would transfer 32 existing travel and
transportation authorities from chapter 7 of Title 37, United
States Code, to chapter 8 of title 37, and redesignate each
section with a new number.
Section 634--Addition of Sunset Provision to Old-Law Travel and
Transportation Authorities
This section would amend each of the redesignated sections
that would be installed in chapter 8 of title 37, United States
Code, to reflect the existence of a transition expiration date
by which the Secretary of Defense would be required to
terminate use of the authorities provided within those
sections.
Section 635--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make the technical and clerical
amendments necessary to facilitate the transfer of the
redesignated sections from chapter 7 of title 37, United States
Code to chapter 8 of title 37.
Section 636--Transition Provisions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan to transition all travel and transportation
programs to operate under the authorities provided in the
consolidation and reform authorities provided in subchapter I
and subchapter II of chapter 8 of title 37, United States Code.
This section would also provide the Secretary of Defense and
the secretaries concerned the authority to modify current law
to facilitate the transition process. Finally, this section
would establish a transition period termination date as the end
of a 10-year period beginning on the first day of the first
month beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Section 641--Expansion of Use of Uniform Funding Authority To Include
Permanent Change of Station and Temporary Duty Lodging Programs
Operated Through Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
This section would expand the use of the uniform funding
authority authorized for morale, welfare, and recreation
programs operated through nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities to include permanent change of station and
temporary duty lodging programs. This would allow the lodging
facilities to consolidate and simplify their business practices
and accounting systems by managing appropriated funds in
accordance with the procedures, policy, and laws applicable to
the expenditure of nonappropriated funds.
Section 642--Contracting Authority for Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities To Provide and Obtain Goods and Services
This section would clarify that nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities may enter into single-year or multi-year
contracts with another element of the Department of Defense,
another Federal agency, or a private-sector agency to provide
or obtain goods and services beneficial to the military
community and the effective management of such
instrumentalities. This section also would authorize
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to participate in
partnerships with private entities to provide programs at no
cost to the Government on military installations using
Government facilities and other Government support resources.
Section 643--Designation of Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen
and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base as a Fisher House
This section would deem that the Fisher House for the
Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air
Force Base, Delaware, shall be considered a Fisher House for
all other purposes established in law with regard to Fisher
Houses and Fisher Suites.
Section 644--Discretion of the Secretary of the Navy To Select
Categories of Merchandise To Be Sold by Ship Stores Afloat
This section would grant the Secretary of the Navy the
authority to use his discretion in determining what products
will be sold by Navy ship stores.
Section 645--Access of Military Exchange Stores System to Credit
Available Through Federal Financing Bank
This section would authorize the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service, Navy Exchange Service Command, and Marine
Corps exchanges to borrow funding for business operations from
the Federal Financing Bank.
Section 646--Enhanced Commissary Stores Pilot Program
This section would authorize the Defense Commissary Service
to operate an enhanced commissary store at a military
installation designated for closure or adverse realignment
under a base closure law. Such stores would be empowered to
sell alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and other products
to be determined at prices at least 10 percent below the local
community prices. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized
to retain profits from the sale of such goods to offset the
cost of operating the enhanced commissary store. Such enhanced
commissary stores would be authorized to operate between
October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. This section would
result in the addition of a new budget item to section 4501 of
division D relating to Working Capital Fund for Defense
Commissary Agency to support the operation of an enhanced
commissary store in the amount of $2,000,000.
Subtitle F--Disability, Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits
Section 651--Monthly Amount and Duration of Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance for Widows and Widowers of Deceased Members of the Armed
Forces Affected by Required Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
This section would increase existing monthly amounts and
establish additional monthly amounts paid under the Special
Survivor Indemnity Allowance to surviving spouses or former
spouses of deceased service members who are denied the full
amount of their annuity under the Survivor Benefit Program
(SBP) due to the offset required by the receipt of Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of
Veterans Affairs. The section would also extend the termination
date for the Special Survivor Annuity Allowance authority from
October 1, 2017 to October 1, 2021.
This ``widows' tax'' has long denied surviving family
members the payment of their SBP benefits earned by the service
of their spouses and paid for through premium reductions to
retired pay. This section would provide an incremental step in
the continuing effort to eliminate the DIC offset against SBP
annuities. This section would provide the following monthly
amounts for the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance, to
include increases through fiscal year 2017 and newly
established amounts for fiscal years 2018-2021:
Fiscal year 2013 from $90 to $163;
Fiscal year 2014 from $150 to $200;
Fiscal year 2015 from $200 to $215;
Fiscal year 2016 from $275 to $282;
Fiscal year 2017 from $310 to $314;
Fiscal year 2018 set at $9;
Fiscal year 2019 set at $15;
Fiscal year 2020 set at $20; and
Fiscal year 2021 set at $27.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 661--Reimbursement of American National Red Cross for
Humanitarian Support and Other Services Provided to Members of the
Armed Forces and Their Dependents
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary of a military department to reimburse the
American National Red Cross for humanitarian support or other
services approved by the Secretary that are provided to members
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and their
dependents. This section would result in the addition of a new
budget item to section 4301 of division D relating to operation
and maintenance for Defense-wide activities for reimbursement
of the American
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains committed to ensuring that members of
the Armed Forces, retirees, survivors, and their families have
access to quality health care. The committee understands the
challenge facing the Department of Defense as the cost of
health care continues to grow. The committee recognizes that
there are several factors that contribute to the cost growth of
the Defense Health Program including the increased cost of
health care in general, the increased number of wounded and
injured service members as a result of the unprecedented
survival rate from wounds on the battlefield, and the
congressionally mandated expansion of health care benefits that
are commensurate with the service of all components of the
military services. However, the committee believes that even in
the face of the growing cost of military health care, the
military health system must provide for medical readiness and
force health protection for our men and women in uniform and
ensure that all other beneficiaries receive health care
services. It is imperative that as the Nation continues to
fight the global war on terrorism, the Department of Defense
provides world-class health care for our wounded service
members regardless of whether their wounds are physical or
emotional.
Sadly, the committee notes that members of the Armed
Forces, particularly in the Reserve Components, continue to
struggle with mental health issues that can ultimately result
in suicide. Members of the Reserve Components often reside in
rural communities and may not have access to mental health
care. The committee recommends legislation to expand the
capacity of the military health system to provide mental health
care to members of the Reserve Components at the location of
the unit during scheduled unit training and to provide training
on suicide prevention and response. In addition, the committee
recommends that the Department undertake several projects that
would further advance the knowledge and understanding of
traumatic brain injury and combat related mental health issues
to enhance the care provided to members of the Armed Forces.
The committee is concerned that when the Department of
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs pursue joint or
combined health care operations, an insufficient amount of
joint strategic analysis and planning is done. The committee
includes a provision that would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to Congress addressing architecture
to guide the transition for future projects among other
information regarding the Department of Defense process before
funds may be expended for future electronic health records.
Finally, for the past few years, Congress has encouraged
the Department of Defense to improve the health status of the
beneficiary population and improve the cost-effectiveness of
the care provided to beneficiaries by adopting proven
practices. The committee notes that the designated providers, a
series of health plans that have been part of the Military
Health System for 30 years, have a proven record of excellence
in disease management and prevention initiatives that improve
health outcomes and satisfaction for military beneficiaries.
The committee urges the Department to use this program as a
model for strengthening and improving the heath status of
military beneficiaries.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Automated Patient Management System for Air Evacuation
The Committee remains committed to military medical
research to further enhance the survivability of wounded and
injured servicemembers during transport from a combat theater
to definitive medical care. The Committee is aware that the
Department of Defense has gained enormous experience in
providing a seamless continuum of critical care to injured
warfighters, creating a model used worldwide for damage control
and intensive care. This care may begin on the battlefield,
extend through air transport to intermediate care centers such
as Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany, and culminate in
the continental United States. The Committee understands the
challenges encountered while ensuring optimal resuscitation are
numerous, particularly in regard to curtailing the progression
of shock and providing timely countermeasures to minimize
further complications. The Committee urges the Department of
Defense to continue efforts to develop an automated feedback
loop resuscitation platform with the end goal of providing
automated, optimal resuscitation during medical air evacuation.
Clarification on Competition for Medical Research Consultation and
Education
The committee is aware of concern regarding section 178 of
title 10, United States Code, which provides a special status
relationship between a non-profit organization and the
Department of Defense. The committee understands that this
special status only applies to cooperative agreements with the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Other
military health system medical research, consultation, and
education activities should be conducted under competitive
procedures. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
review the current processes and procedures of the various
military health systems to ensure that fair and open
competition for medical research, consultation, and education
are being conducted, and submit a report on the results of the
review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2012.
Clinical Social Workers
The committee remains concerned about the increasing number
of service members and their families who require mental health
services. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
and the military services employ several methods to recruit,
retain, and train mental health professionals to provide the
necessary mental health care. In particular, the committee
understands that clinically-trained social workers are uniquely
qualified to address the mental health needs of individuals and
families. The committee encourages the Department and the
military services to continue to explore strategies to rapidly
increase the number of mental health professionals, including
clinically-trained social workers. The committee further
encourages the Department and the military services to explore
the possibility of collaborative programs with educational
institutions to train mental health professionals.
Cost Share for Acute Care Prescriptions under the TRICARE Pharmacy
Program
The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
proposal to increase the cost share for prescriptions at retail
pharmacies will affect the ability of TRICARE beneficiaries,
particularly those who live in areas distant from a military
treatment facility, to receive prescriptions needed for acute
medical conditions in the medically necessary timeframe. The
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
feasibility of maintaining the same cost share for the initial
dispensing of acute care medications filled outside of a
military treatment facility as if it were dispensed through the
TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy. The committee further directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the findings and
recommendations by March 30, 2012.
Expansion of Spinal Cord Injury Research Program
The committee recognizes spinal cord injuries are a serious
combat-related condition affecting our servicemembers in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Congress established the Spinal Cord Injury
Research Program in 2009 (Public Law 110-329) to support
research into regenerating and repairing damaged spinal cords
and improving rehabilitation therapies. Much of this research
has focused on the acute-phase of spinal cord injuries, but
more work must be done on the regeneration of chronic spinal
cord injuries.
The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense
to foster research relating to developing treatments that could
be applied during the chronic post-injury period of a spinal
cord injury event, in addition to research currently being
conducted on acute injuries.
Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury
The committee continues to support the national effort to
identify and treat post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic
brain injury occurring in members of the Armed Forces as a
result of combat. The committee is aware of the challenges the
Department of Defense continues to face in providing mental
health care to service members and their families, as well as
diagnosing and treating traumatic brain injury. The committee
notes the diverse range of evolving concepts and technologies
from the Nation's academic, scientific, and public health base
that directly relate to mental health and traumatic brain
injury. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to complete within 6 years after the date of enactment
of this Act the following:
(1) A 5-year pilot program under which the Secretary of
Defense should establish a process to provide payment for any
treatments demonstrated to be effective, including diagnostic
testing of traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress
disorder received by members of the Armed Forces in health care
facilities other than military treatment facilities.
(2) A neurophotonics program to develop tools for
understanding, diagnosing, and treating traumatic brain injury
and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
(3) A program to use mindfulness-based cognitive skills
training to help service members cope with stress and provide
greater cognitive resources to improve adaptive functioning
during deployment.
(4) A program to train behavioral health professionals
within the military health system to use biofeedback and other
exposure therapies to treat service members with post-traumatic
stress disorder and related anxiety disorders.
Orthopedic Research for Extremity Injury
The committee is aware of the increasing number and
constantly evolving nature of blast injuries as a result of
current military operations. The committee understands that
technologies for treating blast-related battle injuries
affecting the extremities continue to advance the care of these
injuries. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of
Defense to continue to invest in orthopedic research to provide
military medical providers with the cutting-edge tools and
technologies needed to treat injured service members.
Physical Rehabilitation of Wounded Warriors
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
continuing to advance the treatment and rehabilitation of
wounded warriors. The committee notes that the Department has
been a leader in identifying innovative devices and
technologies that assist in rehabilitating wounded and injured
service members and ultimately help improve their lives and the
well being of the troops. Further, the committee is aware that
treating wounded and injured service members with physical
therapy is a critical component of a comprehensive medical
treatment plan. As such, the committee encourages the Secretary
of Defense to investigate new and emerging medical physical
therapy devices and technologies that could be used to improve
the rehabilitation of wounded warriors.
Recommendations for Cost Savings Under the TRICARE Pharmacy Program
The committee is committed to partnering with the
Department of Defense to reduce the cost of prescription drugs
under the TRICARE Pharmacy Program. The committee understands
that increasing use of generic drugs will reduce cost due to
the substantial difference in price between brand and generic
drugs. For the same drug product, generic drugs on average cost
20 percent less than the price of brand drugs. Additionally,
the committee notes that a number of high-use drugs are coming
off patent in the next 2 years, increasing the opportunity for
more cost-savings. Therefore, the committee urges the
Department to raise its generic drug dispensing rate.
Use of Simulation Technology in Medical Training
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
currently supplements combat trauma training with the use of
live animals, known as ``live tissue training'', when no
suitable simulation technology or alternative exists. The
committee notes that this advanced training has contributed
directly to the high survival rate for combat wounded service
members, which has increased significantly compared to survival
rates in past conflicts. According to the Department,
simulators currently lack sufficient realism and the ability to
replicate combat wounds and the associated emotional stressors
combat medics face on the battlefield. In addition, simulators
require rigorous verification and validation, which can only be
achieved through empirical data collection. The committee also
notes that the Department's use of live tissue training is
strictly regulated by a number of Federal laws and policies,
and is accredited by the Association for the Assessment and
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, an international non-
profit organization that promotes the humane use of animals in
science.
On September 5, 2008, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics established the Use of
Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint Analysis
Team (ULAMET JAT) to address the use of live animals for DOD
medical readiness training. ULAMET JAT, in its final report,
found that several critical, high stakes medical procedures
cannot be taught at present using simulation, including the
treatment of certain penetrating chest wounds, amputation, and
hemostasis. ULAMET JAT further noted in its final report that
``live animal training is the singular opportunity to
experience management of injuries in a living system prior to
deployment to a combat zone. The next opportunity to use these
skills very likely will be treating combat wounded.'' ULAMET
JAT's final report also made nine recommendations related to
the Department's policies on the use of animals in combat
trauma training and plans to validate and adopt alternatives as
they become viable, including simulation technologies.
The committee believes that the use of animals in combat
trauma training remains appropriate for critical, high-risk
medical procedures, until such time that alternatives are
developed, to provide combat medics an equal or better training
experience that more closely replicates the combat wounds and
emotional stressors encountered on the battlefield. However,
the committee believes that the Department should continue to
aggressively pursue alternatives to the use of live animals in
combat trauma training.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to finalize and implement a strategy for the development of
future technology to further refine, reduce, and replace the
use of live animals in medical education and training. This
implementation strategy should leverage the Department's
science and technology and research, development, testing, and
evaluation organizations, as well as private industry, to
develop additional advanced training simulators and training
aids, including animal-alternative training, to offer the most
realistic, practical, transferable, and cost-effective training
to all medical personnel. The Secretary is further directed to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, on this implementation
strategy and the status of the recommendations contained within
ULAMET JAT's final report.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits
Section 701--Annual Enrollment Fees for Certain Retirees and Dependents
This section would express the sense of Congress that
career members of the uniformed services and their families
make extraordinary sacrifices to protect freedom for all
Americans and that those sacrifices constitute pre-payment for
health care during retirement. This section would also limit
any annual increase in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees to the
amount equal to the percentage by which retiree pay is
increased beginning October 1, 2012.
Section 702--Provision of Food to Certain Members and Dependents Not
Receiving Inpatient Care in Military Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide food and beverages at no cost to certain individuals
receiving outpatient medical care at a military treatment
facility, or is a family member providing care to an infant
receiving inpatient medical care at a military treatment
facility.
Section 703--Behavioral Health Support for Members of the Reserve
Components of the Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide access to mental health assessments to members of the
Reserve Components during scheduled unit training and
assemblies. In addition, the Secretary would be required to
provide psychological health programs and training on suicide
prevention and post-suicide response.
Section 704--Transition Enrollment of Uniformed Services Family Health
Plan Medicare-Eligible Retirees to TRICARE for Life
This section would prohibit a Medicare eligible military
retiree from enrolling in the managed care program of a
designated provider after September 30, 2012.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Section 711--Unified Medical Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a unified medical command to provide medical services
to the Armed Forces and other health care beneficiaries of the
Department of Defense as defined in chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code. This section would also require the
Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan to establish a
unified medical command.
Section 712--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Future
Electronic Health Records Program
This section would limit the amount of funds the Secretary
of Defense may obligate or expend for future electronic health
programs until 30 days after the date that the Secretary
submits a report to the congressional defense committees that
addresses: the architecture to guide the transition of the
electronic health records of the Department of Defense to a
future state that is cost-effective and interoperable; a
process for selecting investments in information technology;
the report required by section 715 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383); and the effectiveness of the Interagency Program Office.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 721--Review of Women-Specific Health Services and Treatment for
Female Members of the Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a comprehensive review on the availability, efficacy,
and adequacy of health care services for female members of the
Armed Forces. The results of the review shall be submitted to
the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2012.
Section 722--Comptroller General Reviews of Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Project
This section would reduce the frequency of reviews
conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States as
required by section 1701 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
Section 723--Comptroller General Report on Contracted Health Care
Staffing for Military Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a review of the contracting practices
used by the military departments to provide health care
professional services to members of the Armed Forces,
dependents, and retirees. The Comptroller General is required
to submit the findings of this review to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2013.
Section 724--Treatment of Wounded Warriors
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, for rapid clinical evaluation and
deployment of novel treatment strategies for wounded service
members with an emphasis on musculo-skeletal injuries.
Section 725--Cooperative Health Care Agreements
This section would add $500,000 to the Defense Health
Program for cooperative health care agreements between military
installations and local or regional health care systems.
Section 726--Prostate Cancer Imaging Research Initiative
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense Health Program for prostate cancer
imaging research.
Section 727--Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and
Traumatic Brain Injury
This section would add $2,000,000 to the Defense Health
Program for the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to enhance efforts to
disseminate post-deployment mental health information.
Section 728--Collaborative Military-Civilian Trauma Training Programs
This section would add $3,000,000 to the Defense Health
Program for collaborative military-civilian trauma training
programs between military installations and local or regional
health care systems.
Section 729--Traumatic Brain Injury
This section would add $1,000,000 to the Defense Health
Program to develop national medical guidelines regarding the
post-acute rehabilitation of individuals with traumatic brain
injury.
Section 730--Competitive Programs for Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Disorders
This section would add $5,000,000 to the Defense Health
Program to support a competitive program for translational
research centers tasked with addressing alcohol and substance
abuse issues.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues its robust oversight of the
acquisition system of the Department of Defense and closely
monitors implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and the Improve
Acquisition Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-383)). The committee
recommends several authorities to assist the DOD in managing
contracts in support of contingency operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq. The committee
also includes a provision to require sustainment planning
earlier in the development of a weapon system with the intent
to reduce total-ownership costs and improve system performance.
The committee addresses a variety of other matters of
acquisition policy, to include matters related to the
industrial base and strategic materials.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acquisition Involving Federal Prison Industries
The committee continues to be concerned that in
implementing section 827 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) the Department of
Defense (DOD) is not complying with the intent of the law. The
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 required the
Secretary of Defense to: review the list of product categories
used in complying with section 827 of Public Law 110-181 to
ensure that these categories contain similar market
participants and are consistent with the need to protect the
Department's access to the commercial market; to establish
consistent dates for the publication of an updated list; and to
notify industry of such dates. In the same report, the
committee also directed the Secretary to conduct a
comprehensive review of contract awards made to Federal Prison
Industries (FPI) to ensure that non-competitive awards are not
being made to FPI inappropriately. The committee directs the
Secretary to brief the congressional defense committee on the
progress of the review and any changes made to DOD policy,
regulation or processes determined to be necessary as a result
of the review by July 30, 2011.
Aircraft Specialty Metal Content
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, for each
military unique aircraft and engine procured by the Department
of Defense in fiscal year 2012, to assess the extent to which
such aircraft or engine includes specialty metal not melted or
produced in the United States. The Secretary of Defense should
submit a report of the findings of the assessment to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by October 30, 2012. The assessment should include a
description by aircraft or engine type of the average amount of
specialty metal contained in such aircraft or engine that was
not melted or produced in the United States, expressed as a
percentage of the total specialty metal content of the aircraft
or engine, and an itemized description of the use of specialty
metal not melted or produced in the United States for each
aircraft or engine type, including specific references to the
exceptions provided by section 2533b of title 10, United States
Code, per component or subsystem containing specialty metal not
melted or produced in the United States.
Army Contract Bundling
The committee is concerned that Army contracting officers
are consolidating contracts, particularly for base support
functions, which have traditionally been provided by small
businesses. The committee believes that providing business
opportunities to small businesses, including those owned by
veterans and service-disabled veterans, is critical to our
national economy and to the local communities in which Army
installations are located. The committee is concerned that
consolidation of contracts currently awarded to small and
disadvantaged businesses may be a result of a shortfall of Army
contracting personnel and may result in negative effects in the
long-term. The committee is aware that section 313 of the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240) states that
``the head of a federal agency may not carry out an acquisition
strategy that includes a consolidation of contract requirements
of the federal agency with a total value of more than
$2,000,000, unless the senior procurement executive or Chief
Acquisition Officer for the federal agency, before carrying out
the acquisition strategy (A) conducts market research; (B)
identifies any alternative contracting approaches that would
involve a lesser degree of consolidation of contract
requirements; (C) makes a written determination that the
consolidation of contract requirements is necessary and
justified; (D) identifies any negative impact by the
acquisition strategy on contracting with small business
concerns; and (E) certifies to the head of the federal agency
that steps will be taken to include small business concerns in
the acquisition strategy.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to review Department of the Army contracting actions to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the Small Business Jobs Act
of 2010, and to brief the congressional defense committees on
the findings of the review by December 1, 2011. The review
shall include an assessment of the Army's processes to allow
opportunities for small businesses to provide goods and
services in response to Army requirements, and shall identify
challenges facing the Army acquisition workforce, including any
shortage of trained personnel to administer contracts.
Beryllium Stockpile Modernization
Since 2005, the Department of Defense has supported a
public-private partnership for the construction of a modern
high purity beryllium refinery under title 3 of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-774). High purity
beryllium has been identified as ``both a strategic and
critical material'' by the Department of Defense Strategic
Materials Protection Board.
With the beryllium refinery currently starting production,
the committee encourages the Department to reevaluate and
modernize its beryllium inventory in the National Defense
Stockpile. Much of the beryllium currently in the stockpile is
either obsolete or in a non-economic form. The committee
encourages the Department to consider upgrading its beryllium
inventory, in accordance with the recommendation of the former
National Materials Advisory Board, to a rotating buffer
stockpile which will enable the forms of beryllium in the
stockpile to be updated on a continual basis. Such an approach
would ensure that the stockpile always contains the grades of
beryllium needed to meet critical defense needs and does not
become obsolete.
Common Database for Tracking Contracts and Contractor Personnel in Iraq
and Afghanistan
Section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by section
813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of State, and the Administrator, United States Agency
for International Development (USAID) to enter into a
memorandum of understanding regarding matters relating to
contracts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. Among the matters to be addressed in this
memorandum, section 861 of Public Law 110-181 required the
agencies to identify and implement a common database for
tracking contracts and contractor personnel in Iraq and
Afghanistan across the three agencies. In response, the
agencies agreed through a series of memoranda of understanding
to use the Department of Defense's Synchronized Predeployment
Operational Tracker (SPOT) system as the common database.
The committee is concerned that, while progress has been
made, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and
USAID have still not fully implemented the requirements of
section 861 of Public Law 110-181. The committee is pleased to
note that the SPOT database has been modified to accept
aggregate-level data on the number of personnel employed by
nongovernmental organizations (NGO), alleviating the concerns
of the NGOs that providing the U.S. Government detailed
personal information for their Iraqi and Afghan employees puts
the neutrality of the NGOs at risk and endangers the safety and
security of these local national employees. The committee
emphasizes that the statute only requires an accounting of
total numbers of personnel, unless those personnel are
performing private security functions. However, the committee
remains concerned that 4 years after enactment of section 861
the SPOT database still does not include all of the information
required, including basic financial information on contracts in
Iraq and Afghanistan and the number of personnel killed or
wounded while working on such contracts. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense, the Department of State,
and USAID to work together to quickly resolve these outstanding
statutory requirements.
The Government Accountability Office and the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction have stressed
to the committee that a complete and fully functional common
database would not only improve interagency coordination and
management of contracts, but also improve transparency,
oversight, and audits of Government spending. The committee
agrees, and emphasizes that an accurate and complete common
database is not only required by section 861 of Public Law 110-
181, but is also in the best interest of the agencies,
Congress, and the public.
Competition in Construction Acquisition Programs
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has inappropriately advocated a construction acquisition
program that values speed in execution over savings. The
committee notes that the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
has awarded a global Multiple Award Task Order Contract, which
may serve to expedite construction processes but also creates
barriers to competition, increases the overall cost to
construction, and may aggregate the overall risk to the
project. While this contracting approach is appropriate in some
emergency situations that require speed in execution, the
committee believes that this approach is inappropriate for
routine construction requirements.
The committee is concerned that construction contracts such
as the Navy's global Multiple Award Task Order Contract impede
the Department in receiving the best construction contract
pricing because it does not allow consideration of locally
based, task order type construction contracts. Furthermore, the
committee is concerned that the Department is not complying
with congressional intent to foster the participation of small
business concerns as prime contractors, subcontractors, and
suppliers, and may not be in compliance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations regarding small business concerns and
contract bundling determination and justification.
The committee believes that the Department should minimize
barriers to competition and ensure the widest participation of
construction contractors to the military construction programs
in order to ensure best value for the taxpayer. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review
of this issue and provide a report on the findings to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2011. The review
shall include, as a minimum:
(1) A cost benefit analysis of the regional task
order construction contracts compared with a locally
based, task order contract or a single construction
project acquisition process. Such an assessment should
include a review of potential construction contractors
that are eliminated from competition and the potential
savings that would be expected by an expanded
contractor field participating in the construction
acquisition process;
(2) An assessment of the programs or policies to
determine if there are statutory or regulatory barriers
in providing a locally based construction contract;
(3) An assessment of the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command's Multiple Award Task Order Contract to
determine compliance with Federal Acquisition
Regulations related to contract bundling and small
business considerations; and
(4) An assessment on the construction contract
bundling definitions to determine whether an expansion
of the definition is appropriate to ensure small
business equities are adequately protected.
Cost Escalators in Major Weapons Systems Life Cycle Cost Estimations
The committee is aware that cost escalators such as
inflation, geopolitical risk, and market influences affect
long-term cost considerations for major weapons systems. The
committee believes that accurate appraisals of life cycle cost
escalations, based on current and reliable economic indicators,
are critical to effective programmatic evaluation and overall
efficiency. The committee is concerned that methods currently
employed by the Department of Defense to assess the costs of
acquiring, developing, producing, operating, sustaining, and
disposing of major weapons systems, their subsystems, and
components are insufficient to produce realistic life cycle
cost assessments. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the Department's
methods for estimating the life cycle costs of major weapons
programs, including its standards and procedures for assessing
and maintaining currency of cost escalators, and to brief the
congressional defense committees on the findings of that review
on, or before, September 30, 2011.
Defense Contract Audit Agency Improvements
The committee is concerned over the continuing staffing
shortages and audit backlogs experienced by the Defense
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which have resulted in
significant delays in conducting audits and could negatively
impact the acquisition process. Not only do delays hinder the
Federal Government's ability to recoup any monies owed to it,
the delays also potentially limit competition by limiting the
ability of companies to participate in the Federal Government
contracting process. The committee has heard from small,
medium, and large contractors regarding the lack of timeliness
of audits and the decreasing quality of those audits. In
particular, contractors have voiced concern over the
elimination of ``inadequate-in-part'' findings in favor of the
use of ``pass-fail'' audits which do not distinguish between
minor and major violations. The committee is aware that
unintended consequences may result from such actions.
Contractors have informed the committee that it may take
several months, or years, for DCAA to revalidate the
corrections a contractor has taken to fix any inadequacies
found in a contractor's business system; such delays affect the
ability of contractors to receive payment on current contracts
or to submit bids on future contracts, as they may be deemed
non-responsive if their systems have not been approved.
The committee believes that improved communication is one
step to addressing the problems that contractors have raised
and commends DCAA for publishing a revised ``rules of
engagement'' which encourages timely and meaningful
communication with contractors regarding scope and any initial
findings. In addition, the committee is aware that DCAA has
undertaken other efforts aimed at improving the collaboration
between DCAA and the Defense Contract Management Agency and to
better realign the resources between the two agencies. While
the committee commends DCAA for taking these steps to improve
its audit capabilities, the committee is concerned that as part
of the Secretary of Defense's efficiencies initiative, DCAA has
been tasked to reduce administrative support staff and
revalidate its requirement for additional auditors over the
next 5 years. The committee cautions the Secretary that
although short-term savings may be generated by a reduction in
staff support, it may result in hampering efforts to improve
DCAA performance and may actually result in an increase of
costs to the Department.
The committee directs the Director of the Defense Contract
Audit Agency to review the decision to eliminate the use of
inadequate-in-part findings in favor of instituting a pass-fail
standard, and to make recommendations for improvements in the
timeliness of the evaluation and the re-evaluation of
contractor business systems. In addition, the Director should
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by
December 15, 2011 on the results of the evaluation as well as
the recommendations to improve timeliness, reduce backlog, and
improve audit quality.
Nunn-McCurdy Breach Due to a Quantity Reduction
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for fiscal year
2012 that would amend section 2433a of title 10, United States
Code, to reduce some of the requirements the Department must
perform in the event it is determined that a critical cost
threshold breach (referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy breach) was
caused primarily by changes in the quantity of items to be
procured. The proposal would eliminate the requirement for
written certification by the Secretary of Defense to Congress
that, among other things, continuation of the program is
essential to national security, there are no lower cost
alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable
capability to meet the requirement, and the new cost estimates
for the program have been deemed reasonable by the Director of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE).
The committee is aware that in order to make the
determination that the breach was caused primarily by changes
in quantity of the items to be procured, the Director of
Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses would still be
required to conduct a root cause analysis. Additionally, the
Director of CAPE would still be required to quantify the cost
impact of the causal effects. Therefore, the committee believes
that little efficiency would be gained by the Department's
proposal and that the Secretary's certification and delivery of
the root cause analysis and supporting reassessment
documentation to Congress is not unduly burdensome and is
necessary for congressional oversight. Moreover, in the event
that a program's cost increases enough to trigger a Nunn-
McCurdy breach, the committee believes that the Secretary is
obligated to determine whether there are lower cost
alternatives to the program which would provide acceptable
capability, regardless of the underlying reason for the cost
increase. Therefore, the committee has not included this
proposed provision in this Act.
Pilot Programs for Rapid Acquisition of Information Technology
The committee is encouraged by Department of Defense
efforts to develop a rapid acquisition process for information
technology (IT) as required by section 804 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84). The committee understands that creating and implementing
the processes and structures to manage complex IT systems is a
deliberate process, but should nonetheless allow for the
flexibility to experiment with various options before codifying
the result. The committee is concerned that the current
development process has limited the ability to conduct pilot
projects that would provide real-world experience with
different management options and has unnecessarily slowed down
IT acquisition reform.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to
expand the number and types of pilot projects it conducts to
inform the current acquisition reform process. For example,
pilot projects should be expanded beyond business systems to
include other existing programs, such as the Joint Space
Operations Center Mission System or the Navy's Next Generation
Enterprise Network. The committee believes that this could
provide information to show how rapid IT acquisition could
function for command and control systems or enterprise data
services.
Small Business Subcontracting Goals
The committee notes that while current statutes and
regulations require set-asides for small business subcontracts,
prime contractors are prohibited from accounting for the total
dollar amount flowing to small businesses. Currently, if a
contractor that is not a small business is identified as the
primary first-tier subcontractor, a prime contractor is
prevented from reporting any of the other subcontract dollars
that may flow to small businesses; this occurs regardless of
whether small business subcontractors comprise either the
remainder of the first tier or all other subcontracting tiers.
The committee believes that allowing prime contractors to
report small business subcontracting at all tiers would
demonstrate the full extent of small business participation on
Department of Defense contracts. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to develop procedures for
fully accounting for small business participation at all tiers
on a Department of Defense contract, and to publish such
procedures in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation if the
Secretary determines that to be necessary to fully implement
such procedures. The Department shall ensure that the
procedures fully account for small business participation, but
do not permit duplicate reporting of small business
participation. The Department shall provide to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services a copy of the subcontracting accounting procedures and
any proposed regulation by March 30, 2012.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Section 801--Requirements Relating to Core Logistics Capabilities for
Milestone A and Milestone B and Elimination of References to Key
Decision Points A and B
This section would amend section 2366a and 2366b of title
10, United States Code, to require the Milestone Decision
Authority to certify that a preliminary analysis of core
logistics capabilities for each major weapons system has been
performed as entrance criteria for entering the technology
development phase of a major defense acquisition program
(milestone A) and that the core logistics requirements and
associated sustaining workloads for the weapons system have
been determined as entrance criteria for entering the
engineering and manufacturing development phase (milestone B).
This section also would require certification that relevant
sustainment criteria and alternatives were sufficiently
evaluated and addressed in the initial capabilities document to
support an analysis of alternatives and the development of key
performance parameters for sustainment of the program
throughout its projected life cycle. Furthermore, this section
would require certification that life-cycle sustainment
planning has identified and evaluated relevant sustainment
costs through development, production, operation, sustainment,
and disposal of the program, and any alternatives, and that
such costs are reasonable and have been accurately estimated.
The committee is aware that the Secretary issued formal
guidance on the operation of the defense acquisition system on
October 18, 2010, which directed space systems to be subject to
milestone A and milestone B requirements. Therefore, this
section also would strike references to ``key decisions
points'' in section 2366a and 2366b of title 10, United States
Code.
Section 802--Revision to Law Relating to Disclosures to Litigation
Support Contractors
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
include a new section relating to the disclosure of
confidential commercial, financial or proprietary information,
technical data, or other privileged information to a litigation
support contractor for the sole purpose of providing litigation
support. This section would require the litigation support
contractor to execute a contract with the Government agreeing
to or acknowledging that any information furnished will be used
only for the purpose stated in the contract, that the
litigation support contractor will take all precautions
necessary to protect the sensitive information, that the
sensitive information will not be used by the litigation
support contractor to compete against the third party for
contracts, and that a violation of any of the above would be
basis for the Government to terminate the contract. This
section would also repeal a superseded provision in section
2320 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 803--Extension of Applicability of the Senior Executive
Benchmark Compensation Amount for Purposes of Allowable Cost
Limitations under Defense Contracts
This section would amend section 2324 of title 10, United
States Code, by expanding the existing executive compensation
cap to apply to any individual performing on a contract rather
than certain management employees. The committee is aware that
the Defense Contract Audit Agency has shown that there are
lower-level executives not subject to the cap and non-executive
employees who receive compensation in excess of the benchmark
compensation amount. The committee believes that this section
would reduce the risk of excessive individual compensation
charged to defense contracts.
Section 804--Supplier Risk Management
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
manage supplier risk by directing contracting personnel to use
a business credit reporting bureau, or other objective sources
of business information, to evaluate supplier risk on all
Department of Defense (DOD) contract actions. This section also
would require the use of automated, off-the-shelf products to
identify suppliers by location and to monitor suppliers for
events that may affect their performance, such as a merger or
acquisition, or bankruptcy filing.
The committee notes that while the Federal Acquisition
Regulation requires that Federal contracting officials
determine contractor responsibility prior to contract award,
adherence within the Department to this requirement has been
inconsistent, often varying both among, and within, individual
contracting offices. In addition, the evaluation of supplier
risk traditionally has been treated as a one-time event, rather
than an ongoing responsibility. As a result, DOD contracting
personnel frequently have limited or belated visibility into
changes occurring after contract award that could impact a
supplier's ability to meet their requirements.
The committee notes that commercial firms increasingly have
sought solutions to manage supplier risk throughout the
contract lifecycle. In addition, the committee is aware that
the Department of Veterans Affairs has employed a business
credit reporting system to assist its acquisition personnel
with contractor responsibility determinations. The committee
believes that such a supplier risk management initiative would
benefit the Department of Defense through cost avoidance (by
reducing its exposure to high-risk suppliers), increased
efficiency, and a greater return on investment.
The committee also believes that such a tool could be
implemented in a manner that focuses on those suppliers that
are most likely to be a risk, and could also allow the
Department of Defense to evaluate supplier risk with lower-tier
suppliers.
Section 805--Extension of Availability of Funds in the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
This section would make technical amendments to section
1705 of title 10, United States Code, the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The committee notes that
this section would enable all funds credited, transferred,
appropriated, or deposited to the DAWDF to remain available for
expenditure in the fiscal year for which it is credited and the
2 succeeding fiscal years.
Section 806--Defense Contract Audit Agency Annual Report
This section would require the Director of the Defense
Contract Audit Agency to submit an annual report that
summarizes its audit activities during the previous fiscal
year, including significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies,
a statistical table showing the total number of audit reports,
the length of time taken for each audit, and the questioned
dollar value, as well as recommendations for corrective
actions. The report also would include a summary of any backlog
of pending contractor audits and a rationale for the cause of
the backlog. This section would require the annual report to be
provided to the congressional defense committees by March 30 of
each year and be made available on a public website within 60
days after receipt of the report by Congress. The committee
believes that this section would increase transparency and
accountability, and facilitate congressional oversight of the
Defense Contract Audit Agency.
Subtitle B--Amendements to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Section 811--Calculation of Time Period Relating to Report on Critical
Changes in Major Automated Information Systems
This section would amend the requirement for when a
critical change report would be needed for a Major Automated
Information System (MAIS). Currently, a report is required when
a MAIS investment has failed to achieve a full deployment
decision within 5 years after funds were first obligated for
the program. This section would amend that to require a
critical change report within 5 years after contract award.
This section would also specify that any time under which the
contract award is under protest would not be counted against
this 5-year limit.
Section 812--Change in Deadline for Submission of Selected Acquisition
Reports from 60 to 45 days
This section would amend section 2432(f) of title10, United
States Code, to require the comprehensive annual Selected
Acquisition Reports to be delivered to Congress not later than
45 days after the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year.
The committee believes that this will enhance congressional
oversight.
Section 813--Extension of Sunset Date for Certain Protests of Task and
Deliver Order Contracts
This section would amend section 4106(f) of title 41,
United States Code, to extend the sunset date to September 20,
2016. The committee is aware that section 843 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) temporarily expanded the Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) jurisdiction to hear bid protests by authorizing
it to hear protests on task and delivery orders valued in
excess of $10.0 million. The authority was provided with a
sunset in 2011 in order to allow Congress to evaluate the
effectiveness of the expanded jurisdiction and gauge the impact
of increased workload on GAO. Section 825 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) extended the sunset date for bid protests on task
and delivery orders for defense acquisitions until September
30, 2016. However, section 825 did not address civilian agency
acquisitions.
Section 814--Clarification of Department of Defense Authority To
Purchase Right-Hand Drive Passenger Sedans
This section would amend section 2253 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify the cost threshold of $30,000 per
vehicle applies specifically to right-hand drive passenger
sedans and does not apply to right-hand drive vehicles such as
ambulances, fire trucks, or buses.
Section 815--Amendment Relating to Buying Tents, Tarpaulins, or Covers
from American Sources
This section would amend section 2533a of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the domestic source requirement
for tents, tarpaulins, or covers includes the materials and
components of tents, tarpaulins, or covers.
Section 816--Para-Aramid Fibers and Yarns
This section would eliminate the authority of the Secretary
of Defense to procure articles containing para-aramid fibers
and yarns manufactured in certain foreign countries, by
repealing section 807 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1999 (Public Law 105-261).
This section also would prohibit the Department of Defense from
issuing a solicitation requiring proposals submitted pursuant
to such solicitation to include the use of para-aramid fibers
and yarns.
Section 817--Repeal of Sunset of Authority to Procure Fire Resistant
Rayon Fiber from Foreign Sources for the Production of Uniforms
This section would make permanent the authority to procure
fire resistant rayon fiber for the production of uniforms from
foreign sources by striking subsection (f) of section 829 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), as amended by section 821 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383).
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of Contingency
Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan
Section 821--Restrictions on Awarding Contracts in Support of
Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan to Adverse Entities
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to void a
contract, or require the prime contractor to void a subcontract
under a contract, in support of contingency operations in the
Republic of Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, if the
Secretary determines that a foreign entity or foreign
individual performing on the contract, or a task or delivery
order, is directly engaged in hostilities or is substantially
supporting forces that are engaged in hostilities against the
U.S. or its coalition partners.
Section 822--Authority To Use Higher Thresholds for Procurements in
Support of Contingency Operations
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to apply
a simplified acquisition threshold of $1.0 million and micro-
purchase threshold of $25,000 for contracting activities
supporting contingency operations in the Republic of Iraq or
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, regardless of the location
of the contracting activity.
Section 823--Authority To Examine Records of Foreign Contractors
Performing Contracts in Support of Contingency Operations in Iraq or
Afghanistan
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
examine the records of a foreign contractor, or a foreign
subcontractor, performing a contract in support of contingency
operations in the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. This authority would not apply if the contract was
being performed by a contractor or a subcontractor that is a
foreign government, or agency of a foreign government, or if
precluded by applicable laws. This section also would require
the Secretary to issue guidance, not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, to implement this section.
Section 824--Definitions
This section would define certain terms used in this
subtitle.
Subtitle D--Defense Industrial Base Matters
Section 831--Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base Pilot Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees
assessing the defense industrial base pilot program of the
Department of Defense by March 1, 2012.
Section 832--Department of Defense Assessment of Industrial Base for
Potential Shortfalls
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the U.S. industrial base to identify
potential gaps that might affect military readiness. Such
assessment would be required within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. In addition, the Comptroller General of
the United States would be required to review the Secretary of
Defense's assessment, including completeness of the report and
the reasonableness of the methodology and recommendations.
The Department of Defense relies on thousands of suppliers
to ensure that it has the weapons, supporting equipment, and
raw materials it needs to support current and future conflicts
against conventional opponents. However, the committee is
concerned that increasing globalization in the defense industry
presents uncertainty in the ability of the United States to
maintain a reliable and sufficient supplier base in the event
of such conflicts. In addition, defense industry prime
contractors are relying more on subcontractors, including
commercial suppliers, which can limit the visibility into the
lower tiers of the supplier base. The committee notes that
studies by the Government Accountability Office have found that
the Department lacks a framework and consistent approach for
managing supplier base concerns such as counterfeit parts in
the supply chain, and reliance on rare earth materials from the
People's Republic of China in military equipment and systems.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the Department has
not taken steps to identify supplier-base availability for
defense needs beyond a 5-year time frame. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to address these
deficiencies in the required report and to provide a specific
assessment of the vulnerabilities posed to defense systems as a
result of potential counterfeiting of sub-components
manufactured in China.
Section 833--Comptroller General Assessment of Government Competition
in the Department of Defense Industrial Base
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct an assessment of government mandated
and supported competition in the Department of Defense
industrial base. This section also would require the
Comptroller General to submit a report on the findings and
recommendations of the assessment to the chairmen and ranking
members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2012.
Section 834--Report on Impact of Foreign Boycotts on the Defense
Industrial Base
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to submit to the congressional defense
committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, not later than February
1, 2012, a report setting forth an assessment of the impact of
foreign boycotts on the defense industrial base. The report
shall include a summary of foreign boycotts that posed a
material risk to the defense industrial base from January 2008
to the date of enactment of this Act; the apparent objectives
of each such boycott; an assessment of the harm to the defense
industrial base as a result of each such boycott; an assessment
of the sufficiency of the efforts of the Department of Defense
and Department of State to mitigate the material risks of each
such foreign boycott on the defense industrial base; and
recommendations to reduce the material risks of foreign
boycotts. This section also would prohibit the Comptroller
General from publicly disclosing the names of any person,
organization, or entity involved in, or affected by, such
boycotts without express written permission.
Section 835--Rare Earth Material Inventory Plan
This section would require the Administrator, Defense
Logistics Agency Strategic Materials to develop a plan to
establish an inventory of rare earth materials needed to ensure
the long-term availability of such materials. Among other
matters, the Administrator would be required to identify and
describe the steps necessary to create an inventory of rare
earth materials to support national defense requirements and
ensure reliable sources, provide a detailed cost-benefit
analysis of creating such an inventory, provide an analysis of
the potential market effects associated with creating such an
inventory, and identify and describe the steps necessary to
develop and maintain a competitive multi-source supply chain
for rare earth materials. This section would require the
Administrator to submit the plan to the Secretary of Defense
within 180 days following the date of enactment of this Act,
and require the Secretary to determine whether to execute the
plan. The Secretary would be required to submit that
determination, along with the plan, to the congressional
defense committees within 90 days of receiving the plan from
the Administrator.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 841--Miscellaneous Amendments to Public Law 111-383 Relating to
Acquisition
This section would make three amendments to the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) relating to acquisition. This section would strike
the requirement in section 804 that the acquisition process for
rapid fielding of capabilities in response to urgent
operational needs may only be applied for capabilities that can
appropriately be acquired under fixed price contracts. This
section also would strike the requirement in section 812 for
the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance requiring the use of
manufacturing readiness levels as a basis for measuring,
assessing, reporting, and communicating manufacturing readiness
and risk. This section also would amend section 1073 by
allowing, rather than directing, the Secretary of Defense to
establish a defense research and development rapid innovation
program.
Section 842--Procurement of Photovoltaic Devices
This section would amend section 846 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) to clarify that, for the purposes of that section,
the Department of Defense is deemed to own a photovoltaic
device if the device is installed on Department of Defense
property or in a facility owned or leased by or for the
Department of Defense. This section also would clarify the
definition of photovoltaic devices.
Section 843--Clarification of Jurisdiction of the United States
District Courts To Hear Bid Protest Disputes Involving Maritime
Contracts
This section would amend section 1491(b) of title 28,
United States Code, by establishing the U. S. Court of Federal
Claims as the exclusive Federal court forum for bid protests.
Section 844--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel
Procurement Requirement
This section would amend section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act (42 U.S.C. 17142) to exempt the
Department of Defense from the requirements related to
contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Conduct of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review
The committee found the completeness of the 2008
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review (QRMR) lacking. In
addition, the accompanying report delivered to Congress in
January 2009 failed to comply with the requirements of section
118b of title 10, United States Code. Rather than using the
QRMR as an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive assessment of
the roles and missions of the Armed Forces with the intent to
identify capability gaps and areas of unnecessary duplication,
the 2008 review appeared to simply endorse the status quo.
Furthermore, rather than conducting a complete review, the
Secretary of Defense chose to only examine select areas of
interest. The review only focused on the Department's planned
investments to meet asymmetric challenges and did little to
evaluate the conventional force structure or need for legacy
hardware programs. The committee notes that many of the
conclusions of the review have proven faulty, such as the
determination that assigning the C-27J to both the Air Force
and the Army provided the ``most value to the joint force.''
The committee also notes that the Department has not complied
with the requirement in section 222 of title 10, United States
Code, to present the future-years budget by core mission areas.
The committee includes a provision elsewhere in this title that
would require the inclusion of budget justification materials
associated with the core competencies of the military services,
and would further require the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the sufficiency of the Department's budget
justification materials.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take a more
comprehensive approach to the 2011 QRMR and to comply with
congressional intent in conducting the review. The committee
believes the QRMR, if conducted as intended, would provide a
solid basis for reducing waste while also improving the joint
warfighting capability of the Department.
Influence of Budget on Quadrennial Defense Review
The committee has previously expressed concern regarding
the influence of defense budgets on the ``Quadrennial Defense
Review'' (QDR), conducted pursuant to section 118 of title 10,
United States Code. Section 118 requires this comprehensive
examination of the national defense strategy, force structure,
force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plans, and
other elements of the defense program and policies be conducted
every four years. Paragraph (b)(3) of section 118 requires that
that the QDR identify the budget plan that would be ``required
to provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the
full range of missions called for in that national defense
strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk.'' Likewise,
paragraph (b)(4) of section 118 requires that the QDR's
recommendations, ``are not constrained to comply with the
budget submitted to Congress by the President . . .''.
The committee notes that in the past representatives of the
Department of Defense have indicated that the QDR is not budget
constrained; rather, it is budget informed. While the committee
acknowledges that ultimately resources must shape any strategy,
the committee believes that the QDR should be based upon a
process unconstrained by budgetary influences so that such
influences do not determine or limit its outcome. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, to brief the committee no later than September 30,
2012 on the steps the Department will take during conduct of
the QDR in fiscal year 2013 to ensure that the next QDR
fulfills all statutory requirements, including those related to
budget plans, and in particular the steps that the Department
will take to ensure the QDR is not constrained to comply with
the budget submitted by the President pursuant to section 1105
of title 31, United States Code.
Information Operations and Strategic Communications
The committee continues to support information operations
(IO) and strategic communications (SC) as important tools for
countering enemy narratives, as well as engaging with the
global community. The committee is aware that the January 2011
Secretary of Defense memo on IO and SC has contributed
significantly to improving the management structure and
budgeting process for IO and SC functions within the Department
of Defense.
The committee believes that the realignment of IO and SC
responsibilities to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
is critical for breaking down the traditional organizational
stovepipes of IO and bridging those elements with the emerging
instruments of influence under SC. The committee also
recognizes the improvement of the budget justification material
related to IO and SC, which greatly improves the oversight and
management of those activities.
The committee also encourages the Department of Defense to
continue to pursue workforce development opportunities that
bring together diverse skill sets and career specialties. For
example, the Department should do more to integrate social
science skills, cultural intelligence, and human terrain
understanding to the IO and SC field. The committee also
believes that as the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluate joint SC
and IO training and education curricula, it ensures that it
maintains and sustains existing centers of excellence.
Management of Information Technology
The committee recognizes that the acquisition and
management of information technology (IT) systems and services
is highly complex. The budget request contained $38.4 billion
for IT alone, and included funds to develop items ranging from
avionics to logistics to command and control to desktop
computing. Managing such a complex enterprise has traditionally
been a challenge for the Department.
The committee is concerned that recent organizational
changes within the Department that are a part of the Secretary
of Defense's efficiency initiatives may in fact hamper
management of Department of Defense IT. For example, the
committee believes that the decision to eliminate core
management and oversight functions within the office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration and the Business Transformation Office appears to
have been made without adequate planning, or justification.
Furthermore, the rationale for eliminating these functions at a
time when IT reform and consolidation is being contemplated to
generate cost savings is counterintuitive to the committee.
The committee believes that the Department must maintain
responsibility and oversight of its IT programs as well as
sufficient numbers of experienced and trained acquisition
professionals if they are to succeed.
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence
The committee is aware that the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) has accredited a Cooperative Cyber Defense
Center of Excellence (CCD COE) to enhance the capability,
cooperation, and information sharing among NATO member nations
and partners in cyber defense through education, research and
development, lessons learned, and consultation. The Center
represents the main source of expertise in the field of
cooperative cyber defense within NATO and the committee
recognizes the importance of this organization in linking U.S.
and European initiatives to improve cyber defense capabilities.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to provide
more support to the Center by increasing the number of
personnel exchanges, and supporting additional cooperative
workshops and other initiatives. The committee believes that
this could help support our foreign partners build their own
cyber operations capabilities, as well as boost U.S. capacity
in this area.
Office of Cyberthreat Analysis
The committee is aware that the Defense Intelligence Agency
has established the Office of Cyberthreat Analysis to provide
an all-source analysis capability focused on threats in
cyberspace. The office provides a range of support functions to
the entire defense community, including: all-source defense
analysis of cyberthreats to the Nation; target development;
exercise planning; battle damage assessment; and
counterintelligence investigations and operations, including
supply chain risk management.
The committee is concerned that this office has not been
sufficiently staffed to complete the tasks assigned. For
instance, the growing importance of conducting supply chain
risk assessments and vulnerability assessments on specific
acquisition programs are likely to drive the needs for the
limited numbers of personnel, making it difficult to carry out
other missions. Therefore, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command to assess the
sufficiency of the workforce assigned to the Office of
Cyberthreat Analysis compared to the missions assigned to it.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence shall submit a
report on this assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 90 days
after the enactment of this Act.
Protection of Sensitive Information
The committee understands that numerous directives,
memoranda, and other instructions guide the policy and
processes of properly safeguarding information. The committee
believes one very important source of guidance is the June 2006
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum titled,
``Protection of Sensitive Agency Information'' (OMB Memorandum
M-06-16) as the memorandum directs government agencies to
emplace specific safeguards that conform with National
Institute of Standards and Technology procedures for the
protection of remote information.
The committee is concerned that the safeguards directed to
be emplaced have not been fully implemented or incorporated
into existing Department of Defense procedures. Accordingly,
the committee encourages the Department to review the guidance
directed in the OMB memorandum and ensure that those safeguards
are instituted within the Department of Defense.
Report on Contractors at the Defense Intelligence Agency
In subtitle D of title IX of this Act, the committee
recommends several provisions on total force management within
the Department of Defense, including section 934 which would
amend an annual reporting requirement by the Secretary of
Defense contained in section 115a of title 10, United States
Code, on defense manpower requirements, to include an estimate
for contractor requirements for support services. This
provision would facilitate an improved awareness of the
Department of Defense requirements being performed by
contractors.
The committee is particularly interested in understanding
the use of contractors by the defense intelligence community,
starting with the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the manpower
mix criteria used to determine which defense intelligence
functions should be performed by contractors and which
functions should be performed by military members or Government
civilians.
The committee, therefore, directs the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on how the Defense Intelligence
Agency plans to implement subtitle D of title IX of this Act by
December 9, 2011. The report also shall include an
identification of the current contractor workforce, current and
planned use of contractors by the Defense Intelligence Agency,
and the manpower mix criteria used to determine which defense
intelligence functions are performed by contractors and which
functions are performed by military members or Government
civilians. The report shall be provided in unclassified form,
but may include a classified annex if descriptions of the use
of contractors or criteria are classified.
Report on Increasing Competition for Space Launch
The committee is pleased that highly reliable space launch
vehicles in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
program have resulted in over 30 successful launches since
2002. However, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense should provide expanded opportunities for competition
in support of its space launch requirements, including
competition in the EELV program. The committee further believes
that the Department of Defense should establish clear criteria
that new providers of space launch capabilities would be
expected to meet in order to become qualified competitors for
launching defense payloads.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
the congressional defense committees with a report detailing
how it intends to incorporate new providers of space launch
capabilities into its space launch acquisition plans while
preserving mission assurance, identify potential cost savings,
and identify the criteria required for new entrants wishing to
bid on opportunities to provide launch services for defense
payloads.
Research and Development Assessments in Quadrennial Defense Review and
the Responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is
required every 4 years to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR), pursuant to section 118 of title 10, United States Code.
The QDR is intended to provide a strategic review of force
modernization plans and to define sufficient force
modernization plans necessary to execute successfully the full
range of missions called for in the national defense strategy.
The committee believes an essential element of any force
modernization plan is the research and development plan
necessary to deliver future capabilities. As well, while the
exact military capabilities required in 20 years may be
difficult to predict, adequate research and development in the
near-term creates options for decision makers in the long-term.
The committee believes the QDR was intended to identify such
prudent hedges against future, ill-defined threats. Therefore,
the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to identify
the assumptions used in future QDRs related to research and
development and the core capabilities relating to research,
development, test, and evaluation required to support the
national defense.
The committee also notes that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff has a key role in advising the Secretary on
requirements, programs, and budgets, and the committee believes
this role should include advice on research and development.
Specifically, paragraph (a)(4) of section 153 of title 10,
United States Code, requires the Chairman to advise the
Secretary on the priorities of the requirements identified by
the combatant commanders. The committee is aware that the
combatant commanders often include science and technology
priorities in their respective integrated priority lists. As a
result, the committee believes it is important for the Chairman
to include in his advice to the Secretary the research and
development needs of the combatant commanders and to maintain
situational awareness of technological innovations that could
pose challenges to U.S. national security.
Total Force Management
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's
recent focus on efficiencies without a thorough business case
analysis and risk assessment potentially undermines the
Department's ability to appropriately plan and budget for its
total manpower requirements. The committee believes that the
Department of Defense (DOD) should aggressively undertake a
more holistic approach to its requirements in order to achieve
the appropriate balance in its total workforce, rather than
managing simply to an arbitrary civilian authorization level.
Total force management would improve personnel requirements
determination and planning to facilitate decisions on which
sector is most appropriate to perform that requirement with
consideration of the distinct value of each component of the
plan, whether military (Active and Reserve Components),
civilian, or contractor personnel. For example, the military
provides an expeditionary capability with specialized training
in combat, combat support, and combat service support
capabilities; civilian personnel provide needed oversight and
direction, continuity of operations, and specialized enduring
skills that do not require expeditionary, combat, or combat-
related competencies; and contractor personnel provide
specialized skills and surge capabilities that do not require
the command and control or transparency to the public required
by military and civilian personnel.
The committee notes that several tools are available to
facilitate total force management decisions. These include the
strategic civilian human capital plan (10 U.S.C. 115b), service
contracting inventory (10 U.S.C. 2330a), inclusion of
contractor services support work in the annual budget displays
(10 U.S.C. 235), and the list of commercial activities required
by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (Public Law 105-
270). In addition, section 129, title 10, United State Code,
requires that the Department of Defense civilian workforce be
managed on the basis of workload rather than any arbitrary
constraints or limitations. Furthermore, the committee notes
that sections 2461 and 2463 of title 10, United States Code,
outline the procedures for the conversion of functions to
performance by either DOD civilian personnel or contractor
personnel; these procedures are tools that allow the Department
to ``right size'' its workforce where appropriate. The
committee notes that these tools should be used only in
response to changes in the Department's mission or if
insufficient strategic human capital planning was done prior to
workforce decisions being made initially.
Therefore, elsewhere in this title the committee includes a
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a total force management plan that would provide the
means to establish the appropriate mix of manpower, military,
civilian, and contractor personnel, to perform the mission of
the Department of Defense. Risk mitigation should take
precedence over cost when necessary to maintain appropriate
manpower to support the Department's operations and readiness
to perform the core missions of the Armed Forces.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Section 901--Revision of Defense Business System Requirements
This section would update the structure and process of the
defense business systems investment review boards, including
clarifying responsibilities based on recent reorganization
within the Department of Defense. This section would also
consolidate reporting by the Department of Defense Deputy chief
management officers and the reports required by the Chief
Management Officer of the military departments required by
section 908 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
Section 902--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps
This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy
as the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change
the title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and
Marine Corps. This section would formally recognize the
responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over
both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as
an equal partner with the Navy.
Subtitle B--Space Activities
Section 911--Notification Requirement for Harmful Interference to
Department of Defense Global Positioning System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a notification to Congress upon such a determination
that a space-based or terrestrial-based commercial
communications service will cause or is causing widespread
harmful interference with Global Positioning System (GPS)
receivers of the Department of Defense (DOD). The notification
would include a summary of the reasons for such harmful
interference, the entity causing the interference, and the
magnitude and duration of the interference.
The committee is aware that the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) issued a conditional order to a commercial
communications company on January 26, 2011, authorizing it to
provide broadband voice and data communications services that
potentially interfere with GPS. The committee recognizes that
the Armed Forces are highly dependent on GPS capabilities and
services. The committee believes that any space-based or
terrestrial-based commercial communications service that has
the potential to interfere with GPS should not receive final
authorization to provide service within the United States by
the FCC unless and until the potential interference with GPS is
resolved.
Such commercial services are planned to be transmitted from
40,000 land-based towers across the United States. The
committee understands, based on information received from the
Air Force, that the signal strength of such service is
estimated to be one billion times more powerful than the GPS
signal. Though the commercial service would broadcast on a
frequency adjacent to GPS, it may still overwhelm GPS
receivers, potentially causing a denial of service for millions
of users in the United States relying on GPS navigation and
timing services. Such users included the military, emergency
responders, maritime and aeronautical emergency communication
systems, banking transactions, air traffic and ground
transportation systems, and myriad commercial applications.
The committee understands that the Deputy Secretary of
Defense sent a letter to the Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission on January 12, 2011, highlighting the
``strong potential for interference to . . . critical national
security systems,'' and ``strongly recommend[ing] deferral of
final action on [the FCC order and authorization] until the
proper interference analysis and mitigation studies can be
conducted.''
The committee is aware of several other letters of concern
regarding potential GPS interference, including: a December 28,
2010, multi-agency memorandum to the Chairman of the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) signed by
officials from the military departments of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force, the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Department of the Interior, and Department of Homeland
Security; a January 12, 2011, letter to the Chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission from the Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Communications and Information; and a March 25,
2011, letter co-signed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and
the Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
The committee understands that the authorization of
commercial communications service is conditional ``upon the
completion of the process for addressing interference concerns
relating to GPS'' undertaken by a technical working group whose
analysis of potential interference with GPS devices and
recommendations to mitigate such interference is due to be
submitted to the FCC no later than June 15, 2011.
The committee is concerned about the impact on U.S.
national security resulting from potential harmful interference
with GPS. The committee recognizes the extent to which the
military is reliant on GPS and notes the military's current
inventory of nearly one million GPS receivers. Thousands of GPS
receivers are integrated into weapons systems, aircraft, ships,
and vehicles. GPS is crucial in such areas as blue force
tracking, precision munitions employment, combat search and
rescue, close air support, logistics, and communications.
The committee understands that the FCC did not conduct a
study on potential interference prior to the January 26, 2011,
order and authorization. The committee is disappointed that the
FCC proceeded with the order and authorization prior to any
study and resolution of the GPS interference issue.
Furthermore, the committee understands that the Department of
Defense has not determined whether it can mitigate the
interference and questions whether sufficient analysis and
mitigating measures can be identified and implemented by June
15, 2011. The committee believes the burden of proof for non-
interference should be placed on the commercial communications
company and believes the FCC should indefinitely postpone final
decision until the harmful interference issue has been
resolved, with the full coordination and approval of the
Department of Defense.
The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense of the
authority in section 2281 of title 10, United States Code,
which states that the Secretary ``may not agree to any
restriction on the Global Positioning System . . . that would
adversely affect the military potential of the Global
Positioning System.'' The committee intends to work with the
Secretary of Defense to mitigate the effects of any harmful
interference with GPS on the military.
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters
Section 921--Report on Implementation of Recommendations by Comptroller
General on Intelligence Information Sharing
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on actions taken to
implement the recommendation of the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report, ``Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance: Establishing Guidance, Timelines, and
Accountability for Integrating Intelligence Data Would Improve
Information Sharing'' (GAO-10-265NI). GAO recommends that the
Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the military services,
develop intelligence information sharing guidance, such as a
concept of operations, and to provide such direction and
prioritization to improve intelligence community information
sharing. In addition, this section directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to review the Under Secretary's
report to determine whether it is consistent with and adequate
to address its recommendation.
The committee is concerned about the extent to which
Department of Defense intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance efforts are managed in accordance with
overarching direction and priorities for sharing intelligence
information across the defense intelligence community. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to implement the
recommendation. The committee also requests that GAO provide it
with an update regarding its conclusions from this review as
soon as practicable.
Section 922--Insider Threat Detection
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program for enhanced information sharing protection
and insider threat mitigation for the information systems of
the Department of Defense in order to detect unauthorized
access to, use of, or transmission of, classified or controlled
unclassified information.
The committee is concerned with the acute damage to
national security of recent unauthorized releases of classified
information from the Department of Defense and other Government
information systems. The committee notes that the impact of
these releases will continue for many years, to the detriment
of existing operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
as well as the reputation and credibility of the United States
in international affairs now and in the future.
The committee recognizes that the Department is responding
seriously to this event and is implementing safeguards to
prevent such a breach again. While the Department should
continue to pursue technical security measures, the committee
is concerned that the human dimension is not receiving
sufficient attention. The committee therefore encourages the
Department to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the means by
which to detect, respond and mitigate the threat posed by
trusted persons inside the organization who would purposely
compromise the security of the network (otherwise known as the
``insider threat'').
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the
technological and procedural responses may be having a negative
impact on the productivity and effectiveness of forces
supporting ongoing operations in areas of hostility. The
committee cautions the Department to pay special consideration
in how technological or procedural fixes are implemented in
operational areas of hostility to ensure that these concerns do
not become a significant problem.
Subtitle D--Total Force Management
Section 931--General Policy for Total Force Management
This section would amend section 129a of title 10, United
States Code to require the Secretary of Defense to develop and
implement a total force management plan that would determine
the appropriate manpower mix of military (Active and Reserve
Components), civilian and contractor personnel necessary to
accomplish the mission of the Department of Defense (DOD).
Overall responsibility for establishing the policies and
procedures to implement such a plan would be given to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, with
responsibility for requirements determination, planning and
programming being given to the manpower and force structure
authorities for each DOD component.
The committee is aware that DOD Instruction 1100.2 requires
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to obtain a written statement from each requiring
official regarding decisions to contract for support. This
section would codify that requirement and also would require
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to ensure that the policies and procedures governing
the acquisition process are consistent with those developed to
implement the total force management plan. Furthermore, to
ensure that budget decisions are developed in line with these
policies, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) would be
required to justify in the annual budget submission any budget
decision that may inhibit implementation of the total force
management plan.
The committee notes that manpower and force structure
personnel should have a greater role in requirements
determination, planning, programming, and budgeting. This is
intended to ensure that all aspects of the Department of
Defense workforce (military, civilian and contractor personnel)
are utilized in a balanced and rational fashion.
Section 932--Revisions to Department of Defense Civilian Personnel
Management Constraints
This section would amend section 129 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that the civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense (DOD) are managed on the basis of
workload and in support of the total force management plan
developed in accordance with section 129a, as would be amended
by this Act. This change would reinforce the committee's
position that manpower requirements should be based on mission
requirements and not arbitrary cost savings that ignore the
workload needs of the DOD components.
Section 933--Additional Amendments Relating to Total Force Management
This section would amend section 113 of title 10, United
States Code, to include an accounting for contractors in the
Secretary of Defense annual report to Congress on expenditures,
work, and accomplishments of the Department of Defense. The
inclusion of contractors in this report would facilitate
improved awareness of the role of contractors in accomplishing
the mission of the Department. In addition, this section would
amend section 1597 of title 10, United States Code, to require
that the guidelines put in place related to civilian personnel
reductions comply with the total force management plan required
by section 129a, title 10, United States Code, as would be
amended by this act.
This section also would amend section 863 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383), to include considerations relating to
policy for total force management required by section 129a of
title 10, United States Code, in the implementation plan
required for establishment of requirements processes for the
acquisition of services. The committee believes that this is
necessary in order to align the processes for the acquisition
of services with the manpower requirements determination
process required by section 129a.
Section 934--Amendments to Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report
This section would amend section 115a of title 10, United
States Code, to revise the annual defense manpower requirements
report to include a projection of the annual Department of
Defense (DOD) civilian personnel requirements for the next
fiscal year, and the strength levels of the previous year. This
change reflects the recognition that DOD civilian personnel
should be managed by workload requirements, which may fluctuate
during a given year and should be accommodated as necessary. In
addition, this section would require the inclusion of an
estimate for contractor requirements for support services, as
outlined in each military department's service contractor
inventory as required by section 2330a of title 10, United
States Code. The inclusion of contractors in this report would
facilitate an improved awareness of the Department of Defense
requirements being performance by contractors.
Section 935--Revisions to Strategic Workforce Plan
This section would amend section 115b of title 10, United
States Code to achieve the following outcomes in Department of
Defense (DOD) civilian workforce planning requirements:
(1) Reduce costs associated with planning and allow
the Department to improve its implementation efforts by
moving from an annual to a biennial report;
(2) Align the workforce planning assessment period to
correspond with existing DOD budget and manpower
planning cycles upon which workforce requirements,
authorizations, and forecasts are based; and
(3) Require that the assessment of the appropriate
mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel is
aligned with the total force management plan developed
in accordance with section 129a, title 10, United
States Code, as would be amended by this Act.
While the committee recommends these changes in order to
align the Department's strategic civilian workforce plans with
existing budget and manpower planning structures and provide
time to implement planned strategies, it remains concerned that
the Department has not fully complied with the requirements
outlined in section 115b of title 10, United States Code.
According to a September 2010 report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO-10-814R), this could result in the
Department relying on ``incomplete information concerning the
size, composition and needs of the civilian workforce. In
particular, the Department may not be able to determine whether
its investment in strategies to improve the civilian workforce
is effective and efficient.'' Therefore, the committee urges
the Department to develop performance measures to assess its
progress and guide its civilian workforce planning.
Section 936--Technical Amendments to Requirement for Inventory of
Contracts for Services
This section would amend section 2330a(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to provide additional clarity regarding the
types of contracted services to be inventoried and the manner
in which contractor full-time equivalents are captured. In
addition, this section would more clearly delineate the
statutory responsibilities and roles in developing guidance and
implementing particular aspects of the statute. This section
also would direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
to develop and promulgate guidance specific to the review
requirements outlined in paragraph (e) of 2330a of title 10,
United States Code. This clarification is intended to ensure
that the Department of Defense's total force manpower
management equities are fully represented.
Section 937--Modification of Temporary Suspension of Public-Private
Competitions for Conversion of Department of Defense Functions to
Contractor Performance
This section would lift the temporary suspension of
Department of Defense public-private competitions that was
included in section 325 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Section 325
temporarily suspended the authority to initiate public-private
competitions until the Secretary of Defense provided a report
to Congress on the conduct of such competitions and certified
compliance with certain statutory requirements. This section
would eliminate the compliance certification and lift the
suspension 30 days after receipt by Congress of the Secretary
of Defense report, and after an assessment of the report is
conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States.
The committee notes that the moratorium already could have
been lifted if the Department had complied with the
requirements of Section 325 under the time frame outlined in
that section. However, the committee is taking this action to
ensure that the report is delivered promptly so that the
Department can reinstate the public-private competition process
once the reporting requirements are complied with.
Section 938--Preliminary Planning for Department of Defense Public-
Private Competitions
This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United
States Code, to place the responsibility to issue and maintain
guidance and procedures for preliminary planning for public-
private competitions with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness. Currently all elements of public-
private competitions are the responsibility of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. However, the committee believes that preliminary
planning for public-private competitions should include an
increased and more active role for the manpower and personnel
communities, which have greater expertise in determining
manpower requirements, whether military, civilian, or
contractor personnel. While the committee believes that the
manpower and personnel communities should remain actively
engaged throughout the entirety of the process, the conduct of
the acquisition component of the competition remains the
responsibility of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, which has the requisite
acquisition expertise. However, the committee recommends the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics realign responsibility for public-private
competitions from the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations
and Environment to the Director for Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy.
Section 939--Conversion of Certain Functions from Contractor
Performance to Performance by Department of Defense Civilian Employees
This section would amend section 2463 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the conversion of any inherently
governmental function to performance by Department of Defense
(DOD) civilian employees. The committee notes that this
requirement was not specifically included in section 2463 when
it was enacted originally because it was presumed that such
functions were not being performed by contractors. However, the
committee is aware that was a false presumption. For example,
according to a report by the Government Accountability Office,
``Defense Acquisitions: Further Action Needed to Better
Implement Requirements for Conducting Inventory of Service
Contract Activities, January 2011'', within the Department of
the Army, more than 2,000 contractor full-time equivalents are
performing work that is inherently governmental, and an
additional 45,934 Army contractors are performing activities
deemed closely associated with inherently governmental
functions. The committee finds this troubling and urges the
military services, particularly the Army, to convert such
functions immediately to performance by DOD civilian employees.
In addition, this section would require a cost analysis and
a savings differential before converting certain commercial
functions to performance by DOD civilian employees. This
requirement would be applied for the conversion of functions
that are not inherently governmental. This section also would
require procedures to be developed to notify a contractor of
the intent to insource a contract on which the contractor is
currently performing; a copy of the notification would be
provided to the congressional defense committees. The intent of
the notification is to provide fair notice to affected
contractors but not to delay or stop an insourcing initiative.
Section 940--Assessment of Appropriate Department of Defense and
Contractor Personnel for the Defense Medical Readiness Training
Institute
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the appropriate mix of military,
civilian, and contractor personnel to carry out mission and
functions of the Defense Medical Readiness Training Institute.
This assessment would be carried out in accordance with
sections 129 and 129a of title 10, United States Code, as would
be amended by this Act.
Subtitle E--Quadrennial Roles and Missions and Related Matters
Section 951--Transfer of Provisions Relating to Quadrennial Roles and
Missions Review
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
transfer the requirement for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to conduct an assessment of roles and missions of the
Armed Forces from section 118b to section 153, and to enhance
the Chairman's role in advising the Secretary of Defense on the
assignment of functions of the Armed Forces in order to obtain
maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
Section 952--Revisions to Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review
This section would amend section 118b of title 10, United
States Code, to enhance the requirements of the Quadrennial
Roles and Missions Review by requiring the review to include an
assessment of the functions and capabilities of the Department
of Defense and its major components to achieve the objectives
of the national defense strategy and the national military
strategy.
Section 953--Amendment to Presentation of Future-Years Budget and
Comptroller General Report on Budget Justification Material
This section would amend section 944 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to include the functions of each of the armed forces as
identified under the most recent Quadrennial Roles and Missions
Review pursuant to section 118b of title 10, United States
Code. This section also would require the Comptroller General
of the United States to review the sufficiency of Department of
Defense regulations, policies, and guidance governing the
construction of budget exhibits and to provide recommendations
to improve the consistency, clarity, accuracy, and completeness
of the Department of Defense's budget justification material.
Section 954--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Assessment of
Contingency Plans
This section would amend paragraph (b)(1) of section 153 of
title 10, United States Code, to require the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to Congress, as part of the
Chairman's assessment of risks under the National Military
Strategy submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of such
section, an assessment of the critical deficiencies and
strengths in force capabilities (including manpower, logistics,
intelligence, and mobility support) identified during the
preparation and review of contingency plans of each geographic
combatant commander, and assess the effect of such deficiencies
and strengths on meeting national security objectives, policy,
and strategic plans. The committee notes that the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff is already required to advise the
Secretary of Defense on such information, in accordance with
Department of Defense Directive 5100.01. This section would
further amend paragraph (b)(2) of section 153 of title 10,
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress a plan for mitigating a critical deficiency
in force capability for a contingency plan, as identified by
the Chairman in paragraph (b)(1) of such section, as amended.
Section 955--Quadrennial Defense Review
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
quadrennial defense review is a critical strategic document and
should be based upon a process unconstrained by budgetary
influences so that such influences do not determine or limit
its outcome. This section would also amend paragraph (4) of
section 118(b) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
each quadrennial defense review shall be conducted so as to
make recommendations that are not constrained to comply with
and are fully independent of the budget submitted to Congress
by the President, pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, in order to allow Congress to determine the level
of acceptable risk to execute the missions associated with the
national defense strategy within appropriated funds.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 961--Deadline Revision for Report on Foreign Language
Proficiency
This section would amend section 958 of the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) by striking ``annually thereafter'' in subsection (a) and
inserting ``by June 30 each year thereafter;'' and by striking
``December 31, 2013'' in subsection (d) and inserting ``June
30, 2013''.
Section 962--Military Activities in Cyberspace
This section would affirm that the Secretary of Defense has
the authority to conduct military activities in cyberspace. The
committee recognizes that because of the evolving nature of
cyber warfare, there is a lack of historical precedent for what
constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace.
In particular, this section would clarify that the
Secretary of Defense has the authority to conduct clandestine
cyberspace activities in support of military operations
pursuant to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) outside of the United
States or to defend against a cyber attack on an asset of the
Department of Defense.
The committee notes that al Qaeda, the Taliban, and
associated forces are increasingly using the internet to
exercise command and control as well as to spread technical
information enabling attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in
areas of ongoing hostilities.
While these terrorist actions often lead to increased
danger for U.S. and coalition forces in areas of ongoing
hostilities, terrorists often rely on the global reach of the
internet to communicate and plan from distributed sanctuaries
throughout the world. As a result, military activities may not
be confined to a physical battlefield, and the use of military
cyber activities has become a critical part of the effort to
protect U.S. and coalition forces and combat terrorism
globally.
In certain instances, the most effective way to neutralize
threats and protect U.S. and coalition forces is to undertake
military cyber activities in a clandestine manner. While this
section is not meant to identify all or in any way limit other
possible military activities in cyberspace, the Secretary of
Defense's authority includes the authority to conduct
clandestine military activities in cyberspace in support of
military operations pursuant to an armed conflict for which
Congress has authorized the use of all necessary and
appropriate force or to defend against a cyber attack on a
Department of Defense asset.
Because of the sensitivities associated with such military
activities and the need for more rigorous oversight, this
section would require quarterly briefings to the congressional
defense committees on covered military activities in
cyberspace.
Section 963--Activities to Improve Multilateral, Bilateral, and
Regional Cooperation regarding Cybersecurity
This section would establish a cybersecurity fellowship
program within the Department of Defense that would allow for
the temporary assignment of a member of the military forces of
a foreign country to a Department of Defense organization for
the purpose of assisting the member to obtain education and
training to improve the member's ability to understand and
respond to information security threats, vulnerabilities of
information security systems, and the consequences of
information security incidents.
Section 964--Report on U.S. Special Operations Command Structure
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2012, a report on U.S. Special Operations Command structure and
make recommendations to better support development and
deployment of joint forces.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
The budget request contained $1.15 billion for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $486.5
million, for Overseas Contingency Operations, which is
contained within the operating budgets of the military
services. The budget is organized in fiscal year 2012 to
address four broad national priorities: (1) international
support; (2) domestic support; (3) intelligence and technology
support; and (4) demand reduction.
The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
2012 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows
(in millions of U.S. dollars):
FY12 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request............... $1,156.3
International Support......................................... $553.8
Domestic Support.............................................. $238.8
Intelligence and Technology Support........................... $212.1
Demand Reduction.............................................. $151.6
FY12 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request Recommendation $1,156.3
Interagency Coordination
Whole-of-Government Approaches and the National Security Strategy
In its July 2010 report, the Quadrennial Defense Review
Independent Panel emphasized a call for interagency reform,
writing that ``the Panel notes with extreme concern that our
federal government structures--both executive and legislative,
and in particular those related to security--were fashioned in
the 1940s and, at best, they work imperfectly today . . . a new
approach is needed.'' The Panel continued, ``the Panel finds
that the Executive branch lacks an effective `whole of
government' capacity that integrates the planning and execution
capabilities of the many federal departments and agencies that
have national security responsibilities.'' The committee
agrees, and believes that the current agency-centric
structures, processes, and cultures within the national
security system prevent full and effective whole-of-government
integration.
The President's 2010 ``National Security Strategy'' stated
that there is a need to ``update, balance, and integrate all
tools of American power and work with our allies and partners
to do the same,'' and laid out various aspects of a broad
vision to strengthen whole-of-government integration. The
committee believes that success in implementing this vision can
best be assured by the preparation and oversight of an
implementation plan containing concrete actions to be taken
toward achieving the broad whole-of-government vision
articulated in the ``National Security Strategy.'' Therefore,
the committee recommends that the President develop and submit
to Congress an implementation plan for the whole-of-government
vision prescribed in the ``National Security Strategy.''
Other Matters
Analysis of Nuclear Force Structure Alternatives
The committee is aware that the President is considering
further nuclear force reductions and changes in nuclear
targeting guidance. The committee believes any decisions about
the size and composition of the Nation's nuclear forces must be
informed by robust quantitative analysis, to include war gaming
and simulations, force-on-force analysis, scenario-based
exchange calculations, and examination of alternative
employment policies.
While this type of analysis was done extensively during the
cold war, recent reports, including a September 2008 Defense
Science Board report on ``Nuclear Deterrence Skills'' and the
December 2008 ``Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force
on Department of Defense Nuclear Weapons Management,'' reveal
that the skills needed to conduct this type of nuclear analysis
are in danger of atrophying. Furthermore, the assumptions and
scope of cold war-era nuclear analyses are vastly different
than what is needed today. Today's geopolitical environment
presents a diverse range of new threats and opportunities that
the committee believes must be examined using the same robust
quantitative analysis that was done in previous decades as well
as new analytical methods appropriate to address emerging
challenges.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study on current, proposed, and several
alternative nuclear force structures of the United States and
brief the congressional defense committees on the methodology,
findings, and recommendations of the study by March 1, 2012. In
conducting the study, the Secretary of Defense should
coordinate, as appropriate, with the Secretary of State, the
Director of National Intelligence, and the Administrator,
National Nuclear Security Administration.
The study should include an analysis of the effects of
various U.S. nuclear force structures and policies on the
forces and policies of other nations, as well as the linkages
to and effects on nuclear terrorism, nonproliferation, missile
defense, and strategic conventional capabilities. The study
should examine various scenarios, a broad spectrum of
assumptions, and include rigorous quantitative analysis of the
potential vulnerability, survivability, and effectiveness of
various U.S. nuclear force structures under these scenarios.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to use common
metrics to examine and compare the implications of different
force structures, and encourages the use of red-teams or
competitive analysis to ensure a comprehensive assessment of
the options. The committee believes this study will provide the
President and Congress with important information needed to
inform future decisions regarding U.S. nuclear force structure
and policies.
Annual Report on Missile Proliferation
The committee notes that section 1308(f)(1)(A) of the
Security Assistance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-228) requires
the President to deliver an annual report to several
congressional committees, including the House Committee on
Armed Services, on the proliferation of missiles and essential
components of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological
weapons. Section 1308(e) states that, ``The Secretary shall
make every effort to submit all of the information required by
this section in unclassified form. Whenever the Secretary
submits any such information in classified form, the Secretary
shall submit such classified information in an addendum and
shall also submit concurrently a detailed summary, in
unclassified form, of that classified information.''
After multiple requests by the committee for the
unclassified summary required by section 1308(e),
representatives of the Department of State informed the
committee that it had been deemed less important and that only
the classified report had been generated. Although the
Department ultimately submitted a two-sentence unclassified
summary, the committee believes that such a submission is
inconsistent with intent of the law. The committee notes that
statutory requirements specifying that detailed unclassified
summaries be submitted are legally binding, and should be
followed. While respecting the need for classification of
certain information, the committee notes the utility of the
unclassified report for the purpose of open discussion as the
committee monitors missile proliferation and the evolving
missile threat.
Audit Readiness of the Department of Defense
The committee is concerned that the blended civilian and
contractor workforce within the Department of Defense that is
responsible for financial improvement and audit readiness lacks
the appropriate skill sets required to achieve a clean audit
opinion by 2017, as required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
Specifically, the committee is concerned that the Department's
audit readiness workforce may be lacking in qualified financial
managers, including Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), who
have prior experience performing complex financial statement
audits for large commercial entities and/or large governmental
agencies. The committee believes that such prior experience is
an essential attribute to properly guide the Department in
building its capacity to produce a clean audit by 2017.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief Management Officer
of the Department of Defense to conduct an analysis of its
civilian and contractor workforce supporting audit readiness,
and provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no later
than October 15, 2011. The analysis should include the
following information:
(1) The number and relevant qualifications of Senior
Executive Service (SES) personnel currently leading
audit readiness efforts for the military services,
defense agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense;
(2) The current number of full-time equivalents,
including contractors directly supporting audit
readiness efforts, for the military services, defense
agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
and
(3) The current number of civilian and contractor
personnel with prior experience performing large,
complex financial statement audits, including the
number of CPAs, directly supporting audit readiness
efforts for the military services, defense agencies and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Comptroller General Review of Security Requirements for Special Nuclear
Material
The committee continues to remain concerned about the
security requirements associated with facilities that operate
with special nuclear materials (SNM). The committee would like
to gain a clearer understanding of the similarities and
differences in security and inspection procedures at Department
of Energy and Department of Defense (DOD) facilities that
operate with special nuclear materials, as well as commercial
facilities that operate with SNM in direct support of DOD or
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) mission
requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the security
requirements for SNM and submit a preliminary report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2012, with a
final report and classified annex, as necessary, to be
submitted by July 2, 2012. The review should consist of the
security requirements and inspection procedures for DOD and
NNSA facilities that operate with significant quantities of
special nuclear materials. These SNM include, but are not
limited to, plutonium-239, uranium-233, and uranium-235 in the
form of nuclear weapons components, metals, oxides, and reactor
fuels.
The review should also examine commercial facilities that
operate with significant quantities of SNM in direct support of
DOD or NNSA mission requirements. This review is not intended
to cover operationally deployed or stored nuclear weapons.
Countering Adversarial Narratives
The committee applauds the U.S. Government, and in
particular the Department of Defense, for its efforts to
develop and implement an effective communications strategy to
counter violent extremist messaging and other adversarial
narratives. However, the committee remains concerned that the
United States and its allies are losing the ever present
information campaign to its adversaries. Through the use of
emerging new media capabilities, our enemies make it appear
that they are acting more swiftly and with a more unified
message than the U.S. Government. Furthermore, many of these
media channels originate in the United States or neutral
countries and pose an even greater challenge because they
threaten our ability to successfully communicate our objectives
while negating our ability to counter their information flow.
The committee is concerned that the Armed Forces are
increasingly seen as the strategic communications provider for
the United States within their areas of responsibilities. The
committee is concerned, though, that the Department is
increasingly challenged by a shortage of in-house practical
expertise and, in general, military and civilian senior
leadership has limited or no practical experience in strategic
communication. The committee is also concerned that the
Department lacks the technical capabilities to respond in a
systemic, rapid, sustained and measurable way to the constant
barrage of narratives being used to undermine our military and
security efforts.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an assessment of the Department of Defense's efforts
to counter adversarial narratives and provide a briefing on the
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 150 days after the
date of enactment of this Act. This assessment should address
the following:
(1) Does the Department of Defense have the
authorities, organizational structure, tools,
techniques, procedures, and resources to rapidly
analyze and respond to adversarial narratives in the
information environment;
(2) Does the Department of Defense have adequate
manpower, talent pool and training base to provide the
leadership and staffing required to monitor and respond
to adversarial narratives in the information
environment; and
(3) What additional legal authorities or resources
are necessary to remedy any challenges or shortages
that limit the Department's ability to succeed.
Countering Network-Based Threats
The committee continues to encourage the Secretary of
Defense to pursue efforts to develop innovative, non-materiel,
and multi-disciplinary methodologies and strategies for
disrupting irregular and asymmetric threats. During his March
2011 Senate confirmation hearing, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence testified that ``a comprehensive
understanding of the socio-cultural environment is absolutely
critical to developing and implementing effective strategies to
separate the insurgency from any viable base of support in the
general population,'' and that ``a detailed understanding of
tribal dynamics is a critical intelligence task, and will
likely remain so for the foreseeable future.'' The committee
believes an effective military strategy for operations, such as
those in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, must
appropriately balance kinetic operations with counterinsurgency
operations, emphasizing population protection, tribal dynamics,
cultural insight, and the rule of law. However the committee
remains concerned that the intelligence community is
overwhelmingly focused on kinetic operations to the detriment
of the socio-cultural environment critical to counterinsurgency
operations.
The committee notes that U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, dated
December 2006, defines the key to all counterinsurgency tasks
is developing an effective host-nation security force. Chapter
6 of the manual states: ``Few military units can match a good
police unit in developing an accurate human intelligence
picture of their area of operation. Because of their frequent
contact with populace, police often are the best force for
countering small insurgent bands supported by the local
populace.''
The committee remains concerned that the Secretary of
Defense has not taken full advantage of a novel approach that
takes into account an understanding of the tribal landscape and
invests in developing host-nation security forces, particularly
local police organizations that maintain close ties with and
function to protect the local population. The committee praised
this approach, the Legacy program, in the committee report (H.
Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011. In the report, the committee noted
special interest in the ``Attack the Network'' approach used in
the Republic of Iraq and Afghanistan under the Legacy program.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an assessment of the following:
(1) The applicability of the Legacy program in other
operations and regions where network-based threats are
present or where conditions are conducive to supporting
these threats; and
(2) Options for an appropriate management structure
within the Department to institutionalize and sustain
the capabilities that Legacy and other similar programs
provide.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services, by July 31, 2011, on the findings
of the aforementioned activities and on the plan in H. Rept.
111-491 for supporting and sustaining innovative approaches,
including such approaches that incorporate and blend legal, law
enforcement, intelligence, and military tactics, techniques,
and procedures.
Counterproliferation Improvements and Efficiencies
The committee notes with concern several
counterproliferation and combating weapons of mass destruction
program inefficiencies identified in the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Report ``Weapons of Mass
Destruction: Actions Needed to Track Budget Execution for
Counterproliferation Programs and Better Align Resources with
Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategy,'' (GAO-10-
755R). The committee directed GAO to examine this issue in the
committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
In GAO-10-755R, GAO notes that ``The Department of Defense
(DOD) cannot precisely identify what proportion of its
resources are specifically devoted to counterproliferation.''
GAO also states that ``Visibility over how the Department's
resources support its counterproliferation strategies is
limited, in part because those resources are not
comprehensively aligned with gaps in counterproliferation
capabilities identified by the Joint Staff based on inputs from
the combatant commands and other DOD sources.'' The committee
is concerned about these and other findings within GAO-10-755R,
also since the Department of Defense has not yet provided its
comments to GAO on the related classified annex may delay
implementation of its report recommendations. Additionally, as
noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166), the committee
remains concerned about the potential for overlap and
redundancy with the coordinating functions of the
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) and the
Office of the Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense to continue to work with GAO to identify and implement
counterproliferation improvements and efficiencies, and to more
effectively align resources with the Combating Weapons of Mass
Destruction Strategy. The committee also encourages the
Department of Defense to review the efficacy and relevancy of
the CPRC and to determine if the CPRC is still required to
coordinate activities and programs as directed by Section 1605
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160) and Section 1502 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337).
Cyber Activity of the People's Republic of China
The committee continues to be concerned with the national
security implications of the increasing levels of malicious
cyber activity emanating from the People's Republic of China.
The U.S.-China Economic Security and Review Commission notes in
its 2010 ``Report to Congress'' that malicious cyber activity
such as ``Operation Aurora'', which targeted proprietary
information at Google and other U.S. companies, and instances
of Chinese internet service providers and censors disrupting
U.S. and other foreign internet traffic, such as China
Telecom's routing of U.S. internet traffic, including .gov and
.mil data, through Chinese servers, are efforts likely being
conducted with the tacit knowledge of the Chinese Government,
if not with full government support. The report also notes that
in May 2010, the Chinese Government instituted new regulations
requiring foreign firms to disclose sensitive encryption and
software design information.
Further, the Department of Defense noted in its report
``Military and Security Developments Involving the People's
Republic of China 2010'' submitted in accordance with section
1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65) that developing capabilities for
cyberwarfare is consistent with authoritative People's
Liberation Army military writings and that intrusions emanating
from China continue to focus on the exfiltration of U.S.
Government information, some of which could be of strategic or
military utility.
Given the potential ties between the Chinese Government and
malicious actors within China, the committee is alarmed that
two state-owned Chinese firms, Huawei and ZTE, have been
included on the Department of Agriculture's list of safe and
approved telecommunications equipment providers for the U.S.
broadband expansion program. As the Department of Defense at
times relies on commercial providers through leasing agreements
or shared infrastructure for the transmission of information,
the committee is concerned about the potential threat this may
pose to national security as well as to Department of Defense
data.
The committee supports the Department of Defense's ongoing
efforts to protect its data and networks and encourages the
Department of Defense to collaborate with its interagency
partners to share technology, best practices, and knowledge to
provide for enhanced cyber security across the Government. The
committee also requests that a designee of the Secretary of
Defense brief the congressional defense committees on the
Department of Defense's assessment of the security implications
of the recent addition of two state-owned Chinese firms to the
safe and approved telecommunications equipment providers list.
Cyber Threats to Critical Infrastructure
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's
efforts to safeguard its activities from cyber threats but is
concerned that the Department remains indirectly vulnerable to
cyber attack on critical pieces of civilian infrastructure not
under the Department's protection. Because of the nature of
their location and construction, U.S. military installations
are often supported by the surrounding communities'
infrastructure, including civilian power grids, public works,
and telecommunications networks. Many of these utilities are
poorly protected or completely unprotected from potential cyber
attacks. Loss of service from these utilities could have
significant implications on the Department's ability to assure
mission critical capabilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study on the threat to the readiness of military
installations from possible cyber attacks on civilian critical
infrastructure, and brief the results of that study along with
a plan to mitigate any risk associated with this vulnerability
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Economic Warfare
The committee is aware that the national security posture
of the Nation is directly tied to the health and vitality of
the economy. Periods of economic hardship have historically
caused pressures on budgeting, execution, and planning for
defense capabilities, and thus can slow or halt acquisition and
modernization activities. Since U.S. military strength is
underpinned by its technological superiority, the committee is
aware of the direct dependency that military strength has on
economic health.
The committee is concerned that our adversaries understand
this dependency, and are developing means to attack our
military strength by attacking our economy. The committee is
aware that in public statements and documents, Al Qaeda has
discussed ``bleeding the Nation dry'' through economic attacks,
and has conducted a number of physical attacks internationally
in order to cause economic damage. In addition, other nations
have written about using economic warfare to complement or
support military actions. Historically, even the United States
has planned for and conducted economic warfare to subvert
adversaries during World War II and the cold war.
The committee is aware that there is a 2009 report from the
Irregular Warfare Support Program titled ``Economic Warfare:
Risks and Responses'' that offered plausible scenarios about
how economic warfare might be used against the United States.
The committee is concerned that there does not appear to be any
organization within the Department responsible for looking at
the threats of economic warfare, or the impact economic attacks
might have on military capabilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Office
of Net Assessment to conduct a study on economic warfare
threats to the United States and deliver a report on the
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Evaluation of the Alternative Methods for Titanium Production
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate
alternative methods for titanium production such as
electrochemical processing to determine potential for such
production to aid in meeting the Department of Defense's
requirements for titanium. The evaluation shall include an
assessment of production capability, cost as compared to the
cost of traditional methods of titanium production, an
assessment of the potential to reduce environmental impact
through such processes, and any other items the Secretary deems
relevant. The Secretary shall brief the findings of the
evaluation to the congressional defense committees not later
than December 1, 2011.
Global Posture Review Report
The committee notes that section 1063 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the plan for
basing of forces outside the United States, concurrent with the
delivery of the report on the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) required by section 118 of title 10, United States Code.
Although the report of the 2009 QDR was delivered in February
2010, the Secretary requested additional time to complete the
basing report following a global posture review being conducted
by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee has
been briefed on the global posture review, but the report
required by section 1063 of Public Law 111-84 is still
forthcoming. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
to submit the statutorily required report at the earliest
possible date.
Government Accountability Office Assessment of Reporting Cost Data
Collection
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for
implementing a process for collecting an estimate of resources
required for the Department of Defense to generate both
internally and externally required reports. The committee
agrees with the Secretary that additional transparency would be
useful for decision makers when determining the utility of
various reporting requirements. However, the committee observes
that any tool used to collect costs is only as useful as the
inputs received. In order to ensure that the Secretary's
guidance is consistently and appropriately applied across the
Department, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct an assessment of the methodology
and tools used to collect cost data on both internal and
external reporting requirements of the Department of Defense,
and to submit a report of the findings to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services
within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The
Comptroller General's report should also include any
recommendations the Comptroller General believes are necessary
to improve the data collection, transparency, and utility of
the tool.
Management and Security of Nuclear Weapons
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
made notable progress in increasing weapons accountability and
improving security for the nuclear weapons in its possession.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department may not
be fully in compliance with the recommendations of the various
task forces chartered to address nuclear weapons management and
security. The committee is concerned about the Department's
progress in addressing those findings and recommendations and,
therefore, directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to examine the Department of Defense's nuclear security
programs and provide a report to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act. At a minimum, the report should examine the progress the
Department has made in responding to the recommendations of the
various task forces, such as the Secretary of Defense Task
Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons Management, chartered to address
nuclear weapons management and security and the extent to which
resource implications of planned security modernization efforts
have been considered. The report should also examine the extent
to which the military services' requirements are coordinated
and synchronized to prevent duplication and overlap, and the
Department's efforts to secure nuclear weapons stored outside
of the United States.
Nuclear Command, Control and Communications
The committee notes that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) highlighted an interagency study that was to begin in
2010 and provide a long-term strategy and needed investments to
further strengthen nuclear command, control, and communications
(NC3) capabilities. The NPR also noted that the Secretary of
Defense has directed a number of initiatives to further improve
the resiliency of the NC3 system.
The committee appreciates the Department's focus on this
vital capability. However, the committee understands that the
NC3 interagency study has not yet begun.
The committee is concerned about potential capability gaps
or shortfalls, particularly with continued delays in the Family
of Advanced Beyond-line-of-sight Terminals (FAB-T) program.
Further discussion is contained in the classified annex
accompanying this report.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks,
Information and Infrastructure (ASD NII) is designated as the
enterprise architect for NC3 and responsible for the
development and maintenance of the defense-wide NC3
architecture. Although the ASD NII has this architecture
responsibility, the military services are responsible for
funding the individual elements of the NC3 system.
The committee understands that the various NC3 elements are
highly interdependent; a reduction in funding by one service
may affect other services' NC3 capabilities. Without strong,
centralized oversight of the NC3 portfolio and investments, the
committee is concerned that such dispersion of activity may
have negative consequences for the overarching NC3 capability.
The committee therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks, Information and Infrastructure, in
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments,
to submit to the congressional defense committees by February
6, 2012, a report on the NC3 architecture, long-term strategy,
and an identification of the NC3 elements across the services,
including current and needed investments across the Future
Years Defense Program.
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense
intends to eliminate the position of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks, Information and Infrastructure as part of
the Department's efficiency initiative. If this occurs, the
committee expects the report to be submitted by the
Department's designated enterprise architect for NC3.
Planning for Electromagnetic Pulse Events
The committee remains concerned with the continued
vulnerability of the United States homeland to electromagnetic
pulse (EMP) events, both man-made and naturally occurring. The
2008 report of the EMP Commission found that ``EMP generated by
a high altitude nuclear explosion is one of a small number of
threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic
consequences.'' The committee believes that the Secretary of
Defense should ensure that the U.S. Military has the
appropriate authorities, capabilities, procedures, protections,
and force structure to prevent or defend against any threats
posed by EMP generated by a high altitude nuclear or by a
naturally occurring event, as well as response plans for
dealing with the aftermath of an EMP event.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services on efforts to prepare
for, prevent, defend against, and remediate after an EMP event,
whether natural or manmade. Within 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act the report should include the following:
(1) An assessment of any threats posed by a natural
or manmade EMP event, including identifying of the
foreign countries that may be developing weapons
capable of producing high altitude EMP, the nature of
the capabilities, and possible advances in the
capabilities over the next 10 years;
(2) A description of any efforts by the Department of
Defense since the 2008 EMP Commission Report was
released to address the findings in (1);
(3) A description of the appropriate authorities,
capabilities, procedures, protections, and force
structure that the United States may require over the
next 10 years to prevent or defend against threats from
foreign actors identified in (1);
(4) A description of Government contingency response
plans to prevent an EMP event, or to mitigate the
consequences of or remediate after an EMP event,
especially with regard to critical infrastructure;
(5) In the event that no Government contingency
response plans exist, a description of what steps are
being undertaken by the Department on an emergency
basis to respond to an EMP event;
(6) A description of plans and guidance for military
base commanders to be prepared to act on their own
authority to provide support to or receive support from
local authorities, police, fire, and other emergency
services or critical infrastructure providers, as well
as plans and training with civil first responders in
their locality to help restore critical infrastructures
and assist the civilian population after a catastrophic
EMP event and;
(7) An assessment of additional legal authorities or
resources that may be needed to develop contingency
response plans and capabilities to protect the American
people and critical infrastructures and to remediate
after an EMP event.
Reduction in Reporting Requirements
The committee considered the Department of Defense's
legislative proposal to reduce the congressionally mandated
reporting requirements for the Department of Defense. In
reviewing the Department's proposal the committee found that
many of the reports listed have value and aid the committee in
conducting its oversight responsibilities, or otherwise serve
to ensure compliance with the law. In many cases, the reporting
requirements proposed to be repealed are just notifications of
the Secretary's actions, such as use of a statutorily
authorized waiver, or the intent to obligate funds for a
specified purpose. The committee believes that these
notification requirements should not be repealed. Elsewhere in
this title, the committee includes a provision that would
repeal reporting requirements that it deemed redundant or no
longer relevant.
The committee notes that in the justification material
transmitted with the proposal, the Department stated that many
of the reports in question provide limited utility or
informational value. In many cases, the committee agrees with
the Department's assessment, but also notes that the limited
utility or value of the report is not a result of congressional
mandate, but rather results from the Department's failure to
fully comply with the intent of the request. The committee also
notes that the Department deemed many reports as unnecessary or
stated that they do not appear to be useful to members of
Congress or their staff. The committee cautions the Department
that it is not its responsibility to determine what is or is
not valuable to Congress as it conducts its oversight role.
In its review of the Department's request, the committee
notes that there were several reporting requirements proposed
for repeal that were mischaracterized, previously repealed,
expired, or outside the jurisdiction of the committee.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review
of reporting requirements and to provide recommendations for
repeal of requirements for consideration by the committee on a
biennial basis. Furthermore, the committee includes a provision
elsewhere in this title that would require the Secretary to
deliver reports, to the maximum extent practical, in electronic
format in order to reduce printing and reproduction costs.
Secure Telecommuting Centers
The committee is aware that the Defense Intelligence Agency
operates two pilot projects at Marine Corps Base Quantico,
Virginia, and Fort Meade, Maryland, for secure telecommuting.
These 2 centers are available to Department of Defense
employees with the appropriate level of security clearance,
with 16 seats currently available. However, the committee is
concerned that the Department is not adequately taking
advantage of these secure facilities. For example, the facility
at Marine Corps Base Quantico is located at the Joint Reserve
Intelligence Center, which is not a dedicated telecommute
center. This facility is used primarily during the weekends
when employees are completing their Reserve duty and the seats
are generally open during the week.
The committee encourages the Department to better utilize
the available space at these two facilities during the work
week for secure telecommuting purposes. To do so, the committee
encourages the Department to develop an online reservation and
facility usage system to generate meaningful quantifiable data
on utilization and demand for these secure telecommuting sites.
The committee believes that once the Department has analyzed
data on the utilization rates and demand, it may wish to expand
these pilot projects to other facilities. The committee also
encourages the Department to provide regular updates to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services on utilization rates for these facilities,
including unmet demand and waiting lists, and any other
relevant data to be utilized by the Department in assessing the
effectiveness of these secure telecommuting sites and possible
future plans for expansion.
Special Operations Aviation and Rotary Wing Support
The committee is pleased with the Department of Defense
decision to establish a new U.S. Army Special Operations
Aviation Command (ARSOAC) to enhance Army Special Operations
Aviation as well as provide more capable rotary-wing solutions
for Special Operations Forces. The committee is aware that the
new command will be challenged to provide additional
capabilities and improvements for Army Special Operations
Aviation amidst ongoing overseas contingency operations,
increased global requirements and potential future fiscal
constraints.
The committee therefore encourages the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities (ASD SO/LIC&IC), the Commander,
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and the Commander,
U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) to ensure
continued communication with the defense committees to enable
operational success and optimization of the rotary-wing force
structure. The committee further encourages the Assistant
Secretary, Commander, USSOCOM, and Commander, USASOC to
continue to aggressively pursue programmatic and operational
solutions to include modernization programs in an effort to
address rotary-wing shortfalls for direct and indirect special
operations activities and Special Operations Forces.
State Partnership Program
The committee continues to believe that the National
Guard's State Partnership Program (SPP) is an important part of
the larger Department of Defense (DOD) effort to build the
capacity of our foreign partners in a wide variety of security
related activities. The committee notes, however, that the
Department of Defense has yet to issue regulations regarding
the use of Department funds to pay the costs associated with
SPP, as required by section 1210 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The
committee understands that the Department of Defense is
preparing to issue a Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) on SPP and
encourages it to complete that process as soon as possible.
In the meantime, the committee is aware that pending the
release of the DTM and DOD regulations, some National Guard
units have taken a conservative view of the scope of authorized
SPP activities, and have curtailed their engagement with
partner countries accordingly. The committee commends this
approach, but does not want SPP activities unnecessarily
limited and therefore encourages the National Guard to
proactively consult the Office of the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense if clarification regarding certain
engagement programs is required.
The Role of Military Information Support Operations
The committee is aware of the Secretary of Defense's
directed name change from Psychological Operations to Military
Information Support Operations (MISO). This committee is also
aware of an ongoing implementation strategy that will
institutionalize this change within the Department. While the
committee understands the rationale for this change, the
committee notes with concern that the Department did not
consult the congressional defense committees in a timely
fashion as the Psychological Operations activity and mission is
codified in Section 167 and Section 2011 of title 10, United
States Code.
The committee supports efforts by the Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity
Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities to support geographic
combatant commander and chiefs of mission requirements through
the deployment of Military Information Support Teams and
Regional Military Information Support Teams. The committee is
encouraged that the Assistant Secretary has recently
established an Information Operations Directorate dedicated to
information operations (IO) and MISO, and supports ongoing
reviews to improve the force structure and readiness framework
of the Active Component of MISO through the establishment of
the MISO Command. The committee expects these changes to
contribute to a more comprehensive information operations and
strategic communication (IO/SC) strategy that will effectively
utilize and incorporate MISO to inform and influence foreign
audiences with cultural precision and enable geographic
combatant commanders and chiefs of mission to counter enemy
narratives and activities.
However, the committee is concerned about a growing
operational, technical, and capability divide between the
Active and Reserve Components of MISO forces which could limit
options available to geographic combatant commanders and chiefs
of mission as a tool to satisfy critical IO/SC requirements.
The committee is further concerned about deficiencies in the
reserve component of MISO and the resultant capabilities gap to
provide support to the general purpose forces across the full
spectrum of MISO. This capability divide between Active and
Reserve components could fracture overall U.S. Government
efforts and activities, and limit the ability to field a
globally persistent and culturally aware MISO force that is
capable of informing and influencing foreign audiences,
contributing to strategic and tactical IO/SC requirements, and
integrating with other information disciplines.
While the committee is encouraged that USSOCOM is shifting
overseas contingency operations funds into base budget funds
for Major Force Program (MFP) 11 funded MISO, it is concerned
that a similar program shift is not taking place for the
Reserve Component of MISO and therefore may potentially
constitute a force structure, limited in capability, that is
dependent on Overseas Contingency Operations funds.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict and
Interdependent Capabilities in coordination with the Commander,
USSOCOM to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees that outlines: a comprehensive MISO strategy to
include the roles, missions, authorities, and capabilities of
MISO Active and Reserve Components; current and future force
structure requirements, operational limitations and
constraints; and efforts to shift required Active and Reserve
Component funding from overseas contingency operations to base
funding to support future active and reserve force structure
requirements. The report should also examine and include
recommendations for the potential transfer of proponency of the
MISO Reserve Component from USSOCOM to the Department of the
Army, similar to the potential transfer of proponency
responsibilities for U.S. Army Reserve Component Civil Affairs
forces. The report should also include an analysis of the
relationship among all IO/SC disciplines to determine if they
are sufficient or could be improved through changes to
authorities, processes, procedures, and synchronization
mechanisms. The committee further directs the Assistant
Secretary to submit the report to the congressional defense
committees in unclassified format (with a classified annex as
required) within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
U.S. Special Operations Command Undersea Mobility Strategy
The committee supports the recent program and strategy
shift in the Undersea Mobility Program by the Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and U.S. Naval Special
Warfare Command (WARCOM). The committee is pleased and supports
recent reprogramming requests by USSOCOM and WARCOM to
consolidate and shift Joint-Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS)
and Advance SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) program funds into a
consolidated Undersea Mobility Way Ahead program designed to
deliver more platforms sooner and at less cost across the
Future Years Defense Program. The committee recognizes the
critical operational importance of this program to provide
technologically advanced undersea mobility platforms and
address capability gaps for operating in denied maritime areas
from strategic distances. The committee therefore stresses the
need for continued communication with the congressional defense
committees to ensure programmatic success and prevent previous
program shortfalls in undersea mobility platform strategies.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make
transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year
2012 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the
total amount transferred under this authority to $4.0 billion.
This section would also require prompt notification to Congress
of each transfer made.
Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act
This section would specify that the budgetary effects of
this Act for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-139) will be determined by reference to a
statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1011--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces To Provide
Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism
Activities
This section would extend, by 1 year, the support by joint
task forces under section 1022(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as
most recently amended by section 1012 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383).
Section 1012--Extension of Authority of Department of Defense To
Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug Activities of Other
Governmental Agencies
This section would extend, by 2 years, the authority of the
Department of Defense to provide additional support to
counterdrug activities of other governmental agencies under
section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510).
Section 1013--One-Year Extension of Authority To Provide Additional
Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments
This section would extend, by 1 year, the authority to
provide support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign
governments under subsection (a)(2) of section 1033 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85), as most recently amended by section 1014(a) of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383).
Section 1014--Extension of Authority To Support Unified Counter-Drug
and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia
This section would extend, by 1 year, the unified counter-
drug and counterterrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia
under section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
most recently amended by section 1011 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383). The committee recognizes that, although the
Government of Colombia has made significant progress combating
narcotics trafficking and designated terrorist organizations
such as Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), National
Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of
Colombia (AUC), these authorities are still required to
consolidate the strategic gains made over the past decade.
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1021--Budgeting for Construction of Naval Vessels
This section would repeal an amendment made by section 1023
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). This section would
require that a 30-year shipbuilding plan be delivered to
Congress periodically. The section that would be repealed
changed the periodicity from an annual requirement to once
every 4 years to be delivered with the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
The committee believes that returning to an annual
submittal of the plan would promote stability and continuity in
the planning process, both in the plan itself, and in the
shipbuilding industrial base. One aspect of the section that
would be retained is the requirement that the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, within 60 days of submittal of the
plan, provide an assessment of the sufficiency of funds to
execute the plan in the budget year and Future Years Defense
Program to the congressional defense committees.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Section 1031--Definition of Individual Detained at Guantanamo
This section defines the term ``individual detained at
Guantanamo'' for purposes of subtitle D.
Section 1032--Extension of Authority for Making Rewards for Combating
Terrorism
This section would extend the authority for the Secretary
of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person providing
information or nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government
personnel or Government personnel of Allied Forces
participating in a combined operation with U.S. armed forces
through fiscal year 2014 and change the annual reporting
timeline from December to February.
Section 1033--Clarification of Right To Plead Guilty in Trial of
Capital Offense by Military Commission
This section would clarify an accused's right to plead
guilty to a capital offense before a military commission.
The committee believes that a guilty plea should only be
accepted if the military judge addresses the accused personally
and determines that the plea is knowing and voluntary. The
committee also believes that the parties should be required to
disclose the terms of any plea agreement in open court at the
conclusion of sentencing, unless the military judge for good
cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in
camera. While the Manual for Military Commissions addresses
some of these areas, the Secretary of Defense should ensure
that the Manual fully addresses these issues.
Section 1034--Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
and Associated Forces
This section would affirm that the United States is engaged
in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated
forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section would
also affirm that the President's authority pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority
to detain certain belligerents until the termination of
hostilities.
The committee notes that as the United States nears the
tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the
terrorist threat has evolved as a result of intense military
and diplomatic pressure from the United States and its
coalition partners. However, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and
associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national
security. The Authorization for Use of Military Force
necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing
and evolving threat posed by these groups.
The committee supports the Executive Branch's
interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force,
as it was described in a March 13, 2009, filing before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. While this
affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the President's
existing authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force, the Executive Branch's March 13, 2009,
interpretation remains consistent with the scope of the
authorities provided by Congress.
Section 1035--Requirement for National Security Protocols Governing
Detainee Communications
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a national
security protocol governing communications of each individual
detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
committee believes that all communications for such individuals
should be reviewed for the protection of the Armed Forces and
other personnel at Guantanamo Bay as well as to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Section 1036--Process for the Review of Necessity for Continued
Detention of Individuals Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a review process to determine whether the continued
detention of individuals detained at U.S. Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is necessary to protect U.S. national
security. This section would not affect the jurisdiction of any
Federal court to determine the legality of detention of any
individual detained at Guantanamo Bay.
Section 1037--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify
Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred from
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 2012 to modify or construct any facility in the
United States, its territories, or possessions to house any
detainee transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the
custody or under the effective control of the Department of
Defense.
Section 1038--Prohibition on Family Member Visitation of Individuals
Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 2012 for the purpose of allowing family members to visit
individuals detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
Section 1039--Prohibition on the Transfer or Release of Certain
Detainees to or within the United States
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 2012 to transfer or release certain detainees to or within
the United States, its territories, or possessions. This
prohibition applies to individuals detained at U.S. Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to individuals detained by
the Department of Defense overseas pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50
U.S.C. 1541 note).
Section 1040--Prohibitions Relating to the Transfer or Release of
Certain Detainees to or within Foreign Countries
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year 2012 to transfer or release individuals
detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or
within a foreign country or any other foreign entity. This
prohibition would apply unless the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies to Congress
at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual,
that the government of the country or the recognized leadership
of the entity to which the individual would be transferred:
(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or
a designated foreign terrorist organization;
(2) maintains effective control over each detention
facility in which an individual is to be detained if
the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
(3) is not, as of the date of the certification,
facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect
its ability to exercise control over the individual;
(4) has agreed to take effective steps to ensure that
the individual cannot take action to threaten the
United States, its citizens, or its allies in the
future;
(5) has taken such steps as the Secretary of Defense
determines are necessary to ensure that the individual
cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity;
(6) has agreed to share any information with the
United States that is related to the individual or any
associates of the individual and could affect the
security of the United States, its citizens, or its
allies; and
(7) has agreed to allow appropriate agencies of the
United States to have access to the individual, if
requested.
This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense
from using any funds for the transfer of any such individual to
the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any
other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any
individual transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to the same country or entity who engaged in terrorist
activity subsequent to their transfer. The Secretary of Defense
would be authorized to waive this additional prohibition if the
Secretary of Defense certifies that such a transfer would be in
the national security interests of the United States and
certifies that the general requirements relating to other
transfers or releases to foreign countries or entities
described above have been met.
While this section does not prohibit the transfer of third
country nationals detained at theater-level detention
facilities in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the
committee believes that determinations as to the disposition of
such individuals who continue to pose a threat to U.S. national
security should be carefully reviewed and evaluated. This is of
particular concern as primary responsibility for detention
operations transitions to the Government of Afghanistan.
Section 1041--Counterterrorism Operational Briefing Requirement
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide quarterly briefings to the congressional defense
committees outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism
operations and related activities involving Special Operations
Forces not later than March 1, 2012.
Section 1042--Requirement for Department of Justice Consultation
Regarding Prosecution of Terrorists
This section would require the Attorney General, Deputy
Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division, to consult with the Director of National
Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before instituting
any prosecution of an alien in U.S. district court for a
terrorist offense.
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces
Section 1051--Annual Assessment and Report on the Delivery Platforms
for Nuclear Weapons and the Nuclear Command and Control System
This section would require the director of the Strategic
Systems Program, U.S. Navy, commander of the Global Strike
Command, U.S. Air Force, and Commander, U.S. Strategic Command
to each complete an assessment of the safety, security,
reliability, sustainability, performance, and military
effectiveness for each type of nuclear weapons delivery
platform and the nuclear command and control system of the
United States within their direct responsibility.
This section would further require that these assessments
be submitted to the Secretary of Defense and Nuclear Weapons
Council not later than December 1 of each year, along with
several other reporting requirements. The Secretary of Defense
would then be required to submit to the President each report
along with any comments that the Secretary considers
appropriate, not later than March 1 of each year. Finally, the
President shall forward to Congress the reports provided by the
Secretary of Defense along with any comments the President
considers appropriate. The first submissions to Congress would
be required by March 15, 2012.
The committee notes a parallel requirement for the
assessment of the nuclear weapons stockpile established in
section 3141 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). The committee
believes these annual assessments provide oversight value.
Section 1052--Plan on Implementation of the New START Treaty
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, the
Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, to
submit a plan for implementing nuclear force reductions,
limitations, and verification and transparency measures
contained in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New
START).
The plan would include a description of the nuclear force
structure under New START, changes necessary and how such
changes would be implemented under New START, the costs and
schedule for New START implementation, and options for and
feasibility of accelerating New START implementation, including
an assessment of potential cost savings, benefits, and risks of
accelerating implementation. In this context, the committee
notes that the next nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Review Conference will occur in 2015.
This section would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Department's implementation
plan and submit the results of this review to the congressional
defense committees, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, within 180 days
after the date the plan is submitted. This section would
require the plan and review to be submitted in unclassified
form with a classified annex if necessary.
Section 1053--Annual Report on the Plan for the Modernization of the
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, and Delivery
Platforms
This section would require the President to submit an
annual report for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2019 to the
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
on the plan for the modernization of the nuclear weapons
stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, and delivery platforms. The
report would include a detailed account of the plans to enhance
the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile; to modernize the nuclear weapons complex; to
maintain, modernize, or replace the delivery platforms for
nuclear weapons; and a detailed account of any plans to retire,
dismantle, or eliminate any covered nuclear system.
This section would build upon a single year reporting
requirement established in section 1251 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), and
codify direction from the President to the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Energy to jointly provide annual updates
to the 1251 Report, as stated in a February 7, 2011, White
House press statement regarding the Annual Update to the Report
Specified in Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
Section 1054--Sense of Congress on Nuclear Force Reductions
This section would express the sense of Congress that any
reduction in the nuclear forces of the United States should be
supported by a thorough assessment of the strategic
environment, threat, and policy, as well as the technical and
operational implications of such reductions. This section would
also state that specific criteria are necessary to guide future
decisions regarding further reductions in such nuclear forces.
Section 1055--Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions
This section would limit the obligation of amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy for any
of the fiscal years 2011 through 2017, to retire, dismantle,
eliminate, or remove from deployed status any covered nuclear
system (as defined here) of the United States as required by
the New START Treaty. This limitation would not preclude the
use of funds for any other treaty requirement, including
verification. This section would allow this limitation to be
jointly waived by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Energy, if they submit written notice of the status of carrying
out the modernization plan described in the most recent report
required by section 1053 of this Act. If the notice describes
that such plan is not being carried out, no funds could be
obligated or expended for a period of 180 days following the
date on which the President submits the report for the
modernization plan. If the notice describes that such a plan is
being carried out, no funds could be obligated or expended for
a period of 30 days.
This section would further prohibit the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Energy from obligating or
expending amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to
their departments to retire, dismantle, or eliminate any
nondeployed strategic or non-strategic nuclear weapon, until
the date that is 90 days after the date on which the Secretary
of Energy submits written certification that the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) and
the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) are fully operational;
that CMRR-NF and the Plutonium Facility-4 are together able to
deliver to the nuclear weapons stockpile not less than a total
of 80 pits per year; that the UPF is able to deliver to the
nuclear weapons stockpile not less than 80 refurbished or new
canned subassemblies per year; and that the nuclear security
enterprise has a capacity that supports two simultaneous life
extension programs. This limitation would not apply, however,
to the dismantlement of legacy warheads that are awaiting
dismantlement on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Lastly, this section would prohibit the President from
retiring, dismantling, or eliminating, or preparing to retire,
dismantle, or eliminate, any nuclear weapon of the United
States, if such action would reduce the number of such weapons
to a number that is less than the level described in the New
START Treaty, unless such action is required by a treaty or
international agreement specifically approved with the advice
and consent of the Senate pursuant to Article II, section 2,
clause 2 of the Constitution; or specifically authorized by an
Act of Congress.
Section 1056--Nuclear Employment Strategy
This section would require that the President not make any
changes to the nuclear employment strategy of the United States
unless the President submits a report to Congress describing
the implications of such changes, certifying that such changes
do not require a change in targeting strategy from counterforce
to counter value targeting, and certifying that such proposed
changes preserve the nuclear force structure triad. The
President would be required to wait a period of 90 days from
submission of such report until changes to the nuclear
employment strategy may be made.
Section 1057--Comptroller General Report on Nuclear Weapon Capabilities
and Force Structure Requirements
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a study on the strategic nuclear
weapon capabilities, force structure, employment policy, and
targeting requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD). The
study would be required to include an update to the September
1991 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report titled
``Strategic Weapons: Nuclear Weapons Targeting Process'' (GAO/
NSIAD-91-319FS); an assessment of the process and rigor used by
DOD to determine the effectiveness of nuclear-related
capabilities and policies in achieving the goals of deterrence,
extended deterrence, assurance, and defense; and an assessment
of the requirements of DOD for strategic nuclear bomber
aircraft and intercontinental ballistic missiles. This section
would require the Comptroller General to submit one or more
reports on such study to Congress, and require the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Energy to provide full cooperation
and access to the Comptroller General for the purposes of
carrying out this study.
Subtitle F--Financial Management
Section 1061--Amendments Relating to Financial Management Workforce
This section would establish a financial management
certification program for the Department of Defense (DOD). The
committee concurs with the Department on the need to develop
capable financial managers that understand the advanced fiscal
concepts incorporated with the management of the United States'
scarce monetary resources. More than 60 percent of the DOD
financial community exists outside the auditing, accounting,
and financial management job classifications. In addition, the
committee notes that this program should help facilitate the
Department's ability to achieve clean financial audits by 2017,
as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Furthermore, the
committee notes that this program also should ensure that
financial managers are able to fully understand total force
management issues, and the impact of budget decisions on
manpower requirement decisions. Future budget resource managers
need to be developed with a broad knowledge base.
However, the committee is concerned that the construction
of such a program will create yet another training development
track within the financial community. The committee notes that
there are similar tracks within each military service. For this
new initiative to be successful, and to further the efficiency
initiatives within the Department, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should
look to consolidate these multiple training development
programs to effectively train the financial management
community, while considering the unique fiscal structures and
management held within each military service. Incorporating
these multiple tracks into a single defense-wide development
strategy would ensure that the Department can develop the most
capable financial management cadre for future fiscal success.
Section 1062--Reliability of Department of Defense Financial Statements
This section would amend section 1008(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107) by striking ``Not later than October 31'' and inserting
``Not later than the date that is 180 days prior to the date
set by the Office of Management and Budget for the submission
of financial statements''.
Section 1063--Financial Management Personnel Competency Assessment
This section would require the Chief Management Officer
(CMO) of the Department of Defense, in coordination with the
CMO of each military department, to identify, within 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the number of
financial management personnel and the financial and budgetary
skills required to: (1) effectively perform financial and
budgetary accounting, including reconciling fund balances with
Treasury; (2) document processes and maintain internal controls
for financial and budgetary accounting cycles; and (3) maintain
professional certification standards. This section would
further require that within 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness issue joint guidance regarding the assessment of
the competency of the Department of Defense financial
management personnel to perform such financial and budgetary
accounting skills. Following the issuance of such guidance,
this section would require the CMO of the Department of Defense
and the CMO of each military department to conduct a competency
assessment of the financial management personnel of the defense
agencies and military departments, respectively, and to each
submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on such an
assessment, along with a corrective action plan for any skill
gaps identified. This section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees regarding the assessment and the corrective action
plans of the CMOs within 270 days after the date of enactment
of this Act. Finally, this section would require each CMO to
designate in the report to the Secretary of Defense which
office will be responsible for monitoring progress in the
implementation of any corrective action plan submitted.
Section 1064--Tracking Implementation of Department of Defense
Efficiencies
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States, for each fiscal year 2012-16, to assess the
extent to which the Department of Defense is tracking and
realizing the savings proposed pursuant to the initiative led
by the Secretary of Defense to identify at least $100.0 billion
in efficiencies during the period of fiscal years 2012-16. This
section would require the Comptroller General to submit an
annual report on the prior fiscal year's assessment and the
Comptroller General's associated recommendations to the
congressional defense committees starting on October 30, 2012
and concluding on October 30, 2016.
Section 1065--Business Case Analysis for Department of Defense
Efficiencies
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to carry out an assessment of the extent to which
components of the Department of Defense conducted business case
analysis prior to recommending and implementing efficiencies
initiatives. This section would require that such an
assessment: (1) use a case study approach, (2) identify best
practices used by components of the Department of Defense; and
(3) identify deficiencies in the analysis conducted. This
section would further require, within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General to submit a
report of such an assessment to the congressional defense
committees. This section would require the Comptroller General
to include in the report recommendations relating to the
appropriate application of business case analysis and best
practices that should be adopted by the Department of Defense
prior to the implementation of any future effort to identify
savings in defense operations.
The committee intends this assessment to be selective and
encourages the Comptroller General to choose case studies from
each of the four major tracks identified by the Secretary of
Defense in his May 8, 2010, speech at the Eisenhower Library in
Abilene, Kansas. The committee intends that this retrospective
assessment form the basis of the Comptroller General's
recommendations, to assist the Department of Defense as the
Department responds to any future guidance it receives from the
President to identify additional savings for fiscal year 2013
and beyond. While the committee supports the reduction of waste
and the improvement of efficiency within the Department of
Defense, the committee is concerned that short-sighted
decisions may be made to achieve savings targets, unless
rigorous analysis is conducted in advance of such decision-
making.
Section 1066--Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan
This section would establish a specific sub-activity group
within each of the operation and maintenance appropriations in
section 4301 of this Act to identify funds to be executed in
support of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR)
plan. This section would also require additional detail
regarding subordinate activities associated with interim
milestones for audit readiness, as required to be included in
the FIAR plan pursuant to section 881 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383).
Section 1067--Corrective Action Plan Relating to Execution of Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress on a corrective action plan for any
weaknesses and deficiencies in the execution of the Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan of the Department
of Defense required by section 881 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383). The corrective action plan shall identify near-term and
longer-term measures for resolution of any weaknesses and
deficiencies in execution of the FIAR plan, shall assign
responsibilities in the Department of Defense for actions to
implement such measures, and shall specify steps and identify
timelines for implantation of such measures.
Subtitle G--Studies and Reports
Section 1071--Repeal of Certain Report Requirements
This section would repeal certain report requirements for
the Department of the Defense that were deemed to be redundant
or no longer relevant.
Section 1072--Biennial Review of Required Reports
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review, on a biennial basis, of the Department of
Defense reports required to be submitted to Congress. In
conducting the review, the Secretary would evaluate the
content, quality, cost, and timeliness of the Department of
Defense's compliance with the reporting requirements. This
section also would provide the Secretary the authority to
recommend reports for repeal or modification to the
congressional defense committees based on the results of the
biennial review. This section also would require the Secretary
to conduct a biennial review of the required reports internal
to the Department and to take such steps as necessary to
eliminate or modify reports deemed by the Secretary to be
redundant, overly burdensome, of limited value, unjustifiably
costly, or otherwise determined to unduly reduce the efficiency
of the Department.
Section 1073--Transmission of Reports in Electronic Format
This section would amend section 122a of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to transmit
reports required by law in electronic format to the maximum
extent practical in order to reduce the printing and
reproduction costs of the Department of Defense.
Section 1074--Modifications to Annual Aircraft Procurement Plan
This section would amend section 231(a) of title 10, United
States Code, which requires the Secretary of Defense to provide
an annual aviation report to the congressional defense
committees covering a 30-year time period. This section would
require the Secretary of Defense to: provide more fidelity on
cost estimates; include the Department of the Army aviation
programs in the report; include an inventory of all Department
of Defense aircraft; and include remotely piloted vehicles,
rotary-wing aircraft, and operational support and executive
airlift programs in the report.
Section 1075--Change of Deadline for Annual Report to Congress on
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment
This section would amend section 10541(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to change the date for the annual report
from the Secretary of Defense concerning the equipment of
National Guard Bureau and the Reserve Components of the Armed
Forces from February 15 of each year to March 15 of each year.
Section 1076--Report on Homeland Defense Activities
This section would amend section 908(a) of title 32, United
States Code, by adding at the end ``For any fiscal year during
which no assistance was provided, and no activities were
carried out, under this chapter, a report is not required to be
submitted under this section.''
Section 1077--Report on Nuclear Aspirations of Non-State Entities,
Nuclear Weapons, and Related Programs in Non-Nuclear Weapons States and
Countries Not Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and
Certain Foreign Persons
This section would amend section 1055(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) to add the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs to the list of committees
that receive the required report required by such section.
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1081--Exemption from Freedom of Information Act for Data Files
of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance Systems of the
Military Departments
This section would amend section 2254 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to exempt data
files of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance
(MFOQA) systems of the military departments from the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and would direct the Secretary
of Defense to prescribe guidance for implementation of this
authority. The committee is concerned that the release of MFOQA
data, either when viewed in the aggregate, when combined with
other information already in the public domain, or already
subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, could
reveal sensitive information regarding the tactics, techniques,
procedures, processes, and operational and maintenance
capabilities concerning military combat aircraft, units, and
aircrew.
Section 1082--Limitation on Procurement and Fielding of Light Attack
Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review the capability of the elements of the Department of
Defense to conduct light attack and armed reconnaissance
missions, or to fulfill requests of partner nations for
training in the conduct of such missions, in the next
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review required by section 118b
of title10, United States Code. This section would also
prohibit obligation or expenditure of funds for the start of
any new program to procurement of field light attack and armed
reconnaissance aircraft until the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council validates a requirement for such aircraft and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
approves the acquisition strategy for such aircraft. This
section would allow the Secretary to waive the prohibition
should he determine that acquisition of the aircraft is
necessary to support contingency operations in Republic of Iraq
or Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The committee is concerned by the disjointed approach taken
by the Department of Defense in its many efforts to acquire and
field light attack and armed reconnaissance aircraft. The
committee is aware of efforts by the Navy and Marine Corps to
field an operational demonstration of light attack and armed
reconnaissance aircraft in Afghanistan. The committee has not
supported these efforts because there has not been a validated
requirement for such aircraft and the Combined Force Air
Component Commander has not indicated a need for additional
assets to provide light attack and armed reconnaissance
capability for the U.S. Central Command theater of operations.
The committee is also aware that the budget request contained
$158.5 million for a new program to procure nine Light Attack
Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft for the Air Force for
fiscal year 2012. The LAAR program is proposed to eventually
procure 15 aircraft to provide the Air Force capability to
train foreign air forces in light attack aircraft to facilitate
building partnership capacity (BPC). The committee is not aware
of a validated requirement for such aircraft and is concerned
that the use of Air Force procurement funds for the sole
purpose of BPC may be in violation of section 1301(a) title 31,
United States Code.
Section 1083--Use of State Partnership Program Funds for Civilians and
Non-Defense Agency Personnel
This section authorizes the National Guard to use up to
$3.0 million of the funds made available through the State
Partnership Program to pay travel and per diem costs associated
with the participation of U.S. and foreign civilian and non-
defense ministry personnel in authorized National Guard State
Partnership Program events.
Section 1084--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for Manufacturing Beyond
Low Rate Initial Production at Certain Prototype Integration Facilities
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to
be appropriated for production activities at prototyping
integrations facilities beyond initial low rate production in
order to ensure that full-rate production activities are
accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. The
provision also contains a waiver, allowing the Assistant
Secretary of the Army to waive the prohibition in emergent
cases or to respond to urgent warfighter needs in theater.
Subtitle I--Other Matters
Section 1091--Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of Certain
Department of Defense Critical Infrastructure Information
This section would exempt certain Department of Defense
critical infrastructure information from disclosure pursuant to
Section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code.
Section 1092--Expansion of Scope of Humanitarian Demining Assistance
Program to Include Stockpiled Conventional Munitions Assistance
This section would update the Department of Defense
definition of ``Humanitarian Demining Assistance'' to include
physical security, stockpile management and explosive safety as
components of assistance and training.
Section 1093--Mandatory Implementation of the Standing Advisory Panel
on Improving Coordination Among the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the United States Agency for International
Development on Matters of National Security
This section would amend section 1054 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to require the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of State, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) to jointly establish a
standing advisory panel to advise, review, and make
recommendations on ways to improve coordination among the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID on
matters relating to national security, including reviewing
their respective roles and responsibilities.
The committee believes this panel would provide invaluable,
objective information and recommendations to both the agencies
and Congress about how to improve interagency coordination and
collaboration. The committee encourages the panel to review and
make recommendations on coordination among, and the respective
roles and responsibilities of, the agencies in activities such
as stability operations, foreign assistance, including security
assistance, strategic communications, public diplomacy, and
countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Further, the committee encourages the panel to review and make
recommendations on: the structures and systems used to
coordinate policymaking and policy execution among the
agencies; efforts to share lessons learned; the coordination of
activities conducted abroad by the agencies or their
contractors; the processes and systems for providing and
incentivizing interagency education, training, and rotational
assignment opportunities to agency personnel; and other matters
as the panel considers appropriate.
Section 1094--Number of Navy Carrier Air-Wings and Carrier Air-Wing
Headquarters
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
maintain a minimum force structure of 10 aircraft-carrier air-
wings and a dedicated headquarters for each carrier air-wing.
Section 1095--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for Organizational
Clothing and Individual Equipment
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a budget justification display that covers programs and
activities for procurement of organizational clothing and
individual equipment (OCIE). The committee notes that the
report on the acquisition strategy of OCIE required by the
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) has not been delivered. The committee
continues to be concerned that the military services are
reliant on overseas contingency operation requests to fund OCIE
requirements and believes that greater transparency in annual
budget justification materials would enhance oversight.
Section 1096--National Rocket Propulsion Strategy
This section contains five findings concerning the reviews
undertaken by the Department of Defense (DOD) of the solid
rocket motor and liquid rocket engine propulsion industrial
base, the reliance of multiple Government agencies on this
industrial base, the impact on the Department of Defense
resulting from the end of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Space Shuttle program and termination of the
Constellation program, and the increasing cost of DOD systems
that are in part due to the uncertainty in the industrial base.
This section would require the President to submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a national rocket
propulsion strategy for the United States. Lastly, this section
would express the sense of Congress that the sustainment of the
solid rocket motor and liquid rocket engine industrial base is
a national challenge that spans multiple government agencies
and requires the Administration's attention.
Section 1097--Inclusion of Religious Symbols as Part of Military
Memorials
This section would add a new section to chapter 21 of title
36, United States Code, and would authorize the inclusion of
religious symbols as part of a military memorial that is
established or acquired by the U.S. Government. This section
would also authorize the inclusion of religious symbols on
certain military memorials that are not established by the U.S.
Government.
Section 1098--Unmanned Aerial Systems and National Airspace
This section would require a program to integrate unmanned
aircraft systems into the national airspace system at six test
ranges.
Section 1099--Sense of Congress Regarding the Killing of Osama bin
Laden
This section would express a number of findings regarding
Osama bin Laden, al Qa'ida, and the United States Special
Operations Command. This section would also express the sense
of Congress regarding the service provided to the nation by the
United States Special Operations Command and that the killing
of Osama bin Laden represents a major victory in the war
against terrorism and radical extremists.
Section 1099A--Grants to Certain Regulated Companies for Specified
Energy Property Not Subject to Normalization Rules
This section would amend section 1603(f) of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5)
for grants for energy property in lieu of tax credits.
Section 1099B--Submittal of Information Regarding Individuals Detained
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
produce certain materials compiled in coordination with the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence
relating to current and former Guantanamo detainees to
appropriate committees of Congress.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Department of Defense Hiring Processes
The committee is concerned that Federal hiring process has
become too lengthy and complicated to attract quality
candidates and to enable the timely and responsive execution of
hiring actions. This is of particular concern for the
Department of Defense (DOD) which currently is seeking to
expand its acquisition workforce as well as bring back ``in-
house'' functions that are inherently governmental and
currently performed by contractors. To address many of the
current inefficiencies, Congress has provided the Department
with direct and expedited hiring authorities for certain health
care professions and acquisition workforce positions, and
science and technology positions for the DOD laboratories.
However, these are temporary solutions for a fundamental
problem with the Department's internal hiring processes.
To promote improvements in the Department's hiring process,
the committee included section 1113 in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)
which gave the Department general flexibilities to reform its
hiring processes. However, little progress has yet been
realized.
The committee notes that the U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) has conducted several studies over the years on
the Federal hiring process, and has made several
recommendations for reforming the Federal hiring process - many
of which do not need legislative or regulatory changes. Among
the MSPB recommendations are:
(1) Manage hiring as a business function, not an
administrative function;
(2) Evaluate internal agency hiring processes and
policies to identify barriers to quality, timely and
cost-effective hires;
(3) Employ rigorous assessment strategies that
emphasize quality; and
(4) Properly prepare human resources staff and
managers for their hiring responsibilities.
Within the Department, human resources management is the
responsibility of the Civilian Personnel Management System
(CPMS), which reports to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness. However, the committee is concerned
that the reliance on outdated staffing systems is hindering the
Department's ability to recruit and hire qualified individuals
to fulfill its mission requirements. Since 1997, the Department
has used the Resumix human resources staffing tool, with each
component maintaining customized versions. The committee notes
that a 2009 report by the Inspector General (IG) of the
Department of Defense found that Resumix has ``experienced a
number of escalating system issues such as the inability to
keep pace with continuous technological advancements'' and
other problems that have made it difficult to maintain and
operate. As a result, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness tasked the CPMS office with replacing
Resumix; although, as the committee notes, that has not yet
occurred.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take immediate steps to
improve the Department's hiring processes, including more
involvement of DOD managers in the process as well as
modernizing staffing tools. Furthermore, the Under Secretary
should provide a briefing by December 1, 2011, to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services on the steps taken to address the findings in the 2009
IG report, the steps taken to incorporate the MSPB
recommendations, a description of the initiatives being taken
towards hiring reform, a summary of any statutory or regulatory
barriers to hiring process improvements, and the actions taken
to modernize staffing tools. The briefing also should identify
the resources required to implement the changes.
Pay Parity for Department of Defense Federal Wage System Employees
Employed at Joint Military Institutions
The committee is aware that the recommendations made under
the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990, as amended
(Public Law 101-510) to create joint military installations
throughout the continental United States and Hawaii resulted in
instances where the constituent installations are not all
located within the same pay locality. The President's Pay Agent
subsequently assigned General Schedule employees of certain
joint military installations to a single locality area,
resulting in a disparity between General Schedule and Federal
Wage System employees employed at the particular joint military
installation. The committee recognizes the impact of such
disparity on effective personnel management.
An example of this is Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst
where the former McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix are in the
Philadelphia cost of living area, and the former Lakehurst NAES
is in the New York cost of living area. The President's Pay
Agent placed Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst in the New York
locality pay area effective October 2009. The Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC) recommended
consolidation of the Federal Wage System area within the same
General Schedule locality pay area in October 2010; however, no
further action has been taken.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management, after consultation with the Secretary
of Defense, to make a timely determination on the FPRAC
recommendation of October 2010 with respect to Department of
Defense Federal Wage System employees employed at joint
military institutions constituted on or before the date of
enactment whose constituent installations are not all located
within the same pay locality. The Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall provide a briefing to the Senate and
House Committees on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the actions
being taken to address the FPRAC recommendation by November 15,
2011.
Performance Management Authorities for the Department of Defense
Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) repealed the Department of
Defense (DOD) National Security Personnel System. In addition
to requiring the conversion of all DOD civilian employees back
to the General Schedule (GS) system, section 1113 provided the
Department with performance management and hiring flexibilities
which would apply across the DOD civilian workforce, within the
context of the existing GS system and consistent with
collective bargaining principles. The committee is aware that
the transition office has been moving forward in its efforts to
develop the new authorities, starting with a ``New Beginnings''
conference held in September 2010 that brought together DOD
management and labor representatives to discuss perspectives on
performance management. As a next step, design teams have been
established to begin the development of a plan for implementing
the performance management and hiring flexibilities authorized
in section 1113. In the area of performance management, the
committee encourages the design teams to consider methods that
more closely link pay with performance rather than tenure,
which has been the primary persistent criticism of the GS
system. Such incentives could include both monetary (such as
quality step increases or cash awards for performance) and non-
cash awards. These are just examples of the range of options
the committee believes the performance management design team
should consider. In addition, the Department should develop
measurable personnel performance metrics and consider whether
professional certification programs are appropriate.
In addition, the committee recognizes that the Department
needs flexibility to efficiently hire and retain qualified
individuals. The committee encourages the hiring design team to
review the lessons learned from the expedited hiring
authorities provided for the acquisition workforce and other
demonstration projects as well as undertake a review of, and
consider changes to, the current position classification system
to allow greater hiring and promotion flexibilities as well as
developing career paths that would allow civilian employees to
develop professionally. Furthermore, the committee believes
that in order for these authorities to be properly implemented,
and to ensure enduring leadership and commitment, the
Department must establish robust training programs for managers
and human resources offices, as called for in section 1113.
Finally, the committee recognizes that while the work of the
design teams is not expected to be completed until September
2011, legislation may be needed to address issues raised that
might hinder the ability of the Department to implement a fair
and transparent performance management system. Therefore, the
committee has included language a provision elsewhere in this
title that may facilitate legislative changes as the process
moves forward.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Amendments to Department of Defense Personnel Authorities
This section would make technical amendments to the
Department of Defense performance management, hiring and
training authorities in section 9902 of title 5, United States
Code. This section also would change the heading of chapter 9,
title 5, United States Code, to reflect the fact that the
Department of Defense National Security Personnel System was
repealed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
Section 1102--Provisions Related to the Department of Defense
Performance Management System
This section would make technical amendments to the
reporting requirements in section 9902 of title 5, United
States Code. Section 9902 authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to implement a performance management system to replace the
National Security Personnel System, which was repealed in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84). Within 1 year after date of enactment (October 28,
2009), the Secretary of Defense was required to report to the
Senate and House Committees on Armed Services, the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the
Department's plan for the new personnel management system.
However, while significant progress has been made, no new
performance management system has been implemented.
This section would extend the reporting requirements to
ensure that the relevant congressional committees are kept
apprised of the progress toward a new Department of Defense
performance management system. In addition, the Comptroller
General of the United States was required to review the
Department's plan and to assess employee satisfaction with the
new system. Since there currently is no plan to review, this
provision would extend the existing reporting mandate and
clarify the elements on which the Comptroller General Office
should report to the relevant congressional committees.
Section 1103--Repeal of Sunset Provision Relating to Direct Hire
Authority at Demonstration Laboratories
This section would make permanent the direct hire
authorities that were provided to the Department of Defense
(DOD) demonstration laboratories by section 1108 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417). The committee notes that the direct hire
authority has been an effective tool to the DOD demonstration
laboratories in recruiting qualified individuals with advanced
scientific and engineering degrees.
Section 1104--Denial of Certain Pay Adjustments for Unacceptable
Performance
This section would prohibit payment of the annual
nationwide adjustment to any Federal civilian employee who is
rated as ``below satisfactory'', which is estimated to be about
1 percent of the Department of Defense's more than 700,000
civilian employees. Currently, all Federal civilian employees,
no matter how they are rated on their performance, receive the
annual nationwide adjustment in January of each year. Federal
civilian employees who are rated as ``below satisfactory''
still receive an increase in salary despite the fact that they
are underperforming. An incentive is necessary to entice these
employees to improve their job performance.
Section 1105--Revisions to Beneficiary Designation Provisions for Death
Gratuity Payable Upon Death of a Government Employee
This section would amend section 8102 of title 5, United
States Code, to allow a Federal civilian employee to designate
anyone they choose to receive the entirety of a death gratuity
if the Federal civilian employee dies of injuries incurred in
connection with service with an Armed Force in a contingency
operation. Currently, section 8102 restricts Federal civilian
employees from designating more than 50 percent of a death
gratuity to an unrelated person. This section would provide
parity with the beneficiaries of military service members who
may receive 100 percent of a death regardless of the
relationship to the deceased.
Section 1106--Extension of Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on
Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal Civilian
Employees Working Overseas
This section would extend, for 2 additional years, the
authority of the head of a Federal agency to waive the
limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a
Federal civilian employee who performs certain work in an
overseas location that falls under the responsibility of U.S.
Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the
responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military
operation, or responding to an emergency declared by the
President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate of salary
payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3,
United States Code.
Section 1107--Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations
This section would amend section 9903 of title 5, United
States Code, which provides authority to the Secretary of
Defense to hire highly qualified experts and prescribes
appropriate pay rates. This section would clarify the intent of
that statute to allow such individuals who are serving in a
contingency operation area, as defined in section 101 of title
10, United States Code, to receive similar benefits and
compensation as other Federal civilian employees serving in
those areas currently receive. This includes premium pay or
danger pay allowances, compensatory time off, and other
appropriate compensation or allowances authorized under chapter
59 of title 5, United States Code.
The committee is aware that highly qualified experts
currently serving in areas of contingency operations have been
denied any type of hazardous duty compensation because the
Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management
have interpreted such compensation as an incentive, which is
explicitly prohibited under section 9903 of title 5, United
States Code. While the committee does not agree with the
interpretation that such hazardous duty compensation is an
incentive, this section would remove any possible ambiguity.
Furthermore, the committee encourages the Department to take
immediate action to remedy the compensation inequities
experienced by the highly qualified experts currently working
in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan.
Section 1108--Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators
This section would require that each Federal agency that
sends civilian employees on hazardous duty assignments in
support of U.S. military operations in a contingency operation
assign post-combat case coordinators to employees who sustain a
traumatic injury, or experience a serious disease or illness
during performance of their duty in the contingency operation.
The committee notes that Federal civilian employees
increasingly are providing important support in contingency
operations, and many are experiencing serious medical problems
upon returning to their regular assignment.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
already assigns caseworkers to its civilian expeditionary
workforce. The responsibility of these caseworkers is to guide
and direct all deployed civilians to available resources,
provide intervention in problem claims, and work with the
service component's Injury Compensation Program Administrators
to help injured employees navigate the Office of Worker's
Compensation Program claims process. However, the committee is
concerned that no similar support yet exists for civilians
deployed from other Federal agencies who need assistance
coordinating benefits between the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program and the Federal Employees Compensation Act
(Public Law 89-554).
Section 1109--Authority to Waive Recovery of Certain Payments Made
under Civilian Employees Voluntary Separation Incentive Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
waive repayment of the voluntary separation incentive pay
(VSIP) for employees who accepted a reassignment with the
Department of Defense during the period of April 1, 2004, to
May 1, 2008, and had received written assurance that repayment
would not be required or would be waived. The committee notes
that the individuals who were rehired were assured that they
would not be required to repay their separation pay based on an
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) national emergency
guidance issued following September 1, 2001. However, due to an
oversight, the committee understands that it was subsequently
determined the guidance did not apply to employees covered
under section 9902, title 5, United States Code, which
effectively superseded the OPM guidance. The committee
understands that approximately 40 individuals were affected by
this determination and that the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service now is seeking VSIP repayment from these individuals.
While the Department no longer waives VSIP repayment for
individuals who have been rehired since May 1, 2008, the
committee believes those individuals who returned to the
Department immediately following the declaration of a national
emergency, and who received written assurances that repayment
would not be required, deserve to retain, or be repaid, their
voluntary separation incentive pay.
Section 1110--Extension of Continued Health Benefits
This section would extend for 5 years the ability of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to pay the Federal Government's
share and administrative fees for Temporary Continuation of
Coverage (TCC) of health insurance premiums for DOD employees
who have been separated due to a reduction in force action, as
described in section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5, United States
Code. Originally authorized by section 346 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-
484), the current authority expires on: December 31, 2011, or
February 1, 2012, if a specific notice of the separation is
given to the individual before December 31, 2011. TCC enables
Federal employees who are separated from Federal service to
continue their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB)
coverage for up to 18 months. Payment of the Federal Government
portion of the TCC FEHB premium and the 2 percent
administrative fee has eased a tremendous financial hardship on
former DOD employees who lost their jobs due to Base
Realignment and Closure activities. This payment also has
enabled families to continue health coverage that they
otherwise may not have been able to afford.
Section 1111--Authority to Waive Maximum Age Limit for Certain
Appointments
This section would amend section 3307 of title 5, United
States Code, to allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to waive
the hiring and retirement age limits for Federal law
enforcement and fire fighter positions in certain
circumstances. While the committee supports the Department's
plan to scale back significantly the use of contractors in
support services, it is concerned that there may be unintended
consequences when converting law enforcement and fire fighting
functions to Federal Government positions. Even if the
contractor employees currently performing these functions would
like to transition into positions with the Federal Government,
many may not be able to compete for such positions because of
the existing statutory age limits. This section would help
rectify that situation by explicitly allowing the waiver of the
hiring age limits for Federal law enforcement and firefighter
personnel in these circumstances, thus ensuring that the
Federal Government is able to hire these experienced
individuals. The committee expects that any DOD-established
physical or medical standards for these positions still would
apply.
Section 1112--Sense of Congress Relating to Pay Parity for Federal
Employees Serving at Certain Remote Military Installations
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Defense
(DOD) shall develop procedures for determining locality pay to
address circumstances unique to DOD civilian personnel. These
circumstances would address pay parity issues for Department of
Defense (DOD) civilian personnel employed at military
installations located in remote locations where such employees
may have to live in a higher cost municipality in the vicinity.
An example of this would be the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare
Training Center which has had difficulty recruiting and
retaining qualified civilians to work at this remote training
center.
Section 1113--Reports by Office of Special Counsel
This section would make a technical amendment to section
1213 of title 5, United States Code, regarding the content of
whistleblower reports transmitted to Congress. While the
committee recommends this as an efficiency initiative, it notes
that this section still would ensure that Congress receives
sufficient information necessary to determine if any follow-up
action is needed on a whistleblower case.
Section 1114--Disclosure of Senior Mentors
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
publicly disclose the names of senior mentors. This section
would expand upon section 1102 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) that would codify Department of Defense policy (issued in
April 2010) that senior mentors be hired as highly qualified
experts and comply with all Federal laws and regulations on
personnel and ethics.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee focused on three broad areas in this title.
First, the committee continued its effort to ensure that both
the necessary resources and the proper degree of oversight were
brought to bear on the war against al Qa'ida and other militant
extremists in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Second, the committee worked to
enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to build the
capacity of nations that have chosen to partner with the United
States in combating militant extremism. Third, the committee
strengthened its oversight of Department of Defense efforts to
identify and prepare for future threats to U.S. national
security.
On December 16, 2010, the Administration released the
findings of its annual Afghanistan and Pakistan Review, noting
significant operational gains in Afghanistan due to an
increased operational tempo, expanded special operations forces
targeting of Taliban leadership in Afghanistan, and expanded
local security measures at the village level. These operations
have reduced Taliban influence and arrested the momentum they
had achieved in recent years. While noting the operational
progress achieved in 2010, the Administration's review also
noted these gains were ``fragile and reversible,'' and stated
``the challenge remains to make our gains durable and
sustainable.'' To consolidate these gains, the committee has
extended the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP),
adding additional funds made available by the termination of
CERP in Iraq as U.S. forces withdraw from that country. The
committee has also extended the Afghan Infrastructure Fund.
The committee applauds the declaration of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) at the November 2010 Lisbon
Summit of a transition process that will continue through 2014,
when the Afghan Government will assume full authority for
security in Afghanistan. While guaranteeing a U.S. troop
presence through 2014, the committee remains concerned that the
Administration still plans to redeploy troops in July 2011
without having specified what conditions will determine the
decision regarding troop withdrawals. In order to assist
continued allied participation in the fight against al Qa'ida
and other violent extremists, the committee has authorized the
continuation of the Coalition Support Fund and the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund, although the committee notes with
concern the deterioration in relations between the United
States and Pakistan in early 2011 and subsequent statements by
the Government of Pakistan that threaten to undermine our
concerted effort against common threats.
The committee seeks to enhance the ability of the
Department of Defense to build the capacity of nations that
have chosen to partner with the United States in combating
militant extremism. Recent turmoil in the greater Middle East
has demonstrated the importance of strong military-to-military
relationships, as throughout the region there was a strong
correlation between the existence and strength of the military-
to-military relationship between the United States and the
partner nation and the level of violence in that country during
the ``Arab Spring'' protests. Given the increased uncertainty
regarding the nature of the regimes that will emerge from the
turbulence of the past months, these military-to-military
relationships are more vital than ever. Our forces' ability to
conduct in-country training with partner nation
counterterrorism units will be critical in disrupting al Qa'ida
and affiliated groups' attempts to exploit the region's
turmoil. Consequently, the committee has increased the
authorization for the 1206 program from $350.0 million to
$400.0 million as a hedge against the uncertainty of the
region's revolutions.
The committee believes that the stability and security of
the Republic of Iraq is an important U.S. national interest.
Yet the committee is concerned that the scheduled departure of
U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011, will leave the
Iraqi Security Forces with several critical capabilities gaps
that may render it unable to achieve minimum combat readiness,
thereby jeopardizing Iraq's stability. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to consider multiple methods of
strengthening the military-to-military relationship with Iraq,
to include - but not limited to - joint military exercises and
the expansion of Department of State programs that bring Iraqi
officers and non-commissioned officers to the United States for
education and training.
The committee has also taken several steps to strengthen
its oversight of Department of Defense efforts to identify and
prepare for future threats to U.S. national security. While
commending the Secretary of Defense for previous reports on the
military power of the People's Republic of China and the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the committee has directed the
Secretary of Defense to provide more detailed reporting on each
country's missile capabilities and proliferation activities.
The committee has also directed a classified study be
undertaken by an independent research entity on any gaps
between these country's anti-access capabilities and U.S.
forces' ability to overcome them. Furthermore, the committee
has directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct assessments of
two less conventional, but potentially grave, threats to
national security: an assessment of the energy security of the
NATO alliance, and an assessment of the risk posed to the
United States or U.S. allies as a result of U.S. Federal debt
owned by the People's Republic of China. Finally, the committee
remains concerned about instability on the Korean peninsula,
particularly given anticipated leadership changes within the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Therefore, the
committee includes a requirement for a detailed report on the
military and security developments involving the DPRK.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
African Security Sector Reform
The committee supports continued efforts to promote African
security sector reform and to increase the professionalism and
accountability of civilian control of African security forces.
The committee notes that increased professionalism and
accountability of civilian control of security forces reduces
the risk posed to civilians by soldiers who might otherwise
commit abuses with impunity. Specifically, the committee
commends the commitment of the United States armed forces to
security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), as evidenced by the ongoing U.S.-DRC training and
advisement partnership at Kisangani in the DRC. The committee
urges the Department of Defense to continue to prioritize such
efforts as a part of its overall strategy for promoting peace,
stability, and human rights on the African continent.
Closure of United States Military Installations and Alteration of
Basing Arrangements in European Command Theater of Operations
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense plans
to reduce the number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) stationed in
Europe from four to three, in accordance with a decision
announced in April, 2011. The committee is concerned that
reductions below three BCTs in Europe could impair the ability
of the combatant command to fulfill the Unites States'
commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
and theater cooperation activities.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
consult with Congress prior to any decision to implement the
closure of any installation or alteration of a permanent basing
arrangement in the European theater. Furthermore, the committee
encourages the Secretary to consider the importance of the
United States NATO commitments and the reliance of our allies
upon the United States military force structure for deterrence
and defense. Likewise, the committee notes that recently
expanded missions of the U.S. forces in Europe should also be
considered, including the use of Joint Task Forces to train and
build mutual capabilities with partner countries, support
missile defense, and cybersecurity missions.
Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program
The committee recognizes the Euro-North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) program
as a unique opportunity to improve relationships with
international partners and train allied pilots to a consistent
standard. Currently, section 21(g) of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(g)) and the ENJJPT memorandum of
understanding (MOU) require nations participating in the ENJJPT
program to share in the costs of the program. The committee
believes that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and NATO to expand participation in ENJJPT to
include additional NATO and certain Partnership for Peace
nations, and to establish mechanisms to assist these nations in
meeting the cost-sharing obligations for participation.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air
Force to seek an amendment to the ENJJPT MOU to allow signatory
nations to sponsor the participation of pilots from other NATO
and Partnership for Peace nations in the ENJJPT program.
Joint Military Exercises with Iraq
The committee believes that the stability and security of
the Republic of Iraq is an important national interest given
Iraq's role as an ally in the global war on terrorism, as a
potential counterweight against Iranian aggression, as a
bulwark of representative government in the Arab world, and as
a potential supplier of energy resources to the United States
and allied countries. Yet in November 2010, the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense issued a report warning
that the pending departure of U.S. forces by December 31, 2011,
will leave U.S. forces little time to assist the Iraqi Security
Forces (ISF) in developing its logistics system, and cautioned
that without viable logistical and industrial capabilities, the
ISF may be unable to achieve minimum combat readiness,
potentially endangering the Republic of Iraq's stability. In
January 2011, U.S. Forces-Iraq (USF-I) reported that additional
investments will have to be made to fill what it described as
``essential gaps'' in Iraqi Security Forces capabilities,
noting that additional funds and training personnel may be
required after 2011 to ensure that the Iraqi Security Force is
capable of providing for Iraq's security. Among the gaps cited
by analysts are logistics, training, special operations, and
air space management. In testimony before the committee on
February 16, 2011, the Secretary of Defense said, ``The truth
of the matter is, the Iraqis are going to have some problems
that they're going to have to deal with if we are not there in
some numbers,'' and that ``there is certainly, on our part, an
interest in having an additional presence'' above levels set by
the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement.
There currently is no agreement in place for U.S. forces to
remain in Iraq after December 31, 2011, beyond the projected
150-member Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) to be
based in Embassy Baghdad. Yet the committee believes that a
residual U.S. force presence in Iraq, after 2011, and above the
OSC-I presence would be beneficial in order to continue to
train and advise Iraqi units in functional areas where it lacks
capability. If the Government of Iraq requests to discuss
agreements that would retain a U.S. force-presence in Iraq, the
committee would look favorably on such a discussion, and
encourages the Department of Defense and the Department of
State to pursue such an agreement. Elsewhere in this title, the
committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary
of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees
within 10 days of reaching such an agreement or, in absence of
such an agreement, to report on the extent which participation
by the Department of Defense in OSC-I programs will address the
capability gaps of the Iraqi Security Forces.
In the event that such an agreement proves unattainable,
the committee believes the Department of Defense, in
consultation with the Department of State, should consider
methods to strengthen the military-to-military relationship
with Iraq in order to secure the gains that have been made to
date, contribute to Iraq's stability, deter potential
aggression by Iraq's neighboring countries, further
professionalize the Iraqi military, and assist Iraq in becoming
a positive force for stability in the Middle East. The
committee does not intend to be prescriptive in describing
activities, but believes that the Department of Defense and the
Department of State should consider the value of conducting
joint exercises with the Iraqi military, similar to the Bright
Star exercises carried out with the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Further, the committee encourages the Department of Defense and
the Department of State to explore ways to bring more Iraqi
officers and noncommissioned officers to the United States for
education, training, and similar activities. The committee
further requests that the Department of Defense, within a
reasonable period of time, provide a briefing to the committee
on ways to strengthen the U.S.-Iraq military relationship.
Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of
China
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for
delivering a comprehensive report on the ``Military and
Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of
China,'' in accordance with section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65), including a discussion of the extent to which China's
ballistic and cruise missiles increase its ability to control
access to the western Pacific. The committee does not believe,
however, that the report sufficiently addressed China's
domestic production capabilities or proliferation of these
technologies.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include
greater detail on the ballistic and cruise missile activities
of the People's Republic of China, in subsequent submission of
report required by section 1202, including China's domestic
development and production of these capabilities, and any
Chinese proliferation activities of technologies related to
cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles,
and weapons of mass destruction to other countries. This detail
should include, but should not be limited to, the proliferation
of missile technologies and components at or near the threshold
prohibited by the Missile Technology Control Regime and other
multinational export control regimes, in as much unclassified
detail as possible.
Finally, the committee encourages the Secretary to submit
the next report by March 1, 2012, as required by section 1202.
Military Power of Iran
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for the
2010 report on the military power of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, pursuant to section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), in
particular for the report's attention to Iran's rocket and
missile capabilities and Iran's proliferation activities. The
committee encourages the Department to provide equal or greater
detail on Iran's missile programs and missile-related
proliferation activities in future reports.
NATO Special Operations Headquarters
The committee recognizes the tremendous achievements of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations
Headquarters (NSHQ) in advancing and building a self-sustaining
and interoperable special operations force across the alliance.
The committee further recognizes the courageous direct and
indirect contributions that NATO special operations forces have
made particularly in Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee
notes that the current authorized base funding level for the
NATO Special Operations Headquarters is $50.0 million and
recognizes that this base funding level neither precludes nor
prevents NSHQ from supplemental funding in support of
additional overseas contingency requirements and encourages the
Department of Defense to consider using Overseas Contingency
Operations funds for this purpose where appropriate.
Report on Deployment of Assets and Personnel to Libya
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services upon making a decision to task any asset of
the Department of Defense (DOD) to Libya, if such asset is
currently tasked to support ongoing contingency operations in
Afghanistan or Iraq. Any such notification must be submitted no
later than 72 hours after the redeployment or tasking of a DOD
asset in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation Unified
Protector. Such a notification should include at a minimum the
number and type of assets and associated personnel transferred
from supporting operations in Afghanistan or Iraq to supporting
operations in Libya, including but not limited to:
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets;
close air support assets (to include unmanned platforms);
aerial refueling assets; and the diversion of any logistical or
other resources used to support operations in Afghanistan or
Iraq.
The Secretary of Defense is further directed to report the
deployment of any U.S. military personnel or Department of
Defense civilians to sovereign Libyan territory, whether held
by government or rebel forces.
Taxing Foreign Assistance in Afghanistan
The committee is concerned over recent actions by the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which has
contravened existing bilateral agreements by sending past-due
tax bills to U.S. companies implementing U.S. Government
programs to deliver much-needed stabilization and
reconstruction assistance to the Afghan people. While the
committee understands that taxing foreign companies operating
in Afghanistan is a potentially important source of revenue for
the Afghan Government, U.S. law forbids the taxing of U.S.
Government assistance. Moreover, there are reports that some
Afghan Government officials have reportedly threatened
companies with arrests of their employees, loss of licenses,
and confiscation of aid goods should those companies ignore the
tax bills. These actions are counter-productive to both Afghan
and U.S. national security, as they threaten to undermine
public support for U.S. Government assistance efforts necessary
to create a stable Afghanistan capable of preventing that
country from once again becoming a safe haven for extremists
groups seeking to attack the U.S. homeland.
The U.S. Government and the Afghan Government carefully
negotiated bilateral agreements to exempt U.S. companies
operating in Afghanistan from such taxation. The committee
therefore urges the Department of Defense and the Department of
State to examine the accords and work with their Afghan
counterparts to eliminate any confusion or disagreement
regarding the tax-exempt status for U.S.-based companies that
implement U.S. Government assistance programs in Afghanistan.
Transparency in NATO Arms Sales
The committee is concerned about press reports that
indicate members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Alliance have engaged in, or planned to engage in, major
sales or financing of defense articles and defense services
with non-NATO member states, including the Russian Federation.
According to recent press reports, a corporation in the Federal
Republic of Germany will build a combat training center for the
Russian Army in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The German
corporation would also reportedly work with a Russian
corporation to handle the support, repair, and modernization of
military equipment. Other press reports have indicated that a
corporation in the French Republic has recently contracted to
sell Mistral amphibious assault craft to the Russian
Federation. The committee is concerned that such sales and
financing could adversely affect the deterrence and defense
capabilities and the cohesion of the NATO alliance, as well as
other security commitments by the United States.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense, in cooperation with the Economic Secretariat of NATO,
to monitor these trends and purchases, and to analyze any
potential dangers that such sales and financing might pose to
the cohesion of the NATO alliance. The committee requests a
briefing from the Secretary of Defense about any adverse
political and strategic impacts that these sales and financing
have had or could have on the integrity and cohesion of the
NATO alliance.
Unfunded Requirements of the Department of Defense
The committee notes that in the past, the service chiefs
have submitted a list of unfunded requirements for each fiscal
year, upon the request of the committee. The committee believes
these lists have provided valuable insight into the priorities
of the military departments, in the event that additional
resources can be made available during the annual authorization
of appropriations for the Department of Defense. While the
committee recognizes that the President's request represents
the highest priorities of the Department, there are always
programs for which planned funding would be un-executable or
circumstances that have changed since the submission of the
President's request. The committee has historically reinvested
these funds in items from the unfunded requirements list of the
service chiefs. However, the committee also assesses that, in
recent years, the level of detail of the service chiefs'
unfunded requirements lists has diminished. Additionally, the
committee notes that the failure of the Department of Defense
to provide unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2012 in a
timely manner harmed the ability of the committee to perform
oversight of the Department of Defense. The committee urges the
service chiefs to continue to provide detailed unfunded
requirements lists to the committee so it may continue to
ensure the most efficient use of funds to meet mission
requirements.
United States Missile Defense Cooperation with Russia
The committee welcomes long-standing efforts by the United
States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to
seek cooperative opportunities with the Russian Federation on
missile defense through bilateral U.S.-Russia discussions and
the NATO-Russia Council.
During the November 2010 summit meetings of NATO Heads of
State and Government in Lisbon, Portugal, NATO members agreed
to continue a joint missile threat assessment with Russia,
reaffirmed their readiness to invite Russia to explore jointly
the potential for linking NATO and Russian missile defense
systems, and sought to resume theater missile defense
exercises. However, the committee notes that Russia still
appears to oppose the latter phases of the phased, adaptive
approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe. As Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated in February 2011,
``Experts are fully aware that the 3rd and the 4th stages of
the US `phased, adaptive approach' . . . if implemented, will
mean reaching a strategic level which directly infringes the
efficiency of Russian nuclear deterrent forces. If our concerns
are not taken into account, if no equitable joint work is
achieved, then we will have to compensate for the emerging
imbalance.''
The committee notes a pledge made by the President, in a
letter to Senator Mitch McConnell dated December 18, 2010, that
``as long as I am President, and as long as the Congress
provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue
to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the
United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and
partners. My Administration plans to deploy all four phases of
the EPAA [European Phased Adaptive Approach].'' The letter
further stated that, ``the continued development and deployment
of U.S. missile defense systems, including qualitative and
quantitative improvements to such systems, do not and will not
threaten the strategic balance with the Russia Federation.''
The committee commends this pledge, supports the full
implementation of the four phases of the PAA, and shares the
President's view that planned U.S. missile defenses do not and
will not threaten the strategic balance with the Russia
Federation. Furthermore, the committee believes that the United
States should improve U.S. missile defensive capabilities both
quantitatively and qualitatively and opposes any efforts by the
United States or Russia to negotiate a future treaty or
agreement that may limit U.S. missile defense capabilities.
The committee is also aware that Russia has proposed
splitting the defense of Europe into ``sectors'' whereby Russia
would protect Eastern Europe and the U.S. and NATO would
protect Western Europe, and has also sought integrated command
and control of missile defense assets.
The committee does not support either sectoral missile
defense or integrated command and control of missile defense
assets. The committee notes that the President has also
rejected these proposals. In the December 18, 2010 letter to
Senator McConnell cited above, the President also wrote, ``we
have made clear [to Russia] that the system we intend to pursue
with Russia will not be a joint system, and it will not in any
way limit United States' or NATO's missile defense
capabilities.'' The committee appreciates such clarification.
Additionally, the committee is aware of proposals made by
the United States to establish a missile defense data
processing center that would synthesize U.S. and NATO sensor
data with Russian sensor data to allow both sides to cue each
other's missile defense interceptor systems. While the
committee is open to such proposals, it is currently unclear
exactly what data and technology would be shared, how they
would be shared, and what equitable contributions would be made
by Russia. The committee opposes any proposals that involve the
transfer of sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and data.
Furthermore, the committee expects to receive frequent updates
on these proposals and presumes the Department of Defense will
take measures necessary to protect U.S. missile defense
technology and data.
Lastly, the committee notes that the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (New START) Resolution of Advice and Consent
to Ratification as Amended (Treaty Doc. 111-5) stated that
``Given its concern about missile defense issues, the Senate
expects the executive branch to offer regular briefings . . .
to the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services of
the Senate on all missile defense issues related to the New
START Treaty and on the progress of United States--Russia
dialogue and cooperation regarding missile defense.'' In the
spirit of bicameralism, the committee requests that the
executive branch offer these same briefings to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
U.S. Africa Command and the Lord's Resistance Army
The committee remains concerned about the Lord's Resistance
Army, its nearly two decade long reign of terror in northern
Uganda and central Africa, its killing and brutalizing of
civilians, and its continued destabilization of the region. The
committee further notes that pursuant to the Lord's Resistance
Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-172), it is the policy of the United States to
work with regional governments toward a comprehensive and
lasting resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda,
including support of viable multilateral efforts to disarm and
demobilize the Lord's Resistance Army. The committee encourages
the vigorous implementation of the policy enumerated in Public
Law 111-172 and recommends that Department of Defense provide
U.S. Africa Command with any and all resources it requires in
the execution of its efforts pursuant to this policy.
Village Stability Operations and the Afghan Local Police Program in
Afghanistan
The committee is aware of an ongoing expansion of local
security initiatives such as Village Stability Operations (VSO)
and the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program, which are designed
to empower local elders and marginalize the influence of the
criminal and extremist insurgency. Under the leadership of the
Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command--
Afghanistan (CFSOCC-A), these activities have grown in scope
and scale, and are effectively empowering Afghans to stand up
for themselves with close support from the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and coalition forces. To
support VSO and ALP expansion, the committee is also aware that
conventional U.S. infantry battalions have been assigned under
the operational control of CFSOCC-A, which had heretofore been
manned almost exclusively by Special Operations Forces. The
committee is aware that U.S. Special Operations Command has
responded to critical mission needs and emerging requirements
in support of VSO and ALP and has realigned considerable Major
Force Program (MFP)-11 resources, including communications
equipment, vehicles, alternative energy technologies, and non-
standard aviation fixed-wing aircraft.
While these programmatic shifts in MFP-11 funding appear
warranted, the committee is concerned about an increased
reliance upon Government contracts to provide security guards
at forward operating bases and facilities in support of U.S.
Special Operations Forces, and Afghan and Coalition Forces. The
committee is also concerned that as the Department of Defense
expands VSO and ALP activities, other U.S. Government agencies
have been unable to contribute a comparable and concomitant
expansion of civilian-led U.S. and Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan development and governance initiatives
and activities. Improper and inconsistent program expansion may
jeopardize realized gains, encourage splinter and outlier
activities not coordinated within the overall ALP strategy, and
systemically further damage Government of the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan credibility if Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and Coalition Forces are unable to
deliver security, development, and governance at the district,
provincial, and national level.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--Expansion of Authority for Support of Special Operations
to Combat Terrorism
This section would increase the amount authorized for
support of special operations to combat terrorism pursuant to
section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118
Stat. 2086), as most recently amended by section 1201 of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4385), from $45 million to
$50 million, extend the authority through fiscal year 2014, and
direct the Department of Defense to provide an implementation
strategy that outlines the future requirements that would
require similar authority in preparation for pending authority
expiration.
Section 1202--Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to
Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces
This section would extend, by 1 year, the authorities
relating to programs to build the capacity of foreign military
forces under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as most recently
amended by section 1207(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
This section would increase the amount authorized from fiscal
year 2011 by $50.0 million, for a total of $400.0 million in
fiscal year 2012. This section would also increase the
limitation on the amount for building capacity to participate
in or support military and stability operations by $50.0
million, for a total of $150.0 million in fiscal year 2013.
This section would also add a new reporting requirement
regarding implementation of the authority during the previous
fiscal year. The President would be required to submit such a
report to the congressional defense committees, the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs as part of the supporting materials
accompanying the President's budget request, submitted pursuant
to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.
Section 1203--Five-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional
Assisted Recovery Capabilities
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
continue to develop, manage, and execute a Non-Conventional
Assisted Recovery personnel recovery program for isolated
Department of Defense, U.S. Government, and other designated
personnel supporting United States national interests globally.
The initial authorization contained in section 943 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) provided for funds for this
program to be available through fiscal year 2011. This section
would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds through
fiscal year 2016.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
Section 1211--Authority To Establish a Program To Develop and Carry Out
Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan
This section would extend for 1 year, through the end of
fiscal year 2012, the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
established under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383). The committee further recommends increasing the amount
authorized under this provision to $475.0 million in order to
undertake high-priority, large-scale infrastructure projects in
support of the civil-military campaign in the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan.
Section 1212--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan
This section would authorize the use of operation and
maintenance funds made available to the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 2012 to provide funds for the Commanders'
Emergency Response Program in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. This section would authorize $425.0 million for
activities in fiscal year 2012, and would require the Secretary
of Defense to provide quarterly reports to the congressional
defense committees.
The committee notes that this section does not authorize
the use of the Commanders' Emergency Program in Iraq, as
previously authorized by section 1202 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 106-163), as
amended most recently by section 1212 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383). The remaining U.S. forces in the Republic of Iraq
are operating in a strictly training and advisory capacity to
Iraqi Security Force units. The committee believes that any
immediate humanitarian needs such units encounter should be
addressed through Iraqi funding sources.
Section 1213--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain
Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military
Operations
This section would extend, by 1 year, section 1232 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181), as most recently amended by section 1213 of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383). This section would authorize the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation
for: (a) logistical, military, and other support provided by
that nation to or in connection with U.S. military operations
in Operation Enduring Freedom; or (b) logistical and military
support provided by that nation to confront the threat posed by
Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremists in the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The total amount of
reimbursements made under this authority during fiscal year
2012 would not exceed $2.2 billion. The congressional
notification and reporting requirements relating to
reimbursement of Pakistan for support provided by Pakistan as
required by section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by
section 1213 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), would apply to
Coalition Support Fund reimbursements authorized by this
section.
Section 1214--Extension and Modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund
This section would extend, by 1 year, section 1224(h) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84), as most recently amended by section 1220
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), to provide assistance to
the security forces of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to
build and maintain those forces' counterinsurgency capability.
This section would also withhold authority to obligate more
than 25 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) until the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense,
submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report on
the strategy to utilize the fund, a discussion of the terrorist
or extremist groups that the United States encourages Pakistan
to combat, the gaps in capabilities of Pakistani security
units, how assistance provided utilizing the fund will address
these capability gaps, and metrics of progress. This section
directs that future updates of the report be submitted
concurrently with the President's budget request, and requires
quarterly reporting on progress in achieving U.S. strategic
objectives in Pakistan and progress made by programs supported
by PCF.
The committee feels that PCF remains a critical part of a
comprehensive program to train and equip the Pakistani army and
Pakistani Frontier Scouts to be able to conduct
counterinsurgency operations in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The committee further notes
that the Pakistani security forces have undertaken significant
operations against some extremist organizations in the FATA,
including at least one such organization that has attempted to
launch an attack against the United States homeland. However,
to date, the committee believes that Pakistan has lacked both
the capability and political will to pursue and eliminate some
well-armed and dangerous extremist groups that have attacked
U.S. forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, such as the
Haqqani Network. The committee believes that significantly
enhancing the capabilities of Pakistan through PCF, if properly
conceived and carried out, should make it easier for the
government of Pakistan to make the hard decisions to combat
these groups. However, some recent events, such as the public
request to cease drone operations against terrorists in
Pakistan's tribal areas and requests that the United States
reduce the number of special forces trainers and intelligence
operatives working in Pakistan, have caused the committee to
question if the government of Pakistan will be able to make
such a decision in the near future. The committee intends the
report required by this section to address such questions in
order to determine on an on-going basis, the value of such
assistance in promoting security in Pakistan, consistent with
the interests of the United States.
Section 1215--Report on Extension of United States-Iraq Status of
Forces Agreement
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide the congressional defense committees with formal
notification if the U.S. Government and the Government of the
Republic of Iraq complete an agreement permitting the United
States to maintain a force presence in Iraq above that
envisioned for the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I).
This section would require that in the absence of such an
agreement in place by December 31, 2011, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by January 31, 2012, outlining how Department of
Defense participation in OSC-I programs will address the
capability gaps of the Iraqi Security Forces, should the
Government of Iraq request such assistance. This section would
also require the Secretary to submit an update to such a report
concurrent with the submission of the President's budget
requests for fiscal years 2014-15, submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code,
unless such an agreement is reached. The committee intends for
these updates to cover Department of Defense OSC-I efforts for
calendar year 2012 and 2013, respectively.
Section 1216--Authority to Support Operations and Activities of the
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
utilize funds available for operations and maintenance by the
Air Force to support operations and activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). This section would fund
the life support, transportation, and personal security of
Department of Defense personnel in OSC-I. This section would
not authorize funding to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel of the Department of State.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Section 1221--Review and Report on Iran's and China's Conventional and
Anti-Access Capabilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense not
later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act to
submit to the congressional defense committees a classified
study undertaken by an independent entity outside the
Department of Defense assessing the gaps between the
conventional and anti-access capabilities of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and the People's Republic of China and the
U.S. forces' ability to overcome such capabilities. The
committee notes that sections 1238 and 1243 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) required a report and a briefing from the
Department of Defense on these subjects. However, given the
potentially grave threats posed by these capabilities to U.S.
national security and stability in the western Pacific and
Middle East, the committee believes an additional, independent
assessment is warranted to further inform the Department's
planning and the committee's oversight of these issues. The
committee encourages the Secretary to select an entity with the
necessary security clearances and expertise to review the
intelligence assessments upon which the Department's findings
were based pursuant to the report and briefing required by
sections 1238 and 1243.
Section 1222--Report and Consultation on Energy Security of NATO
Alliance
This section would express certain findings related to
energy security for members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and would require the Secretary of Defense
to direct a federally funded research and development center of
the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of the
energy security of the NATO alliance, with an emphasis on the
vulnerabilities of NATO alliance members to a sole supplier or
distribution network for oil or gas, and how such
vulnerabilities could adversely affect the security and
cohesion of the alliance. This section would further require
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to submit a report of such assessment not later than 270
days after the date of enactment of this Act. This section
would further direct the Secretary of Defense to consult with
other NATO member countries and NATO's Emerging Security
Challenges Division on other ways the United States as a NATO
member country could contribute to the energy security of the
NATO alliance and NATO regional partners.
Section 1223--Extension of Report on Progress Toward Security and
Stability in Afghanistan
This section would extend the ``Report on Progress Toward
Stability and Security in Afghanistan,'' as required by section
1230(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended by
section 1231 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
Section 1224--Report on Military and Security Developments Involving
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not
later than March 1, 2012 and March 1, 2013 to submit, in both
classified and unclassified form, a report on the current and
future military power of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea. This section would require the report be submitted to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Section 1225--National Security Risk Assessment of the United States
Federal Debt Owned by the People's Republic of China
This section would require, within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) to determine and make publicly available
the amount of accrued interest on United States Federal debt
paid to the People's Republic of China during the five years
preceding the date of enactment of this Act. This section would
further require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Director of National Intelligence, to carry out an
assessment of the national security risks posed to the United
States and United States allies as a result of the Federal debt
liabilities owed to China and the amount of interest determined
to have been paid by the United States to China. This section
would require the Secretary to submit a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs within 120 days following the date
of enactment of this Act.
Section 1226--Congressional Notification Requirement before Permanent
Relocation of Any United States Military Unit Stationed Outside the
United States
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by
inserting a new section 162a, that would require the Secretary
of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days before the
relocation of a unit stationed outside the United States.
Elements of the notification would include how the action
supports the national security strategy, commitments undertaken
by international security treaties, a combatant commander's
area of responsibility, the cost differential between
relocation and rotation to maintain the same capabilities, and
how such relocation would affect overseas Base Realignment and
Closure activities. This section would also waive the
notification requirement for relocation of a unit to a
contingency operation, for relocation as a result of a closure
of an overseas installation at the request of the government of
the host nation, or for the planned reduction of brigade combat
teams within the European command area of operations from four
to three. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
the ability of the Secretary of Defense to relocate military
units stationed outside the United States.
Section 1227--Annual Report on Military Power of the People's Republic
of China
This section would amend section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65), as most recently amended by section 1246(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84), by changing the name of the annual report required
by such section from ``Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China'' to
``Annual Report on Military Power of the People's Republic of
China''. This section would also clarify the reporting
requirements relating to China's cyber and espionage
activities.
Section 1228--Limitation on Funds to Provide the Russian Federation
with Access to United States Missile Defense Technology
This section would establish two limitations on funds made
available in this Act to provide the Russian Federation with
access to the missile defense technology and data of the United
States. The first limitation would limit funds from being used
to provide the Russian Federation with access to sensitive U.S.
missile defense technology or sensitive data. The second
limitation would limit funds from being used to provide the
Russian Federation with access, more generally, to U.S. missile
defense technology or data as part of a defense technical
cooperative agreement unless the President submits a report and
certification to certain committees.
Section 1229--International Agreements Relating to Missile Defense
This section includes several findings related to
unilateral statements made concerning the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (New START), and several of the understandings
and declarations in the Senate's Resolution of Ratification for
that treaty, related to United States legal obligations and
U.S. national interests with respect to limiting, restricting,
and improving the missile defense capabilities of the United
States. This section further includes several policy statements
concerning further limitations on and improvements to the U.S.
missile defense capabilities, and with respect to future
agreements restricting those capabilities.
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
state that, in accordance with the Senate's Resolution of
Ratification of the New START Treaty, any agreement with a
country or international organization or amendment to the New
START Treaty (including an agreement made by the Bilateral
Consultative Commission established by the treaty) concerning
the limitation of U.S. missile defense capabilities shall not
be binding on the United States, and shall not enter into force
with respect to the United States, unless after the date of the
enactment of this section, such agreement or amendment is
specifically approved with the advice and consent of the Senate
pursuant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the
Constitution; or specifically authorized by an Act of Congress.
This section would further require the President to submit
to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs an annual notification whether the Russian Federation
has recognized during the previous year the sovereign right of
the United States to pursue quantitative and qualitative
improvements in missile defense capabilities; and furthermore
whether during any treaty negotiations or other Government-to-
Government contacts between the United States and the Russian
Federation during the previous year a representative of the
Russian Federation suggested that a treaty or other
international agreement include, with respect to the United
States, restricting missile defense capabilities, military
capabilities in space, or conventional prompt global strike
capabilities, or reducing the number of non-strategic nuclear
weapons deployed in Europe.
Section 1230--Non-strategic Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Extended
Deterrence Policy
This section would express certain policy statements of the
United States on Russian and United States non-strategic
nuclear weapon reductions and extended deterrence commitments
to Europe.
This section would further prohibit any action from being
taken to effect or implement the reduction, consolidation, or
withdrawal of nuclear forces of the United States that are
based in Europe unless either 1) the reduction, consolidation,
or withdrawal of such nuclear forces is requested by the
government of the host nation in the manner provided in the
agreement between the United States and the host nation
regarding the forces; or 2) the President certifies that NATO
member states have considered the reduction, consolidation, or
withdrawal at the High Level Group, that NATO has decided to
support such reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal, and that
the remaining nuclear forces of the United States that are
based in Europe after such reduction, consolidation or
withdrawal would provide a commensurate or better level of
assurance and credibility as before such reduction,
consolidation, or withdrawal.
This section would further require that upon any decision
to reduce, consolidate, or withdraw nuclear forces of the
United States from Europe, the President to submit to certain
congressional committees a notification that the above
referenced certification has been made, a justification for
such reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal, and an assessment
of how NATO member states, in light of such action, assess the
credibility of the deterrence capability of the United States
in support of its commitments under article f of the North
Atlantic Treaty of 1949.
This section would further require the expiration of a 180
day period beginning on the date that the President makes the
above referenced certification, before the President may
commence a reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal of the
nuclear forces of the United States that are based in Europe.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for the Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $508.2
million for fiscal year 2012, representing a decrease of $14.23
million from the amount requested and authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2011. Since the submission of the
fiscal year 2011 request, several of the CTR accounts have been
reorganized. The request for fiscal year 2012 included $63.2
million for Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination, $9.8 million
for Chemical Weapons Destruction, $121.1 million for Global
Nuclear Security, $259.5 million for Cooperative Biological
Engagement, $28.1 million for Proliferation Prevention, $2.5
million for Threat Reduction Engagement, and $24.0 million for
Other Assessments/Administrative support.
The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR
program and continues to believe that the program is critical
to United States national security. In past years, the
committee has expressed concern that a lack of effective policy
guidance and leadership, as well as programmatic and funding
constraints, have sometimes limited progress of the CTR
Program. The committee notes, however, that the CTR program has
made significant achievements, and that much threat reduction
work remains to be done.
Recent national defense authorization acts addressed these
concerns by: repealing limitations on the use of CTR funds;
expanding CTR authority outside the former Soviet Union;
increasing CTR funding, including funding for new CTR
initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of
Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new
CTR initiatives and metrics; requiring a report by the
Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical
weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at
Schuch'ye; requiring increased reporting from the Secretary of
Defense on CTR defense and military contacts; providing CTR
programs with authority for urgent threat reduction activities;
authorizing the CTR program to accept international
contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses
threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and
weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise.
The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological
Engagement Program (CBEP), formerly called the Biological
Threat Reduction Program (BTRP), now encompasses over one half
of the CTR budget request. The committee reaffirms its view,
stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
that biological threat reduction and engagement ``should be
guided by a comprehensive long-term interagency engagement and
coordination; rigorous Department management and oversight;
coordination and integration with other Department programs and
activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress.'' The
committee further reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a
whole should ``maintain a strong focus'' on the full range of
threat reduction challenges. The committee further reaffirms
its view that concrete metrics remain important for measuring
the impact and effectiveness of all CTR activities. The
committee welcomes efforts by the Department of Defense to
actively consult with the committee and keep the committee
fully informed of efforts and developments in these areas.
Section 1303 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
2010 (Public Law 111-84) placed a limitation on the use of
funds for establishing centers of excellence in countries
outside the former U.S.S.R. Section 1304 of the same Act
required the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy
to jointly submit a plan, not later than April 1, 2011, on
carrying out CTR program activities planned in the People's
Republic of China. The committee notes that this report was not
submitted on time. The committee continues to remain deeply
interested in the CTR program activities taking place outside
of the former U.S.S.R., and in particular those activities in
the People's Republic of China. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to ensure
that reports are submitted on time, to continue to actively
consult with the committee, and to keep the committee fully
informed of developments and CTR program activities involving
the People's Republic of China.
Finally, the committee believes that the phrases
``military-to-military and defense contacts'' and ``defense and
military contacts'' as used in section 1501(b)(4) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, as
amended, and subsequent relevant legislation, includes defense
and military contacts that are used to support participation by
foreign non-defense departments and agencies, international
organizations, and non-governmental organizations in activities
that support the CTR mission.
The committee authorizes $508.2 million, the amount of the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Cooperative Threat Reduction Biological Surveillance Network
The committee is concerned that the proposed biological
surveillance network within the Cooperative Biological
Engagement Program (CBEP) could prove insufficient to monitor,
detect, and deter manmade pathogens, even if implemented
widely. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
assess whether the biological surveillance network would fall
short of addressing the global biological threat. The
assessment should examine the potential for dangerous pathogens
to be weaponized: (1) by relatively unsophisticated non-state
actors, including terrorists, (2) by state or non-state actors
in countries that do not fully cooperate with such a network,
or (3) by rogue state or sub-state actors who, with modest
biological knowledge and equipment, might be able to circumvent
such a network even in countries that would participate in such
a network. The Secretary should consult with the intelligence
community in the conduct of such an assessment. The Secretary
is further directed to submit a report to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, House
Committee on Armed Services, and House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, on any necessary recommendations regarding the
modification of the CBEP mission, in unclassified form with a
classified annex, as necessary, within 150 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Cooperative Threat Reduction of Biological Weapons
The committee has long expressed support for reducing the
threats from biological weapons and the proliferation of
dangerous pathogens. However, the committee has also expressed
concern regarding measures of effectiveness of Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) activities. Section 1304 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement
metrics to measure the impact and effectiveness of all CTR
activities. The ``Report on Metrics for the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program'' referred to here as the CTR Metrics Report,
was completed in September 2010.
The committee also notes that the CTR biological program
has recently undergone a name change, from the Biological
Threat Reduction Program to the Cooperative Biological
Engagement Program, and appears to be transforming from the
site-specific and arms control threat reduction paradigms to a
new global effects paradigm, characterized by engagement and
capacity building. Additionally, budget requests for biological
threat-related CTR activities have gradually increased and now
represent more than half of the program request.
The committee is concerned that this reorientation could
both impair CTR's traditional focus on threat reduction and
complicate program assessment. To the extent that the
biological engagement monitors naturally occurring diseases, it
may become more difficult for Congress to monitor CTR's
continued focus on threats that are directly related to weapons
of mass destruction. Despite the Biological and Toxic Weapons
Convention (BWC), there is no shortage of biological weapons
material and facilities. For example, as noted in the 2005
Department of State report, ``Adherence to and Compliance With
Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and
Commitments,'' the ``United States judges, based on available
evidence, that Russia continues to maintain an offensive
program in violation of the BWC.'' The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to continue its efforts to attempt to
gain access to such sites. While there is a hope that
engagement could facilitate the attainment of this goal, it is
not clear that additional spending on engagement would persuade
an uncooperative country from opening or even admitting the
existence of such facilities. The CTR Metrics Report notes,
``we need better measures to show that these efforts actually
result in changed practices or additional effectiveness.''
Indeed, the CTR Metrics Report further acknowledges that the
metrics do not attempt to ``determine whether the activities of
the CTR program are the `right' activities.''
The committee believes that engagement dollars must yield
verifiable results and must result in threat reduction.
Therefore, elsewhere in this title the committee includes a
provision that would limit the funds available for CBEP until
the Secretary certifies that biological engagement efforts do
actually result in changed practices or additional
effectiveness, and that the program leads to a reduction in the
threat from biological weapons, bioterrorism, and pathogen
proliferation.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
This section would define the programs and funds that are
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and
specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation
for 3 fiscal years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate specific amounts for each
program element under the Department of Defense Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) Program from within the overall $508.2
million that the committee would authorize for the CTR program.
The allocation under this section reflects the amount of the
budget request for fiscal year 2012. This section would also
require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2012 funds for
purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition,
this section would provide limited authority to obligate
amounts for a program element under the CTR program in excess
of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose.
Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative
Biological Engagement Program
This section would limit funds that may be obligated or
expended for fiscal year 2012 for the cooperative biological
engagement program (CBEP) to not more than 75 percent of the
amounts authorized or otherwise available for such purpose,
until the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits
certain information to the appropriate congressional
committees. The Secretary would be required to submit a
detailed analysis of the effectiveness of CBEP, and either
written certification that CBEP results in changed practices
and threat reduction, or a detailed list of policy and program
recommendations considered by the Secretary to be necessary to
modify, expand, or curtail CBEP. This section would require the
Secretary to submit the report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House
Committee on Armed Services, and the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize appropriations for Defense
Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Defense Sealift Fund at the level identified in
section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize appropriations for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the
level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1405--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize appropriations for the Office
of the Inspector General at the level identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1406--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense
Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $50.1 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 2012. This section would also permit the use of additional
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after
Congress receives notification.
Section 1412--Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for Previously
Authorized Disposals from the National Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize revisions on limitations in
asset sales contained in section 3402(b)(5) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) as most recently amended by section 1412 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) to increase the Department of Defense's stockpile
commodity disposal authority from $730.0 million to $830.0
million, and extend this authority from 2013 to 2016.
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters
Section 1421--Changes to Management Organization to the Assembled
Chemical Weapons Alternative Program
This section would allow the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternative Program (ACWA) to work closely with the U.S. Army
Chemical Materials Agency (CMA). The committee believes that
CMAs leadership, engineers, scientists, project managers,
technical managers, and safety technicians represent a pool of
talent and experience that can and should be leveraged as CMA
begins to draw down upon the completion of its mission to help
address and anticipate risks and help to underwrite future
success of ACWA.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 1431--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home
This section would authorize $67.7 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2012.
Section 1432--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds from the Defense Health Program to the Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84).
Section 1433--Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund
This section would establish a fund to be known as the
``Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund''. Funds would be
authorized to be appropriated for the fund for fiscal year 2012
as specified in the funding table in section 4501 of this Act.
The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to transfer
amounts from the fund to another account of the Department of
Defense to mitigate unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2012
for any of the following: (1) ballistic and cruise missile
defense; (2) Navy shipbuilding; (3) strike fighter shortfalls;
(4) mine warfare; (5) intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance; (6) capabilities to defeat anti-access/area
denial technologies; and (7) basic research. The authority
provided to the Secretary of Defense to transfer amounts from
the fund to other accounts would be in addition to any other
authority provided to the Secretary to transfer funds provided
in this Act. This section would specify that the transfer of an
amount from the fund to another Department of Defense account
would be deemed an increase to the amount authorized to be
appropriated for such account. This section would also prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from transferring amounts from the
fund until the date that is 15 days after the date on which the
Secretary notifies the congressional defense committees in
writing of the details of the proposed transfer. Finally, the
Secretary of Defense would be required to issue guidance,
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
regarding the identification and selection of projects to be
funded under this section using merit-based selection criteria.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for
each fiscal year to include:
(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for
ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required
in that fiscal year for operations; and
(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to
be available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas
contingency operations principally associated with Operation
New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
CV-22 Combat Loss Replacement Funding
The budget request contained $15 million for combat loss
replacement funding and Special Operations Forces peculiar
modifications for one CV-22 for a total of $15.0 million.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2011
appropriations included funding for this combat loss
replacement.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $15.0
million, for combat loss replacement funding and Special
Operations Forces peculiar modifications.
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained $100.0 million for the Joint Urgent Operational Needs
(JUON) Fund.
The committee understands this fund would be used to
address unknown operational needs in Operation New Dawn and
Operation Enduring Freedom. However, the committee believes
that this request lacks proper justification and is duplicative
with other requests for rapid acquisition capabilities to
address urgent operational needs. The committee is aware the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified 31
entities within the Department of Defense, the military
services, and U.S. Special Operations Command whose mission is
to respond to urgent operational needs from combat theaters of
operation that all have separate budgets that could be used to
develop, equip, and field solutions to the warfighter. For
example, the committee notes the total budget request contained
$2.8 billion for the Joint IED Defeat Organization, $191.4
million for the Rapid Equipping Force, and $334.4 million for
the Rapid Fielding Directorate.
The committee also notes that Congress provided the
Department with Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA) in section
806(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), as amended by section
811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) and section 803 of
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) which provides the Secretary of
Defense $200.0 million in authority, per fiscal year, to waive
any necessary statutes for quick response to immediate
warfighter capability requirements in response to combat
fatalities. The committee understands the Department has rarely
used this authority.
According to GAO, the Department of Defense lacks complete
visibility to readily identify the total cost of its urgent
operational needs and lacks the internal controls necessary to
manage these efforts. For instance, the Department has no
comprehensive database for which to track, monitor, and
evaluate urgent operational requests and no set of universal
metrics to effectively evaluate its performance once the system
is fielded. The committee also understands the Secretary of
Defense has not issued Department-wide policy guidance that
provides for a unified approach for managing quick reaction
programs and urgent need efforts to include managing funding
requirements. Given the current budgetary challenges, the
committee believes it is critical for the Department to
reevaluate its current processes for fulfilling its urgent
needs and determine whether there is potential to reduce
duplication, fragmentation, and overlap to achieve increased
efficiencies, cost savings, or both.
Section 804 of Public Law 111-383 requires the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department's
urgent operational needs and rapid acquisition process and
report the findings to the congressional defense committees by
January 2012. The committee believes that the Department should
complete this required comprehensive evaluation of its urgent
operational needs processes before requesting approval for a
separate funding account. The committee also encourages the
Secretary to utilize RAA to address urgent operational needs.
The committee recommends $50.0 million, a decrease of $50.0
million, for the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund within the
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Elsewhere in
title 1 of this Act, the committee recommends no funds, a
decrease of $100.0 million, for the JUON Fund.
MH-60 Combat Loss Replacement Funding
The budget request contained $7.8 million for combat loss
replacement funding and Special Operations Forces peculiar
modifications for one MH-60 for a total of $7.8 million.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2011
appropriations included funding for this combat loss
replacement.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $7.8
million, for combat loss replacement funding and Special
Operations Forces peculiar modifications.
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained $280.0 million for National Guard and Reserve
equipment.
The committee notes the specific amount of resources,
including equipment, needed to achieve the National Guard and
Reserve Component's new operational reserve status remains a
challenge, given the dual mission responsibility of the
National Guard and Reserve Components, in particular the
National Guard. The committee understands that despite recent
increases in equipment funding levels that equipment shortfalls
still exist for the National Guard and Reserve Components. The
committee believes additional funds would help eliminate
identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-use
equipment. The committee expects these funds to be used for the
purposes of, but not limited to the procurement of: aircraft,
missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, tactical wheeled
vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, non-system
training devices, logistics automation systems, remote weapon
stations, chemical/biological protective shelters, and other
critical dual-use procurement items for the National Guard and
Reserve Components. The committee understands the National
Guard is also in the process of upgrading central pedestal
displays for their F-16 block 30 aircraft and recommends the
National Guard examine the viability of utilizing a similar
upgrade program for F-16 block 40 and 50 aircraft.
The committee recommends $505.0 million, an increase of
$225.0 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment within
the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Elsewhere
in title 1 of this Act, the committee recommends $4.8 billion,
an increase of $100.0 million, for National Guard and Reserve
equipment.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations
Section 1501--Purpose
This section would establish this title and make
authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of
this Act for the Department of Defense, in additional to
amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for
additional costs due to overseas contingency operations.
Section 1502--Procurement
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels
identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act.
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
operation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in
section 4302 of division D of this Act.
Section 1505--Military Personnel
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1507--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section
4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1508--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide at
the level identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1509--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Financial Matters
Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations
This section would state that amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in
this title among the accounts in this title.
Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters
Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
This section would extend, by 1 year, the conditions and
limitations on funds made available to the Department of
Defense for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF)
pursuant to section 1513 of the National Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended
by section 1531 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The committee believes that improving the capabilities of
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the capacity of the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's security-
related ministries is vital to achieving the stated goal of
transitioning responsibility for security in Afghanistan by
2014. Consequently, the committee authorizes the Department of
Defense to utilize amounts in the ASFF to construct and operate
schools for the purpose of providing literacy instruction to
recruits for the ANSF and to civilians entering the Afghan
Ministry of Defense.
Section 1532--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United States Funds
for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq
This section would apply the prohibitions of section
1508(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to funds authorized
to this title, to prohibit the acquisition, conversion,
rehabilitation, or installation of facilities for use by the
Government of the Republic of Iraq, its subdivisions, agencies,
departments, or forces, as well as the political subdivisions
of Iraq.
Section 1533--One-Year Extension of Project Authority and Related
Requirements of Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in
Afghanistan
This section would extend by 1 year the project authority
and related requirements of the Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations (TFBSO) in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan under section 1535 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) and provide $75.0 million for such purposes.
The committee notes that it has still not received the plan
required by section 1545 of Public Law 111-383 Act to
transition the activities of the Task Force to the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID). The
committee notes that the function of private sector business
development falls outside the core competency of the Department
of Defense. Therefore, the committee believes that the mission
of TFBSO should eventually fall under the jurisdiction of a
different agency, likely USAID or possibly the Department of
Commerce. However, the committee notes that the USAID does not
appear ready to assume responsibility for the TFBSO by the time
the previous authorization expires at the end of fiscal year
2011. The committee understands that developing Afghanistan's
private business sector is critical to reviving that nation's
economy. Therefore, the committee has provided the authority to
extend the TFBSO through fiscal year 2012 in order to support
the International Security Assistance Force's comprehensive
counterinsurgency strategy to achieve our strategic objectives
in Afghanistan.
TITLE XVI--ADDITIONAL BUDGET ITEMS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Procurement
Section 1601--Budget Item Relating to Modification of Torpedoes and
Related Equipment
This section would add $5,000,000 to Weapons Procurement,
Navy, for the modification of torpedoes and related equipment,
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1602--Budget Item Relating to Anti-Submarine Warfare Electronic
Equipment
This section would add $9,600,000 to Other Procurement,
Navy, for anti-submarine warfare electronic equipment, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1603--Budget Item Relating to Shallow Water Mine Counter
Measures
This section would add $8,000,000 to Other Procurement,
Navy for shallow water mine countermeasures or expended based
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1604--Budget Item Relating to LHA-7 Ship Program
This section would add $150,000,000 to Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for the LHA-7 ship program or expended based
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1605--Budget Item Relating to Mobility Aircraft Simulators
This section would add $25,000,000 to Aircraft Procurement,
Air Force line 105 for mobility aircraft simulators, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1606--Budget Item Relating to Modifications to Aircraft
This section would add $10,000,000 to Aircraft Procurement,
Army Line 027 for radio communication systems for National
Guard helicopters, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1607--Budget Item Relating to SH-60 Crew and Passenger
Survivability Upgrades
This section would add $4.5 million to Aircraft
Procurement, Navy, Line 036 for SH-60 crew and survivability
upgrades to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1608--Budget Item Relating to Modification of In Service A-10
Aircraft
This section would add $5.0 million to Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, Line 038, for A-10 lightweight airborne
recovery systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1609--Budget Item Relating to Radar Support
This section would add $5,000,000 to Other Procurement,
Navy, for radar support, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1610--Budget Item Relating to Electronic Equipment-Automation
This section would add $4,000,000 to Other Procurement,
Army, for electronic equipment-automation for support of the
deployment and adoption of new information processing systems,
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1611--Budget Item Relating to Base Defense Systems
This section would add $6.0 million to Other Procurement,
Army, Line 130 for base defense system equipment, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1612--Budget Item Relating to Sniper Rifle Modifications
This section would add $2.5 million to the Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, Budget Activity 002
for modifications of weapons and other combat vehicles, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1613--Budget Item Relating to Generators and Associated
Equipment
This section would add $10,000,000 to Other Procurement,
Army, Line 177 for generators and associated equipment to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1614--Budget Item Relating to National Guard and Reserve
Equipment
This section would add $100,000,000 to Procurement,
National Guard and Reserve Equipment, line 007, and reduce the
amount for Aircraft Procurement, Army, line 003, for Aerial
Common Sensor, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Subtitle B--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Section 1616--Budget Item Relating to New Design SSN
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy line 113 for continued
design improvements for new SSNs to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1617--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Submarine System
Development
This section would add $9,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy line 42 for advanced submarine system
development, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1618--Budget Item Relating to Surface Anti-Submarine Warfare
This section would add $3,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy for surface anti-submarine warfare,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1619--Budget Item Relating to Ship Preliminary Design and
Feasibility Studies
This section would add $19,900,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy for ship preliminary
design and feasibility studies, or expended based on merit-
based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1620--Budget Item Relating to Industrial Preparedness
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy line 226 for industrial preparedness,
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1621--Budget Item Relating to Mixed Conventional Load
Capability for Bomber Aircraft
This section would add $20,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force line 122 for the
development of mixed conventional load capability for bomber
aircraft to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1622--Budget Item Relating to TACAIR-launched UAS Capability
Development
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy line 209 for TACAIR-
launched UAS capability development, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1623--Budget Item Relating to Electro-photonic Component
Capability Development
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation line 186 for electro-photonic
component capability development, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1624--Budget Item Relating to Airborne Reconnaissance Systems
This section would increase Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation line 201 by $3.0 million for airborne reconnaissance
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1625--Budget Item Relating to Small Business Innovative
Research
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 139 to accelerate the use of
technologies from the small business innovative research
program into Army acquisition programs of record, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1626--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research Sciences
This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 003 to conduct research into the
magnetic and electric fields of the coastal ocean environment,
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1627--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research Sciences
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 002 to support research into
innovative new techniques combat wound repair, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1628--Budget Item Relating to Communications Advanced
Technology
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 034 for the development of
communications and information networking technologies to
support Army requirements, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1629--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Technology
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 019 to develop radio frequency
signals intelligence processing equipment and associated
applications, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1630--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Technology
This section would add $8,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 019 for the development of
enhanced low-light level visual sensors for persistent
surveillance and dismounted soldier applications, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1631--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced Technology
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 050 for the development of
deployable force protection sensors, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1632--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 050 for the development and
fielding of a solution for helicopter ``brownout'' situational
awareness, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1633--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced Technology
This section would add $4.8 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 050 for night
vision advanced technology development, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1634--Budget Item Relating to Rotary Wing Surfaces
This section would add $6,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 025 for the development of
mission planning and support tools for rotary wing surfaces, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1635--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions Technology
This section would add $30,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Line 017 for the
development of weapons and munitions technologies by small and
non-traditional defense businesses, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1636--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions Advanced
Technology
This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 032 for development of
innovative manufacturing techniques and processes for munitions
and weapons systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1637--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions Advanced
Technology
This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 032 for the development of
innovative manufacturing techniques and processes for munitions
and weapons systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1638--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 005 to develop innovative
nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing processes for warfighter
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1639--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology
This section would add $1,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 005 for the development and
demonstration of novel lightweight composite packaging and
structural materials, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1640--Budgetary Amendment for Materials Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 005 for advanced manufacturing,
repair and sustainment technologies for defense needs, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1641--Budgetary Amendment for Lightweight Body Armor
This section would add $5,100,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 016 for the development of new
lightweight body armor, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1642--Budgetary Amendment Relating to Industrial Preparedness
Manufacturing Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense Wide, Line 248 for sustainment of
the body armor industrial base, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1643--Budgetary Amendment for Secure Microelectronics
This section would add $15,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 050 to
conduct research into the development, identification and
management of secure microelectronics, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1644--Budget Item Relating to Army Tactical Command and Control
Hardware and Software
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 115 for the development of
interoperable national security information sharing systems, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1645--Budget Item Relating to Battlespace Knowledge Development
and Demonstration
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 026 to conduct research and
educational programs that support cyber workforce development,
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1646--Budget Item Relating to Technology Transfer
This section would add $9,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 045 for small business
technology transfer efforts into major Department of Defense
acquisition programs of record, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1647--Budget Item Relating to University Research Initiatives
This section would add $7,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 003 for multidisciplinary
research into nanotechnology science, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1648--Budget Item Relating to University Research Initiatives
This section would add $7,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 002 for the development
hypersonic testing facilities for defense applications, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1649--Budget Item Relating to Clinical Care and Research
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 003 for development of
informatics tools to support clinical care and research, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1650--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 028 for the development of
biomaterials for wound prevention and healing, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1651--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 028 for research in spinal cord
injuries, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1652--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology
This section would add $3,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 028 for the development of
high-throughput, microarray diagnostic systems, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1653--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology
This section would add $1,468,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 028 to support research into
innovative new techniques to develop vaccines of interest to
the military, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1654--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 030 for functional
genomics research, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1655--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 030 for the development of
telemedicine technologies, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1656--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 030 for the study of health
effects from manganese and other potential toxins, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1657--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 030 for the development of
innovative medical training technologies, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1658--Budget Item Relating to Chemical and Biological Defense
Program
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 017 for chemical and
biological defense program applied research, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1659--Budget Item Relating to Special Operations Advanced
Technology Development
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 074 for special
operations advanced technology development, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1660--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology
Support
This section would add $3,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating
terrorism technology support and risk assessment, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1661--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology
Support
This section would add $1,200,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating
terrorism technology support and the development of mobile
training content, to be committed, obligated, or expended based
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1662--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology
Support
This section would add $6,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating
terrorism technology support, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1663--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology
Support
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 029 for the development
of modeling and simulation technologies for testing of blast
structures, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1664--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating
terrorism technology support, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1665--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 029 for combating
terrorism technology support to improve the collaborative
experimentation model, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1666--Budget Item Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
Defeat Technologies
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 024 for weapons of mass
destruction defeat technologies, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1667--Budget Item Relating to Countermine Systems
This section would add $4,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 020 for countermine systems, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1668--Budget Item Relating to Mine and Expeditionary Warfare
Applied Research
This section would add $8,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 014 for the development of
remote- robotic naval mine countermeasure research and
development capability, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1669--Budget Item Relating to Special Applications for
Contingencies
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 217 for special
operations advanced technology development, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1670--Budget Item Relating to Microelectronics Technology
Development and Support
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 053 for the development
of innovative semiconductor design and fabrication tools, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1671--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter Sustainment Applied
Research
This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 009 to support research into
corrosion control and anti-biofouling coatings, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1672--Budget Item Relating to Marine Corps Landing Force
Technology
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 006 for the development of
situational awareness and communications networking tools for
tactical units, to be committed, obligated, or expended based
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1673--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Concepts and Simulation
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Line 012 to develop
realistic human representations of software agents for
simulation systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1674--Budget Item Relating to Human Effectiveness Applied
Research
This section would add $2,200,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 006 to develop training and
simulation capabilities for the Air Force, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1675--Budget Item Relating to Aerospace Propulsion
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 007 for the development of
innovative aircraft deoxygeneration systems, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1676--Budget Item Relating to End Item Industrial Preparedness
Activities
This section would add $7,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 188 to develop a 3-D model-based
design and manufacturing capability, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1677--Budget Item Relating to Sensors and Electronic
Survivability
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Line 006 for the
development of command, control and navigation capabilities for
manned and unmanned aircraft, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1678--Budget Item Relating to Military Engineering Advanced
Technology
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 052 for the development of
innovative capabilities that support core missions of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1679--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology
This section would add $8.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for the
development and demonstration of a high efficiency air
breathing turbine propulsion system for unmanned aircraft
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1680--Budget Item Relating to Establishment of Protocols for
Joint Strike Fighter Lead-Free Electronics Components
This section would add $1.0 million to Research
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, Line 077, for
development of protocols for the use of lead-free solder
products and finished in the Joint Strike Fighter program, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1681--Budget Item Relating to Portable Helicopter Oxygen
Delivery Systems
This section would add $3.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 084 for
improvements to helicopter portable oxygen delivery systems, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1682--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Rotorcraft Flight
Research
This section would add $8.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for advanced
rotorcraft flight research, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1683--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket Advanced
Technology
This section would add $6,250,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 045 for the development of
missile simulation technology, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1684--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket Advanced
Technology
This section would add $4.3 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 045 for
development of base defense counter fire intercept systems, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1685--Budget Item Relating to Combat Vehicle Improvement
Programs
This section would add $25.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 163 for Abrams
tank engine technology insertion, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
The committee supports continued upgrades to the Army's
fleet of M1 Abrams tanks. The Army has stated in multiple
committee hearings that the M1 Abrams tank is expected to be in
service through fiscal year 2045. As a result, the committee
believes that an aggressive upgrade program is necessary to
keep the M1 Abrams tank fleet capable of defeating all possible
threats. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces on March 9, 2011, the Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army stated that the M1 Abrams tank modernization
activities are focused on increasing the space, weight, and
power capabilities by specifically improving the power portion
of the tank. The committee is concerned, however, that the
Army's current incremental plans for M1 Abrams upgrades are not
adequately funded to resolve the current space, weight, and
power limitations, as the budget request for power improvements
contained no funds. The committee understands that there is an
engine technology insertion demonstration program and would
replace the current axial compressors on existing M1 Abrams
engines that would improve fuel efficiency, enhance
reliability, and lower maintenance costs. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Army to address the space, weight, and
power limitations on the M1 Abrams tank, specifically by
implementing engine technology insertion upgrades that would
improve fuel efficiency, enhance reliability, and lower
maintenance costs.
Section 1686--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter Advanced Technology
This section would add $5.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 029 for warfighter
advanced technology for soldier protection modeling and
simulation, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1687--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology
This section would add $2.5 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for the
development and demonstration of autonomous cargo for
rotorcraft unmanned aerial vehicles, to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1688--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology
This section would add $7.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for common
data link waveform improvements, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1689--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology
This section would add $2,300,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for aviation advanced
technology to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1690--Budget Item Relating to Munitions Standardization,
Effectiveness, and Safety
This section would add $5.0 million to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 153 for enhanced
survivability and lethality system development, to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1691--Budget Item Relating to Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 63892C, Line 091 for
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1692--Budget Item Relating to Operationally Responsive Space
This section would add $20,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64857F, Line
053, for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS), to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1693--Budget Item Relating to Space Technology
This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 602601F, Line 009, for Space
Technology, Applied Research, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1694--Budget Item Relating to Army Net Zero Programs
This section would add $8,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 065 for the Army net zero
program to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-
based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1695--Budget Item Relating to an Offshore Range Environmental
Baseline Assessment
This section would add $1,750,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 052 for an offshore
range environmental baseline assessment to be committed,
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection
procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1696--Budget Item Relating to Department of Defense Corrosion
Protection Projects
This section would add $10,300,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 104 for
Department of Defense corrosion protection projects to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1697--Budget Item Relating to a Study of Renewable and
Alternative Energy Applications in the Pacific Region
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 003 for a study of renewable
and alternative energy applications in the Pacific region to be
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1698--Budget Item Relating to Alternative Energy for Mobile
Power Applications
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 005 for alternative energy for
mobile power applications to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1699--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Battery Technologies
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 016 for advanced battery
technologies to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1699A--Budget Item Relating to an Operational Energy
Improvement Pilot Project
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 072 for an operational
energy improvement pilot project to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1699B--Budget Item Relating to a Microgrid Pilot Program
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 082a for a microgrid
pilot program to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures
Section 1699C--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Surface Machinery
Systems
This section would add $10,000,000 to Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 047 for advanced
surface machinery systems to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1699D--Budget Item Relating to Base Camp Fuel Cells
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 052 for base camp fuel cells to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1699E--Budget Item Relating to Defense Alternative Energy
This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 047 for defense
alternative energy to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Section 1699F--Budget Item Relating to Radiological Contamination
Research
This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 052 for radiological
contamination research to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
Subtitle C--Operation and Maintenance
Section 1699G--Budget Item Relating to Department of Defense Corrosion
Prevention Program
This section would add $2,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, Line 260 for Department of Defense
corrosion prevention program to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 1699H--Budget Item Relating to Navy Emergency Management and
Preparedness
This section would add $2,000,000 to Operation and
Maintenance, Navy, Line X for Navy emergency management and
preparedness to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1699I--Budget Item Relating to Army Simulation Training Systems
This section would add $4,000,000 to Operation &
Maintenance, Army Budget Activity 01, Force Readiness
Operations Support, Line 070, for Army simulation training
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1699J--Budget Item Relating to Army Industrial Facility Energy
Monitoring
This section would add $2,380,000 to Operation and
Maintenance, Army, Line 110 for Army industrial facility energy
monitoring to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1699K--Budget Item Relating to Army National Guard Simulation
Training Systems
This section would add $2,000,000 to Operation &
Maintenance, Army National Guard Budget Activity 12, Land
Forces Readiness, Line 070, for simulation training systems, to
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section1699L--Budgetary Amendment on Army Arsenals
This section would add $6,000,000 to Operation &
Maintenance, Army Budget Activity 04, Administration and
Service-wide Activities, Line 370, for arsenal capital
improvements, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.
Section 1699M--Budget Item Relating to Cold Weather Protective
Equipment
This section would add $3,000,000 to Operations and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, Special Operations Command for cold
weather protective equipment, to be committed, obligated, or
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
Division B provides military construction, family housing,
and related authorities in support of the military departments
during fiscal year 2012. As recommended by the committee,
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$14,766,026,000 for construction in support of the active
forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2012.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $12,489,382,000 for
military construction, $582,319,000 for Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,694,346,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends
authorization of $12,489,361,000 for military construction,
$582,319,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,694,346,000 for family
housing in fiscal year 2012.
Section 2001--Short Title
This section would cite division B of this Act as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012.''
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to Be
Specified by Law
This section would ensure that the authorizations provided
in titles XXI through XXVI shall expire on October 1, 2014, or
the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later.
Section 2003--Limitation on Implementation of Projects Designated as
Various Locations
This section would provide that the authorizations of
appropriations provided in sections 2104, 2204, 2304, 2403,
2411, 2502, 2606, and 2703 shall be available for the programs
specified in the table provided in section 4601 of division D
of this Act.
Section 2004--Effective Date This section would provide that titles
XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI and XXVII of this Act take effect on
October 1, 2011, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,235,991,000 for Army
military construction and $681,755,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,305,991,000 for military construction and $681,755,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2010.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2012.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize appropriations for Army
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Project
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110-417) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct a loading dock consistent
with the Army's construction guidelines for Multipurpose
Training Ranges. This provision was included in the President's
request.
Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications. This
provision was included in the President's request.
Section 2107--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year
2012 Project Using Prior-Year Unobligated Army Military Construction
Funds
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
construct a water treatment facility for Fort Irwin,
California, in the amount of $115,000,000 using unobligated
prior-year Army military construction funds. This provision was
included in the President's request.
Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2008
Projects
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2109--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009
Projects
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2110--Technical Amendments to Correct Certain Project
Specifications
This section would make certain technical corrections to
project descriptions included in table 3002 of the Military
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law
111-383). This provision was included in the President's
request.
Section 2111--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize Army military construction at
various locations, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $2,461,547,000 for Navy
military construction and $468,835,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of
$2,491,547,000 for military construction and $468,835,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $14,998,000 for the Massey Avenue Corridor
Improvements and $15,000,000 in Planning and Design for
construction activities at Naval Station Mayport,
Florida.
The budget request included $14,998,000 to construct road
improvements at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, and $15,000,000
to support planning and design efforts to facilitate the
homeporting of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy has
located a variety of strategic assets at one homeport for many
years across the range of Navy assets to include aviation,
surface, and subsurface combatants. Furthermore, the committee
notes that the Department of the Navy has intentionally
rejected the notion of strategic homeporting and has closed
multiple locations that were deemed strategic homeports through
the Base Realignment and Closure process. The committee
believes that the Department of the Navy's assertion that
strategic homeporting is required to maintain strategic access
is inconsistent with previous naval decisions. As to costs, the
onetime construction costs to implement the Department of the
Navy's recommendation exceeds $500.0 million, and the recurring
costs include a requirement to temporarily relocate nuclear
capable shipyard workers from Norfolk, Virginia, to Mayport,
Florida, to complete nuclear maintenance requirements. The
committee believes that the overall costs to build a redundant
carrier homeport do not appear to be in the Government's best
interest.
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction
of $29,998,000, for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2012.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2012.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize appropriations for Navy
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act. Finally, this section would restrict
the expenditures of planning and design appropriations to
support the establishment of a homeport for a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.
Section 2205--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2008
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2207--Additional Budget Items Relating to Navy Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize Navy military construction at
various locations, to be committed, obligated, or expended
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive
procedures.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,364,858,000 for Air Force
military construction and $489,565,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,330,858,000 for military construction and $489,565,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $64,000,000 for Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar
at Joint Region Marianas, Guam.
The budget request included $128,000,000 and would provide
the first increment to construct a fuel systems maintenance
hangar required to support a Continuous Bomber Presence, a
Tanker Task Force, Theater Security Packages, and the Global
Hawk beddown.
The committee supports the full authorization of this
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $64,000,000, a
reduction of $64,000,000, to support this project.
(2) $30,000,000 for Technical Applications Center,
Increment 2, at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
The budget request included $79,000,000 and would provide
the second increment to construct a Technical Applications
Center.
The committee supports the authorization for appropriations
in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military
department to execute in the year of the authorization for
appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that
the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully
expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $49,000,000, a
reduction of $30,000,000, to support this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2012.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2012.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2305--Modification of Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Project
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84) and authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications. This
provision was included in the President's request.
Section 2306--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2009
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2307--Limitation on Implementation of Consolidation of Air and
Space Operations Center of the Air Force
This section would prohibit the disestablishment, closure,
or realignment of any element of the Air and Space Operations
Center until the Secretary of the Air Force, in conjunction
with the commanders of the combatant commands, provides a
notice to the congressional defense committees that include a
cost-benefit assessment and the strategic consequences of the
proposed disestablishment, closure, or realignment. This notice
shall also include a local economic assessment and a
description of the continuity of operations for the proposed
disestablishment, closure, or realignment.
Section 2308--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air Force
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize Air Force military
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,848,757,000 for defense
agency military construction and $54,191,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,705,457,000 for military construction and $54,191,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
The budget request also contained $75,312,000 for chemical
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends
authorization of $75,312,000 for chemical demilitarization
construction for fiscal year 2012.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction or elimination of
funding for several projects contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These reductions
include:
(1) $50,000,000 for the Hospital Replacement,
Increment 3, at Fort Bliss, Texas.
The budget request included $136,700,000 and would provide
the third increment to construct an Army Medical Center.
The committee continues to support the full authorization
of this project. However, the committee supports the
authorization for appropriations in an amount equivalent to the
ability of the military department to execute in the year of
the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the
committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded
its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $86,700,000, a
reduction of $50,000,000, to support this project.
(2) $70,000,000 for the Mountainview Operations
Facility at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado.
The budget request included $140,932,000 to construct an
Operations Building to support an Aerospace Data Facility.
However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $70,932,000, a
reduction of $70,000,000, to support this project.
(3) $73,300,000 for the Ambulatory Care Center, at
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
The budget request included $242,900,000 and would
construct an ambulatory care center.
The committee supports the full authorization of this
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $169,600,000, a
reduction of $73,300,000, to support this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects and require that the
Secretary of Defense reserve a portion of the amount for energy
conservation projects for Reserve Components.
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize appropriations for Defense
Agencies military construction at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Section 2404--Additional Budget Items Relating to Defense Agencies
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize defense agencies military
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical
Demilitarization construction at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $272,611,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of
$272,611,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2012.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the
levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,230,306,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization for
fiscal year 2012 of $1,307,585,000 to be distributed as
follows:
Army National Guard..................................... $823,592,000
Air National Guard...................................... $133,525,000
Army Reserve............................................ $280,549,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... $26,299,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... $43,620,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustment
The committee recommends a reduction of funding for a
project contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. This reduction includes:
(1) $12,721,000 for TFI--F-22 Combat Aircraft Parking Apron
at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.
The budget request included $12,721,000 and would construct
an aircraft parking apron for twenty F-22 Aircraft.
The committee supports the requirements associated with
this project but notes that other projects authorized for
appropriation in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) will have a
cascading impact on the timely construction of this project.
The committee supports the authorization for appropriations in
an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department
to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations.
For this project, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in
fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of
$12,721,000, to support this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in
this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Additional Budget Items
Section 2611--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army National Guard
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize Army National Guard military
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 2612--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air National Guard
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize Air National Guard military
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Section 2613--Additional Budget Item Relating to Air Force Reserve
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize Air Force Reserve military
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated,
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on
competitive procedures.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 2621--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2008
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2622--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $323,543,000 for activities
related to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities
and $258,776,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The
committee recommends authorization of $323,543,000 for prior
BRAC round activities and $258,776,000 for BRAC 2005
activities.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Base Realignment and Closure Community Recovery
The Base Realignment and Closure process has challenged
many communities to determine a new direction because of a loss
of military mission. Some of these former military
installations have unique capabilities that are difficult to
replicate in the private sector to include extensive Secure
Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) that support
specific physical and infrastructure security requirements.
Many of these communities also have an experienced labor force,
complete with Department of Defense/Department of Homeland
Security security clearances.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense may
be able to utilize these specialized facilities and support the
private sector in reusing these unique capabilities. To this
end, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to use
all of the available real estate conveyance mechanisms to
quickly revert closed military installations into productive,
viable business units that support the unique capabilities
resident in these local communities. Using installations that
have been impacted by Base Realignment and Closure as part of
the DARPA program entitled ``National Cyber Range'' is a good
example of how a community can establish new missions and
capabilities while still providing a critical national security
service. The committee believes that leases in furtherance of
conveyance and economic development conveyances represent ideal
real estate mechanisms to quickly put closing military
installations into the private sector. These conveyance
mechanisms should allow communities to recover rapidly from the
debilitating effects of Base Realignment and Closure.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and
Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990
This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing
activities that are required to implement the decision of prior
Base Realignment and Closure activities at the levels
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Section 2702--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded
through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005
This section would authorize military construction projects
for fiscal year 2012 for ongoing activities that are required
to implement the decisions to support Base Realignment and
Closure 2005 activities.
Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and
Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 2005
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction projects for fiscal year 2012 that are required to
implement the decisions of the Base Closure and Realignment
2005 activities at the levels identified in section 4601 of
division D of this Act.
Section 2704--Authority to Extend Deadline for Completion of Limited
Number of Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations
This section would amend section 2904 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) and
provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to extend the
completion of not more than seven recommendations provided by
the Base Closure and Realignment Commission of 2005 for up to 1
year.
Section 2705--Increased Emphasis on Evaluation of Costs and Benefits in
Consideration and Selection of Military Installations for Closure or
Realignment
This section would amend section 2687 of title 10, United
States Code, and require the secretary concerned to include a
cost-benefit analysis of all proposed closures and realignments
that exceed such thresholds. Finally, this section would
restrict the secretary concerned ability to bypass overall
thresholds of this section by reducing the workforce to a lower
threshold and then realigning the remaining function.
Section 2706--Special Considerations Related to Transportation
Infrastructure in Consideration and Selection of Military Installations
for Closure or Realignment
This section would amend section 2687 of title 10, United
States Code, and require the secretary concerned to include a
transportation assessment of a proposed closure or realignment
of civilian personnel that exceed certain thresholds.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Homeporting in Europe
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
exploring the feasibility of homeporting U.S. Aegis ballistic
missile defense (BMD) ships in Europe in support of the phased,
adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. The committee
understands that such forward-basing of U.S. Aegis BMD ships in
Europe may alleviate some force structure demands on the Aegis
fleet by reducing their time in transit and providing closer
proximity to Europe and the Middle East. Such a naval port in
Europe would also further U.S. policy on international missile
defense cooperation and burden sharing for the collective
defense of Europe and the United States.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
notification to the congressional defense committees preceding
the Department's announcement of a decision to homeport U.S.
Aegis BMD ships in Europe. The notification should include, at
a minimum: the proposed location; number of ships to be
homeported in Europe; the implementation schedule and funding
profile, including military construction; and a summary of any
analysis of alternatives that supports the decision, including
any cost-benefit analysis.
Africa Command Basing Alternatives
The committee notes that a viable model exists to locate a
geographic combatant command headquarters outside the
respective area of responsibility and in the United States, as
demonstrated by U.S. Central Command, U.S. Southern Command,
and U.S. Pacific Command. The committee believes that this type
of basing model is particularly relevant for U.S. Africa
Command because of the sensitivities that many African nations
may have with regard to a permanent U.S. combatant command on
the African continent. The committee further notes that the
Commander, U.S. Africa Command has reviewed alternative basing
options in the United States to support mission requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1,
2012, the conclusions of an alternative basing review. This
report should include the following:
(1) An assessment of the cost-benefit associated with
moving the U.S. Africa Command headquarters from its
current location to the United States; and
(2) An assessment of the strategic risk associated
with each basing alternative.
The committee urges the Secretary to conduct this basing
review in an open and transparent manner consistent with the
processes established for such a major review. The committee
believes the headquarters of U.S. Africa Command should be
located at an installation that provides the maximum military
value to the realigned command and at the minimum cost required
to implement the relocation.
Army Housing Shortfall at Growth Installations
The committee understands the Army has identified a
shortfall of housing at several Army installations as a result
of base realignment and closure and other force structure
changes. While local communities are working to respond to the
increased demand for off-post housing, the committee is
concerned that the lingering effects of the financial crisis
have made it difficult for civilian developers to obtain
construction financing to fulfill the Army's off-post housing
requirements. The committee encourages the Army to examine
existing authorities which permit the leasing of off-post
housing.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide to the committee, no later than September 30,
2011, a report which identifies installations where a housing
deficit exists. The report also should detail the efforts being
taken by the Army to address unmet housing requirements,
including the use of existing authorities.
Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques to Achieve Life-
Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense failed to
submit the report ``Assessment of Improvements in Construction
Techniques to Achieve Life-Cycle Cost Effective Facilities''
directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 by March 1, 2011. The committee believes that the
Secretary has allowed disparate construction methods to be
incorporated into the military construction program that reduce
the committee's ability to determine whether life-cycle, cost-
effective facilities are being proposed by the Secretary.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary expedite
the completion of this critical report to maximize efficiencies
in the military construction portfolio by identifying the
appropriate, qualified entity to conduct the assessment
directed by committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and
submit the report to the congressional defense committees by
November 1, 2011.
Castner Range Complex
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
ceased operations at the Castner Range Complex at Fort Bliss,
Texas, in 1971. In testimony, the Army indicated that Castner
Range is ``wholly impractical to use for any range activity.''
The committee is interested in maintaining this land for a
conservation purpose. Therefore, the committee urges the
Department of the Army to assess whether the Castner Range
Complex should be retained in the Department's inventory and
encourages the Department to enter into a lease or other
agreement in furtherance of conveyance with eligible
conservation entities.
Collateral Support for Infrastructure and Real Property Programs
The committee is aware that Department of Defense relies
extensively on consultants and contractors to support various
Department infrastructure initiatives and real estate
transactions involving programs such as housing, lodging, and
utility privatization programs; real property exchanges;
enhanced use leasing; and various other public-private
partnerships involving real property. In particular, as the
complexity of such initiatives and transactions has increased
over the past several years, so too has the Department's use of
consultants, contractors, and other experts to help ensure that
prudent real property decisions are made to provide the best
capabilities and economic outcomes to the Department.
The committee recognizes and supports the Department's
efforts to obtain certain economies and achieve other
objectives through the various infrastructure and real property
initiatives and programs. However, regardless of whether
Government employees or consultants and contractors are used to
negotiate and implement deals to support the various public-
private partnerships and alternatively financed projects, the
Government's interests must be well represented from start to
finish. As such, the committee is concerned about the
preparedness of the Department's employees for negotiating and
implementing such deals, the use and cost of consultant and
contractor support participation in these arrangements, and the
Department's monitoring and oversight of such consultant and
contractor involvement. Moreover, the acquisition, management,
and disposal of real property and related programs may involve
inherently governmental functions, raising questions about
whether they should be performed by qualified government
employees.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Department's use of consultants
and contractors to support infrastructure and real property
programs, including negotiations for alternatively financed
projects, and submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 30, 2012. At a minimum, the review should
assess the following:
(1) To what extent and at what cost has the
Department used consultants and contractors to assist
in negotiating and implementing the various
infrastructure and real property programs?
(2) How does the Department determine the level of
involvement of consultants and contractors in support
of negotiations for various real estate deals and
alternatively financed projects, or in the management
of the Department's real property programs?
(3) To what extent does the Department's oversight
and monitoring of consultant and contractor support in
these areas ensure that the level of support is
appropriate, expected results are realized, and costs
are minimized?
(4) How has the Department ensured that Government
employees are sufficiently trained to successfully
negotiate and implement the various infrastructure and
real property programs as well as oversee related
support provided by consultants and contractors?
The Comptroller General may add such additional questions
as he deems relevant.
Comptroller General Report Regarding Third-Party Financing for
Renewable Energy Projects on Military Installations
In order for the Department of Defense to achieve energy
security and reduce energy consumption in accordance with
federal laws and executive orders, it has identified mechanisms
to partner with industry for third-party financing for the
development of renewable energy projects. These include
agreements with private-sector entities through Enhanced Use
Leases, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, Power Purchase
Agreements, and Utility Energy Service Contracts that leverage
private investment in developing renewable energy projects and
purchasing energy.
These agreements can be of great benefit to the Department
of Defense. However, the committee is concerned that Department
of Defense project-level officials may not have the necessary
information to develop the best possible contracts that most
effectively leverage a variety of factors including resource
potential, federal and state incentives, payback periods, state
regulations, and other regulatory considerations. For the
Department of Defense to be successful in its renewable energy
partnerships with the private sector, it is critical that
Department officials have adequate energy-related technical and
contracting expertise. Therefore, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees by February 29, 2012. At a
minimum, the review should assess the following:
(1) What kinds of funding approaches, such as full
up-front appropriated funds and alternative financing
approaches, are used by the Department of Defense to
enable the construction of renewable energy projects
and purchase of such energy?
(2) What are some of the benefits and risks,
including cost implications, of the funding approaches
used by the Department of Defense in renewable energy
projects and purchases?
(3) To what extent has the Department of Defense used
each of the funding approaches identified in the first
question?
(4) To what extent have oversight mechanisms been
developed by the Department of Defense or the military
services to monitor the use of these funding approaches
and ensure the best value and terms?
The Comptroller General may add such additional questions
as he deems appropriate in furtherance of this directive to
ensure adequate coverage of the issues related to renewable
energy contracting actions.
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's Report on the
Arctic and Northwest Passage
The committee continues to be concerned about the
Department of Defense's resources and preparedness for
accessing, operating and protecting national interests in the
Arctic. With approximately 20 percent of the world's untapped
natural resources located in that region, there are significant
national security equities. The Navy estimates that by 2030,
shipping lanes will be open for several months during the
summer thereby increasing shipping traffic.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
on Arctic operations and the Northwest Passage to the
congressional defense committees by May 30, 2011. The committee
further directs the Secretary to submit a copy of the report to
the Comptroller General of the United States concurrent with
submission to the congressional defense committees. The
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide an assessment of the report to the congressional
defense committees including the Secretary's response to the
requirements in H. Rept. 111-491, any shortfalls noted,
recommendations for legislative action, and any information the
Comptroller General deems appropriate in the context of that
review, within 180 days after the Secretary's submission.
Construction Unit Costs
The committee notes that the Department recently completed
an assessment of construction unit costs and determined that
there is a multitude of construction variables that challenge
the Department to provide competitive construction costs with
comparable type facilities in the commercial sector. These
challenges include requirements that drive the overall costs to
include Federal contracting requirements (including Davis-Bacon
wages, Federal subcontracting and small-business goals, bonding
requirements per the Miller Act), Federal design requirements
(including Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection measures), energy
efficiency objectives, and a robust quality-assurance capacity
to manage construction contracts. The committee is alarmed to
note that these costs generally add 25-40 percent in
construction costs above private-sector construction
requirements. The committee believes that these substantive
markups are excessive and limit the purchasing ability of the
Department to procure vital military construction projects. The
committee also believes that it is incumbent on the Department
to minimize barriers to competition and ensure the widest
participation of construction contractors to military
construction programs. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to complete a report by March 1, 2012 to
the congressional defense committees and should include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the programs or policies and the
associated costs that contribute to the overall
military construction program beyond those costs
associated with typical construction projects in the
private sector. This review should also include an
assessment of specific facility categories to include,
at a minimum, child care centers, chapels, dependent
schools, and dormitories;
(2) An assessment of the programs and policies and
their associated costs that contribute to variances
between the Secretaries of the military department's
unit costs. This assessment should specifically include
variances in the development of military construction
justification documents and overall approaches to
construction methods to include concrete and wood type
construction practices; and
(3) The Secretary's plan of action and milestones to
reduce these costs, consistent with the life-cycle,
cost-effective assessment as defined by section 2802 of
title 10, United States Code.
Cooperative Agreements to Facilitate Defense Posture Review Initiatives
The Defense Posture Review Initiative includes the
realignment of military forces in Japan, along with the
realignment of Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. This
effort is one of the most extensive realignments of military
forces in recent memory.
The committee recognizes the impacts on Guam associated
with the strategic realignment of military forces from Okinawa,
Japan, to Guam and recognizes that non-governmental
organizations, including institutes of higher learning, have
provided analysis and research into a variety of environmental
and socioeconomic impacts for other projects on Guam and in the
Western Pacific region. The committee acknowledges that the
Department of Defense has entered into cooperative agreements
with institutions of higher learning to provide baseline
studies and analyses will be needed to facilitate additional
assessments on the location of a proposed firing range and
transient nuclear aircraft carrier berthing on Guam over the
coming months and years.
The committee recommends that the Department of Defense
(DOD) enter into a cooperative agreement to help facilitate
further Environmental Impact processes associated with the
Defense Posture Review Initiative in the Asia-Pacific region.
As such, the committee urges the Department of Defense take all
necessary steps pursuant and consistent with DOD directive
3210.6-R, ``Department of Defense Grant and Agreement
Regulations'' and establish a cooperative agreement with
appropriate non-governmental organizations, including qualified
institutions of learning, to facilitate better studies and
analyses to support the Defense Policy Review Initiatives.
Corrosion Evaluation for Facilities and Infrastructure
Because the costs associated with facilities and
infrastructure account for a significant portion of the
Department of Defense's $22.5 billion annual cost to address
the impact of corrosion, the committee believes that there may
be more cost-efficient opportunities for developing strategies
for enhancing the sustainability of existing facilities as well
as for ensuring the integration of corrosion prevention and
mitigation technologies into the buildup of future facilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Office of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight (as designated by section 2228
of title 10, United States Code) to conduct a study of these
costs and to submit the findings to the House Committee on
Armed Services a report within 300 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. The study should include the following:
(1) Identify the key drivers of these costs and
recommend strategies for reducing their impact.
(2) Review a sampling of facilities that are
representative of facility type, military department,
and facility age.
(3) An assessment of at least one planned facility
construction program.
(4) Include, but not limited to, information obtained
from site visits and the examination of program
documentation including maintenance and facility
engineering processes.
The Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight is further
directed to consult with the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to determine
the appropriate level of access necessary to conduct an
effective and comprehensive evaluation. Lastly, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide
an assessment to the congressional defense committees of the
completeness of the evaluation within 60 days of the delivery
of the Director's report to the congressional defense
committees.
Department of Defense Microgrid Activities
The committee is concerned about the implications and
potential consequences of a failure in the public grid and the
impact on military installations. However, the committee
recognizes that the Department of Defense is taking steps to
invest in microgrid and smart grid technologies for
installation and operational energy. The committee is concerned
that there may be redundancy among these investments.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 29, 2012, that includes the following:
(1) An assessment of the total investment being made
into Department of Defense microgrid and smart grid
activities, including total value, location, duration
of project, and transition plan;
(2) An assessment of activities being pursued
collaboratively with the Department of Energy to
advance microgrids; and
(3) An assessment of policy initiatives and oversight
of microgrid and smart grid activities by the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment and the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Operational Energy Plans, and Programs to streamline
investments for the purposes of installation energy and
operational energy.
Elementary and Secondary Schools on Military Installations
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
undertaken an assessment of the conditions and capacity of
elementary and secondary schools located on military
installations that serve children of members of the Armed
Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees.
Furthermore, the committee is aware of preliminary reports that
many of these schools face capacity or structural deficiencies.
The committee is concerned by these reports and the adverse
impact that the substandard capacity and structural conditions
may have on the quality of life for military families.
The committee notes that one of the results of this
assessment is a $439 million capital investment into the
Department of Defense Education Activity for Department of
Defense-owned schools in fiscal year 2011. These appropriations
will be applied to address some of the structural and quantity
deficiencies that exist in the education enterprise. The
committee also notes that there is another category of
elementary and secondary schools located on military
installations; these schools are operated by a Local Education
Authority but owned by the Federal Government. For this
category of schools, the committee notes that $250 million in
fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations were applied toward the
recapitalization of existing, structurally deficient elementary
and secondary schools.
The committee encourages the prompt disbursement of funds
made available in fiscal year 2011 to construct, renovate,
repair, or expand educational facilities on military
installations in order to address identified capacity or
structural deficiencies. For those funds to support a Local
Education Authority-operated school but owned by the Federal
Government, the committee urges the Department to disburse
these funds in a manner that gives priority to schools with the
most serious deficiencies as determined by the Secretary of
Defense.
Energy and Water Utilities Privatization
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should more aggressively and effectively implement utilities
privatization as part of their asset management strategy to
allow each military service to focus on core defense missions
and functions. The committee further believes that the use of
utilities privatization can improve energy and water
efficiencies and improve installation infrastructure in a cost
effective manner for the long-term benefit of our military
members and their families. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by February 1,
2012, to the congressional defense committees that includes the
following:
(1) An update of the report elements included in
section 2823(f) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163); and
(2) An assessment of whether it would be beneficial
to leverage utilities privatization as part of agency
initiatives to increase use of renewable energy and
conserve water.
Fort Bragg Parking Assessment
The committee notes that Fort Bragg has significantly
increased the overall base population and this population
increase has had a cascading impact on the overall
transportation infrastructure on the installation. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2012, that assesses the parking requirements to support the
entirety of Fort Bragg's personnel to include all civilian
employees and family members. The report should address the
significant increase in daily vehicular traffic through Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, and surrounding communities not only due
to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities but to the
entirety of Fort Bragg's force structure increases as well. At
a minimum, this report should include:
(1) The projected number of military and civilian
personnel that require parking to support activities on
Fort Bragg;
(2) The current parking available;
(3) The parking plan to accommodate the increased
number of personnel caused by the BRAC realignment, and
the distances that service members have to travel via
their personal transportation or military vehicles to
conduct day-to-day activities such as vehicular
maintenance; and
(4) Options to address the entirety of Fort Bragg's
parking deficiencies that could include parking garages
or other public transportation mitigation measures.
Homeowners Assistance Program
The Department of Defense's Homeowners Assistance Program
(HAP) has provided financial assistance to military personnel
and Department of Defense civilians who suffer financial loss
on the sale of their home when a base realignment or closure
action causes a decline in the local real estate market. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
16) expanded the program to assist additional categories of
people, including those who are wounded, injured, or become ill
while deployed, the surviving spouses of military personnel and
civilians who are killed in the line of duty, and service
members who purchased property before July 1, 2006, and were
required to permanently relocate between February 1, 2006, and
September 30, 2010.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
assessing the magnitude of a potential shortfall in existing
resources and is currently projecting a $400.0 million deficit
in the expanded Homeowners Assistance Program. This deficit
could begin to impact eligible beneficiaries by the end of the
current fiscal year and has the potential to impact more than
3,000 beneficiaries. The Department of Defense briefed the
committee on its intent to address this deficit issue in its
fiscal year 2013 budget submission. Furthermore, even if the
program were fully funded, the committee is concerned that
while the average time to process a complete application is 60
days, the committee understands that a number of applicants
have seen delays of up to 1 year. Finally, the committee is
concerned that the eligibility dates that were provided in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
16) have excluded certain localities whose real estate markets
declined after July 1, 2006, and service members who receive
permanent change of station orders within those localities,
after September 30, 2010.
The committee is concerned that the compilation of these
issues will have a cascading impact on thousands of
beneficiaries who linger in potential foreclosure and
bankruptcy because of the inability of the Department of
Defense to adequately forecast required investments or to
promptly process a completed application. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a brief
to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2011,
that includes the following:
(1) An assessment of the overall military
construction program with a goal to eliminate
unnecessary programmatic investments and apply savings
toward the potential deficit in the Homeowners
Assistance Program; and
(2) An assessment on methods to improve the
efficiency of processing applications as well as to
include hiring, on a temporary basis, additional staff
to assist with the current backlog of claims that has
resulted due to the increased volume of applications
made under the expanded criteria provided by the
Homeowners Assistance Program as expanded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and
(3) An assessment of large military installations,
whose local real estate market declined after July 1,
2006, and options that could be pursued at these large
military installations, to include the associated cost
impact, that would ameliorate the impact of the
declining real estate market.
Leasing of Military Museums
The committee notes that section 2812 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) provided expanded authority to retain proceeds
generated from leases of non-excess military museum property by
the military museum that developed such proceeds. The committee
supports the utilization of leasing agreements to expand the
use of military museums for the generation of revenue for these
museums through the rental of facilities to the public,
commercial and non-profit entities, State and local
governments, and other Federal agencies. The committee
encourages the Department to expand the use of this authority
and pursue such opportunities without additional specific, per-
facility authorization for such activities.
Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range
The committee notes that the San Diego Shotgun Sports
Association has operated a trap and skeet range on Marine Corps
Air Station Miramar, California since 1957, providing free
recreational shooting for active duty military personnel and
their families for more than 50 years and strengthening the
bond between the residents of the community and the United
States Marine Corps. The committee understands that operation
of the trap and skeet range has ceased while environmental
mitigation and cleanup measures are conducted.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2011 that
includes the following:
(1) Details of a plan to make adjustments to the
range property and reopen the trap and skeet range for
operation without affecting the environmental sensitive
area containing lead shot;
(2) Plans and timeline to reopen the trap and skeet
range;
(3) Other locations available on the base where a
trap and skeet range could be operated;
(4) Criteria needed to operate a trap and skeet range
while properly meeting necessary environmental laws
through a Lead Management Plan (LMP);
(5) Possible revenue collected through implementing a
lead mining operation on the trap and skeet range
guided by a certified LMP;
(6) Details of all environmental clean-up measures
necessary to reopen the trap and skeet range;
(7) A copy of the environmental assessment that was
completed for the trap and skeet range including
documentation detailing the imminent danger and hazard
of lead contamination in the local water source
directly linked to the lead shot from the trap and
skeet range.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Prohibition on Use of Any Cost-Plus System of Contracting
for Military Construction and Military Family Housing Projects
This section would amend section 2306 of title 10, United
States Code, and prohibit the use of cost-type contracting for
military construction projects and military family housing
projects. Such prohibition will not apply in case of a
declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a
national emergency pursuant to section 1621 of title 50, United
States Code.
Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Minor
Military Construction Projects
This section would increase the authority provided by
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, and establish a
$3,000,000 threshold requiring specific military construction
authorization. This provision would also amend section 2805 by
extending certain temporary authorities associated with defense
laboratories.
Section 2803--Condition on Rental of Family Housing in Foreign
Countries for General and Flag Officers
This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United
States Code, and limit general and flag officer housing leases
in foreign countries to the design criteria for similar housing
in the United States.
Section 2804--Protections for Suppliers of Labor and Materials under
Contracts for Military Construction Projects and Military Family
Housing Projects
This section would amend section 2852 of title 10, United
States Code, and increase the performance and payment threshold
requirements for construction contracts from $100,000 to
$150,000. This change would align performance and payment
bonding requirements with the recently revised simplified
acquisition threshold.
Section 2805--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Operation and
Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects inside United States
Central Command Area of Responsibility and Combined Joint Task Force--
Horn of Africa Areas of Responsibility and Interest
This section would amend section 2808 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B
of Public Law 108-136) and extend the Department's ability to
use operation and maintenance appropriations for military
construction purposes for the U.S. Central Command and Horn of
Africa area until September 30, 2012.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Clarification of Authority to Use Pentagon Reservation
Maintenance Revolving Fund for Minor Construction and Alteration
Activities at Pentagon Reservation
This section would provide unspecified minor construction
authority, at the limits prescribed by section 2805 of title
10, United States Code, for the Pentagon Reservation
Maintenance Revolving Fund.
Section 2812--Removal of Discretion of Secretaries of the Military
Departments Regarding Purposes for Which Easements for Rights-of-Way
May Be Granted
This section would amend section 2668 of title 10, United
States Code, and prohibit the use of a real estate easement as
a method to bypass other real estate authorities. The committee
is aware that certain leasing proposals for energy projects
have used authority provided by section 2668 of title 10,
United States Code, as an expedited method to obtain a real
estate lease. The committee believes that the authorities
provided by section 2667 of title 10, United States Code,
provide the appropriate framework that allows the secretary
concerned to manage Government properties and to evaluate
leasing proposals.
Section 2813--Limitations on Use or Development of Property in Clear
Zone Areas
This section would modify section 2684(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to permit the use of the readiness and
environmental protection initiative authority to protect clear
zone areas from use of encroachment that is incompatible with
the mission of the installation.
Section 2814--Defense Access Road Program Enhancements to Address
Transportation Infrastructure in Vicinity of Military Installations
This section would amend section 210 of title 23, United
States Code, and expand the authority of the Department of
Defense to use military construction appropriations to mitigate
significant transportation impacts caused as a result of an
expanded defense mission. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to convene the Economic Adjustment
Committee to consider sources of funding associated with the
defense access roads program. Finally, this section would
require a separate budget exhibit for the defense access roads
program.
Subtitle C--Energy Security
Section 2821--Consolidation of Definitions Used in Energy Security
Chapter
This section would modify subchapter 3 of chapter 173 of
title 10, United States Code, and create a new chapter 2924 to
consolidate energy security definitions.
Section 2822--Consideration of Energy Security in Developing Energy
Projects on Military Installations Using Renewable Energy Sources
This section would amend sections 2911, 2917 and 2922a, of
title 10, United States Code, to account for energy security
when entering into facility energy projects financed by third
parties using renewable energy sources on military
installations.
The committee is concerned when the Department of Defense
contracts for renewable energy projects through third parties
on military installations that have no capability to provide
power directly to the installation in case of emergency.
Section 2823--Establishment of Interim Objective for Department of
Defense 2025 Renewable Energy Goal
This section would modify section 2911(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to
establish an interim goal for fiscal year 2018 for the
production or procurement of facility energy from renewable
sources.
Section 2824--Use of Centralized Purchasing Agents for Renewable Energy
Certificates to Reduce Cost of Facility Energy Projects Using Renewable
Energy Sources and Improve Efficiencies
This section would amend section 2911(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish a policy requiring centralized, bulk purchase of
replacement renewable energy certificates when entering into
agreements for facility energy projects involving renewable
technologies to maximize savings for the Department of Defense.
This will help the Department of Defense achieve the goal
regarding the consumption of electricity from renewable energy
sources established by section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852).
Section 2825--Identification of Energy-Efficient Products for Use in
Construction, Repair, or Renovation of Department of Defense Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to prescribe a list
of energy-efficient products for use in construction, repair,
or renovation of Department of Defense facilities. The list
would be updated annually and submitted with the annual Energy
Performance Master Plan. This section would require the
Secretary of Defense to consider at a minimum the following
technologies in developing the list:
(1) Roof-top solar thermal, photovoltaic, direct solar
technology, and energy reducing coating technologies;
(2) On demand solar and tank-less hot water systems;
(3) Energy management control and supervisory control and
data acquisition systems;
(4) Energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems;
(5) Thermal windows and insulation systems;
(6) Electric meters;
(7) Lighting, equipment, and appliances that are designed
to use less electricity;
(8) Hybrid vehicle plug-in charging and hydrogen-generating
fuel stations;
(9) Solar-power collecting structures to shade vehicle
parking areas;
(10) Wall and roof insulation systems and air infiltration
mitigation systems, such as weather-proofing;
(11) Fuel cells;
(12) Hydrogen; and
(13) Ground source and natural gas heat pumps and combined
heat and power systems.
Section 2826--Core Curriculum and Certification Standards for
Department of Defense Energy Managers
This section would amend section 2915 of title 10, United
States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish
a training program for Department of Defense installation
energy managers. The requirement for federal energy managers is
defined by section 8253 of title 42, United States Code. The
committee encourages the Department to consider industry
accreditations in the development of its training and
certification of energy managers. The committee recommends that
at a minimum, the Secretary of Defense create annual
opportunities for energy managers to exchange ideas and lessons
learned.
Section 2827--Submission of Annual Department of Defense Energy
Management Reports
This section would amend section 2925 of title 10, United
States Code, and require the Department of Defense to submit
its installation energy management report within 120 days after
the end of each fiscal year.
Section 2828--Continuous Commissioning of Department of Defense
Facilities to Resolve Operating Problems, Improve Comfort, Optimize
Energy Use, and Identify Retrofits
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
include continuous commissioning in its requirements to execute
section 8253 of title 42, United States Code. The committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to modify the plan prepared
pursuant to section 8253(e)(3) of title 42, United States Code,
to reflect the requirement to include continuous commissioning
under subsection (a). The committee expects the Department of
Defense to protect its facility energy investments by
conducting continuous commissioning to ensure its facilities
operate at optimum energy efficiency.
Section 2829--Requirement for Department of Defense to Capture and
Track Data Generated in Metering Department Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
capture and track the data that is being metered in accordance
with section 8253 of title 42, United States Code. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to modify his
plan prepared pursuant to section 8253(e)(3) of title 42,
United States Code for the Department of Defense to reflect the
requirement to capture and benchmark data that has been
metered. The committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense has made significant investments to meter its
facilities but is not pursuing technologies to capture the data
from the meters across its facilities.
Section 2830--Metering of Navy Piers to Accurately Measure Energy
Consumption
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
modify the Navy's plan for implementing section 8253(e)(3) of
title 42, United States Code to include a metering requirement
for Navy piers, in addition to its buildings to ensure energy
consumption can be tracked, captured, and reduced while naval
vessels are in port. The committee encourages the Secretary of
the Navy to modify his plan prepared pursuant to section
8253(e)(3) of title 42, United States Code, as necessary to
reflect the inclusion of Navy piers under subsection (a).
Section 2831--Report on Energy-Efficiency Standards and Prohibition on
Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold or
Platinum Certification
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services regarding a cost benefit
analysis of Department of Defense investments in American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certifications. This section would also prohibit
the use of funds for LEED gold or platinum certifications in
fiscal year 2012. The committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense is investing significant amounts of funds
for more aggressive certifications without demonstrating the
appropriate return on investment.
Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment
Section 2841--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funding to Support
Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of Military Installations
and Relocation of Military Personnel on Guam
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
assist the Government of Guam in meeting the costs of providing
increased municipal services and facilities associated with the
realignment of military forces to Guam. This authorization
would be provided if the Secretary determines that an unfair
and excessive financial burden will be incurred by the
Government of Guam to provide the services and facilities in
the absence of the Secretary's assistance. This authority would
expire on September 30, 2018.
Section 2842--Medical Care Coverage for H-2B Temporary Workforce on
Military Construction Projects on Guam
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
awarding any additional construction projects associated with
the realignment of military forces to Guam until the Secretary
establishes a lead system integrator for health care for the H-
2B workers.
Section 2843--Certification of Military Readiness Need for Firing Range
on Guam as Condition on Establishment of Range
This section would prohibit the establishment of a firing
range on Guam until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the
firing range is required to meet a national security need.
Section 2844--Repeal of Condition on Use of Specific Utility Conveyance
Authority Regarding Guam Integrated Water and Wastewater Treatment
System
This section would modify section 2822 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B
of Public Law 111-383) and modify the permissive utility
conveyance to the Guam Waterworks Authority. Specifically, this
section would eliminate the requirement to allocate
representation on the Guam Consolidated Commission on Utilities
for the Department of the Navy.
Subtitle E--Land Conveyances
Section 2851--Land Exchange, Fort Bliss Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
exchange approximately 694 acres of real property at Fort
Bliss, Texas, for approximately 2,880 acres of real property
from the Texas General Land Office.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 2861--Change in Name of the Industrial College of the Armed
Forces to the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and
Resource Strategy
This section would change the name of the ``Industrial
College of the Armed Forces'' to the ``Dwight D. Eisenhower
School for National Security and Resource Strategy''.
Section 2862--Limitation on Reduction in Number of Members of the Armed
Forces Assigned to Permanent Duty at a Military Installation to
Effectuate Realignment of Installation
This section would limit the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of the military department concerned from reducing
more that 1,000 military service members at a military
installation until a notice is provided by the Secretary as to
the rationale for such reduction and a period of 90 days
expires.
Section 2863--Prohibition on Naming Department of Defense Real Property
after a Member of Congress
This section would amend section 2661 of title 10, United
States Code, and prohibit the naming of Department of Defense
real property after any individual, who is a Member of
Congress, at the time the property is so named.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $18.1 billion for atomic
energy defense activities, an increase of 2.1 percent from the
amount requested for fiscal year 2011. Of this amount, $11.8
billion is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) and $6.3 billion is for environmental and
other defense activities.
For NNSA programs, the budget request contained an increase
of $568.2 million above the amount requested for fiscal year
2011. This amount includes a $620.9 million increase for the
Weapons Activities account, which supports the management and
stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and a $137.7
million decrease for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
account. The budget request for the Defense Environmental
Cleanup account contained a decrease of $181.3 million from the
amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
The committee supports these requests and believes that the
budget request for Department of Energy National Security
Programs for fiscal year 2012 reflects an appropriately
balanced approach to meeting the diverse missions encompassed
within the atomic energy defense activities account.
The committee recommends $18.1 billion, the amount of the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request contained $11.8 billion for the programs
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year
2012. The committee recommends $11.8 billion, the amount of the
budget request.
Nuclear Modernization
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is framed by several
noteworthy events and key policy and posture documents released
in the last few years.
The President's vision for ``a world without nuclear
weapons,'' which he outlined in an April 2009 speech in Prague,
Czech Republic, along with his emphasis on arms control,
changes in U.S. nuclear policy and posture, and direction to
review further U.S. nuclear force reductions, has led to a
renewed focus within the executive and legislative branches on
nuclear security matters.
The bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States, established by section 1062 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), prefaced its May 2009 final report by
stating that, ``The conditions that might make possible the
global elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today and
their creation would require a fundamental transformation of
the world political order.'' The committee agrees and,
elsewhere in this Act, recommends a sense of Congress that
further reductions should be supported by thorough assessments
and guided by specific criteria.
Furthermore, while the Commission advised against
substantial unilateral U.S. nuclear force reductions, it did
conclude that U.S. reliance on reserve warheads could be
reduced so long as the nuclear infrastructure was refurbished.
To this point, the Commission found that, ``the physical
infrastructure is in serious need of transformation . . . but
[NNSA] lacks the needed funding,'' and that, ``the intellectual
infrastructure is in more serious trouble.''
The Commission further observed that the ``United States
requires a stockpile of nuclear weapons that is safe, secure,
and reliable, and whose threatened use in military conflict
would be credible.'' However, the Commission went on to state
that, ``maintaining the reliability of the warheads as they age
is an increasing challenge,'' and that the life extension
program (LEP) ``is becoming increasingly difficult to continue
within the constraints of a rigid adherence to original
materials and design as the stockpile continues to age.'' The
three directors of the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories
have registered similar concerns in correspondence with the
committee to address an unclassified finding in a JASON study
which found that ``no evidence that accumulation of changes
incurred from aging and LEPs have increased risk to
certification of today's deployed nuclear warheads.'' One lab
director noted that, ``Thus far we have been able to retain
confidence in warhead safety and reliability by offsetting
these increased uncertainties with corresponding increases in
performance margins . . . or by relaxing and eliminating (in
coordination with the Department of Defense) military
requirements. Options to further improve these margins using
techniques similar to those employed to date have largely been
exhausted.''
Addressing these concerns, and in the context of the
ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New
START), the President made a significant commitment to the
modernization of the nation's nuclear stockpile and
infrastructure.
The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review called for making
much-needed investments to rebuild the nation's aging nuclear
infrastructure, maintaining that a credible modernization plan
would ``enable further arms reductions.''
The May 2010 NNSA Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan
provides further detail on NNSA modernization plans, to include
plans for stockpile stewardship, life extension programs,
facility upgrades and construction, and sustainment of science,
technology, and engineering capabilities to ensure the nuclear
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear
explosive testing. It also describes specific modernization
milestones and baseline capabilities that must be established,
such as a capacity to manufacture up to 80 pits and 80 canned
subassemblies per year and fabricate up to 500 high explosive
hemispheres per year, that will ``enable further reductions in
the stockpile over time.''
The Secretary of Defense committed to transferring over
$8.0 billion from the Department of Defense to NNSA in fiscal
years 2013 through 2016 to support nuclear modernization.
Similarly, a May 2010 report to Congress on nuclear force
structure and modernization plans, which was required by
section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) (``Section 1251 Report''),
noted a nearly 10-percent increase in the President's fiscal
year 2011 budget request for stockpile sustainment and
infrastructure over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. In
a November 2010 update to the Section 1251 Report, the
President committed to an additional nine-percent increase in
his fiscal year 2012 budget request for NNSA weapons activities
over the fiscal year 2011 requested level, and a total increase
of $4.1 billion across the Future Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP) over the fiscal year 2011 FYNSP.
The updated Section 1251 Report noted that, ``Given the
extremely tight budget environment facing the federal
government, these requests to the Congress demonstrate the
priority the Administration places on maintaining the safety,
security and effectiveness of the deterrent.''
The committee commends this commitment and is encouraged by
the fiscal year 2012 budget request for NNSA. On a bipartisan
basis, the committee has expressed its support for nuclear
modernization and the increased investments necessary to carry
it out. The committee believes there is a direct linkage
between such modernization and consideration of any further
reductions. Members of the Senate have also made clear that
their support for the nuclear force reductions in New START was
directly linked to the modernization of NNSA's nuclear weapons
facilities and the nuclear arsenal.
However, the committee also recognizes that continued
progress on nuclear modernization requires the long-term
commitment of both the executive and legislative branches of
government. The committee acknowledges the demands that such
significant investments will place on the nation's budget,
particularly in challenging economic times, but it also knows
that these crucial national security activities cannot be
deferred any longer without increasing the risk to the safety,
security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent.
Lastly, the committee notes that the committee report
accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution (H. Con.
Res. 34) states that the resolution seeks to ``prioritiz[e] the
nuclear modernization work of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. This includes providing fiscal space for the
modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and in connection
with the implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty with Russia.'' Consistent with this position, the
committee reaffirms its belief that nuclear modernization is a
national priority and elsewhere in this title recommends
authorizing the full amount of the fiscal year 2012 request for
NNSA.
Weapons Activities
The budget request contained $7.6 billion for the Weapons
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) for fiscal year 2012, an increase of $620.9 million
above the amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
In May 2009, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States reported that the ``Stockpile
Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program (LEP) have
been remarkably successful in refurbishing and modernizing the
stockpile.'' But at the same time, the Commission concluded
that these strategies ``cannot be counted on for the indefinite
future.'' The Commission noted that the NNSA's ``physical
infrastructure is in serious need of transformation'' and that
the ``intellectual infrastructure is also in trouble.''
The JASON scientific advisory panel report from September
2009 noted: ``All options for extending the life of the nuclear
weapons stockpile rely on the continuing maintenance and
renewal of expertise and capabilities in science, technology,
engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons
program.'' The JASON panel concluded that ``this expertise is
threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of
mission importance, and degradation of the work environment.''
In its April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the
Administration recognized these critical problems, saying, ``In
order to sustain a safe, secure, and effective U.S. nuclear
stockpile as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States
must possess a modern physical infrastructure--comprised of the
national security laboratories and a complex of supporting
facilities--and a highly capable workforce with the specialized
skills needed to sustain the nuclear deterrent.'' The NPR
outlined several proposed investments to improve both the
physical infrastructure and the human capital needed to sustain
the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee is encouraged by
these statements, and supports the vision for a reinvigorated
nuclear security enterprise.
The committee welcomes the robust budget request for
Weapons Activities for fiscal year 2012, which should enable
NNSA to continue modernizing its physical infrastructure and
strengthening its human capital. However, the committee notes
that these challenges can only be overcome through long-term
program and budget stability. In its November 2010 update to
the report required by section 1251 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the
President stated his plan to increase funding for Weapons
Activities across the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program
(FYNSP), from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016, by more
than $4.1 billion beyond that planned in his original May 2010
report. However, the November 2010 update also stated that
these FYNSP funding levels ``are appropriately called
`projections''' and are ``not a `fixed in stone' judgment.''
The committee notes these caveats with concern, and encourages
the President to sustain these critical investments in the
nuclear security enterprise for future years.
The committee recommends $7.6 billion for Weapons
Activities, the amount of the budget request.
Stockpile Stewardship
The committee views execution of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program (SSP) as the first component of the core national
security mission of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). The SSP utilizes data from previous
nuclear explosive tests, unique experimental tools, advanced
simulation and computing capabilities, and the world's foremost
scientists, engineers, and technicians to assess and certify
the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons
without additional nuclear explosive testing. The SSP enables
NNSA to better understand the science of how nuclear weapons
work, predict and identify problems in the stockpile, and
respond quickly to emerging threats.
In the past, the committee has expressed concern about
NNSA's ability to fully utilize the new experimental
capabilities that it has developed over the past decade. Such
experiments are critical to the long-term management of the
stockpile because specific areas of remaining uncertainty about
the performance of our nuclear weapons can only be illuminated
through scientific experiments using these capabilities. The
committee believes the budget request for the SSP should be
sufficient to properly utilize all experimental capabilities
and to continue improving the nation's ability to certify the
nuclear weapons stockpile without additional nuclear explosive
testing.
Stockpile Management
The committee views execution of the Stockpile Management
Program (SMP) as the second component of the core national
security mission of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Through the SMP, NNSA sustains the
nuclear weapons stockpile and ensures our nuclear weapons are
safe, secure, and reliable. Development and execution of the
SMP was required by section 3113 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84),
which also prescribed objectives and limitations for the
program.
The SMP includes surveillance of weapons and weapon
components in the stockpile, non-nuclear testing, production
and exchange of limited life components, dismantlement of
retired weapons, and many other important activities. However,
the key aspects of the SMP are the Life Extension Programs
(LEPs), which seek to extend the life of existing weapon types
while improving their safety and security. For fiscal year
2012, the budget request included the following objectives
regarding LEPs: continuing the W76-1 LEP, producing enough W76-
1 warheads to meet U.S. Navy requirements; initiating a B61-12
LEP, moving from the current feasibility study (phase 6.2/2A)
into development engineering activities (phase 6.3); and
continuing a life extension study for the W78 by beginning the
phase 6.2/2A feasibility study, to include examining the
feasibility of a common W78/W88 warhead.
The committee supports these activities, and encourages
NNSA to consider the full spectrum of options for managing the
nuclear weapons stockpile, as identified by the Congressional
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States in
their May 2009 report. The NNSA laboratories should thoroughly
evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, all options for managing and
extending the life of any particular weapon system.
Furthermore, the committee encourages NNSA to plan and
execute the SMP such that the scientists, engineers, and
technicians employed in all parts of the nuclear security
enterprise are actively engaged in challenging work that
continually utilizes their skill sets in meaningful ways. The
committee also encourages NNSA to structure the SMP to ensure
that no critical capabilities go unutilized for extended
periods of time, and therefore atrophy.
Directed Stockpile Work
The budget request contained $2.0 billion for Directed
Stockpile Work (DSW), an increase of $65.2 million above the
amount requested for fiscal year 2011. DSW includes a variety
of activities related to stockpile management and stockpile
stewardship, including life extension programs, stockpile
system surveillance and maintenance, testing and experiments,
component manufacturing, and weapons dismantlement and
disposition.
The committee recommends $2.0 billion for Directed
Stockpile Work, the amount of the budget request.
B61 Phase 6.3 Life Extension Program
The budget request contained $223.6 million for Directed
Stockpile Work for the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP). This
funding request is new, and would establish the B61 LEP as a
full program.
The request would fund phase 6.3 development engineering
activities for the B61 LEP, including: development of designs
and maturation of technologies for various components;
implementation of enhanced surety technologies; qualification
and certification testing of components and systems; systems
engineering for integrating the B61 with modern aircraft such
as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and consolidation of several
versions of the B61 (the B61-3, -4, and -7) into a single
version (the B61-12). The committee understands that the
Nuclear Weapons Council plans to meet at the end of 2011 to
determine whether the B61 LEP is ready to enter phase 6.3.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) expects
to deliver the first production unit (FPU) of the B61-12 in
fiscal year 2017. Due to prior delays, the NNSA is operating on
a compressed schedule to meet the FPU timeline. The committee
understands the importance of meeting the 2017 delivery date,
and fully supports the B61 LEP. However, the committee is
concerned about the scope of technology maturation planned for
this program and the impact such activities may have on an
already aggressive schedule. Furthermore, the committee is
concerned that total costs for the program may grow as NNSA
attempts to meet its 2017 FPU deadline. The committee will
continue to conduct rigorous oversight of this important
program, and expects the NNSA Administrator to keep the
committee fully informed of any expected deviations from the
schedule and baseline cost estimate, once such estimate is
established.
Science Campaign
The budget request contained $405.9 million for the Science
Campaign, an increase of $40.7 million above the amount
requested for fiscal year 2011. The Science Campaign is a
critical component of stockpile stewardship, and provides the
tools, experiments, and human capital needed to increase our
knowledge of nuclear weapons science and assess and certify the
safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile in the
absence of nuclear explosive testing. The fiscal year 2012
budget request for the Science Campaign will enable continued
experiments to provide data for predictive computer models,
enhance methodologies used for certification and assessment of
margins and uncertainties, and meet various deliverables and
milestones to support life extension program timelines.
The committee recommends $405.9 million for the Science
Campaign, the amount of the budget request.
Engineering Campaign
The budget request contained $143.1 million for the
Engineering Campaign, an increase of $1.2 million above the
amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
The Engineering Campaign provides the engineering basis,
tools, and capabilities to assess and certify the stockpile
throughout the lifecycle of nuclear weapons. Engineering
Campaign activities include development of options for
improving safety and security of nuclear weapons in future life
extension programs, development of tools for designing and
qualifying weapons and weapon components in hostile
environments, and development of advanced diagnostics for
identifying and predicting component aging issues.
The committee recommends $143.1 million for the Engineering
Campaign, the amount of the budget request.
Readiness Campaign
The budget request contained $142.5 million for the
Readiness Campaign, an increase of $30.4 million above the
amount requested for fiscal year 2011. Readiness Campaign
activities include the production of tritium for use in the
nuclear weapons stockpile and the selection and maturation of
production technologies for manufacturing components of nuclear
weapons.
For fiscal year 2012, the budget request aligns all funding
for the Readiness Campaign into two programs that focus on
tritium production and non-nuclear component manufacturing
technologies. The committee is concerned that, should life
extension programs not proceed on the planned schedule,
important activities formerly funded by the Readiness Campaign
will be neglected and critical capabilities will atrophy. The
committee encourages the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to ensure that such capabilities, such as
the enhancement of production technologies for high explosives,
receive appropriate attention.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the
committee expressed concern that the NNSA had not identified
effective technical solutions for increased tritium production
nor viable alternative supplies. The committee notes that NNSA
plans to increase its production of tritium in fiscal year
2012, but has still not resolved certain major technical
challenges associated with tritium permeation in the production
process. The committee is concerned by an October 2010 report
by the Government Accountability Office that found that ``NNSA
currently meets the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements for
tritium, but its ability to do so in the future is in doubt.''
To ensure required supplies of tritium remain available in the
future, the committee supports the requested increase in funds
for tritium production and associated research to resolve the
ongoing technical challenges, and will continue to conduct
vigorous oversight of NNSA's progress in this area.
The committee recommends $142.5 million for the Readiness
Campaign, the amount of the budget request.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign
The budget request contained $476.3 million for the
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign, a decrease of $5.3 million below the amount requested
for fiscal year 2011.
Activities in the ICF Ignition and High-Yield Campaign
support development of enhanced understanding of high energy
density environments, a critical aspect of nuclear explosions.
ICF experiments conducted at a variety of facilities are used
to inform and validate theoretical models used to assess and
certify the stockpile without nuclear explosive testing.
Early in fiscal year 2012, the National Ignition Facility
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will attempt, for the
first time, to demonstrate ignition in a laboratory
environment. Achieving ignition would provide important,
previously unavailable, experimental data to support assessment
and certification of the stockpile, and would be a major
advance in nuclear science.
The committee recommends $476.3 million for the Inertial
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign, the amount
of the budget request.
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
The budget request contained $628.9 million for the
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign, an increase
of $13.2 million above the amount requested for fiscal year
2011.
The ASC Campaign provides the simulation and computing
capability needed to validate and certify the nuclear weapons
stockpile in the absence of nuclear explosive testing. As
experiments are conducted under various other campaigns, the
data from those experiments is used to refine simulation codes
developed under the ASC Campaign. As the experiments, computing
infrastructure, and simulation codes are concurrently improved,
confidence in the ability to predict weapon performance, and
potential problems, should also improve. Elsewhere in this
title, the committee notes its support for the new strategic
investments by the National Nuclear Security Administration and
the Department of Energy in research and development of ``exa-
scale'' computing.
The committee recommends $628.9 million for the Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaign, the amount of the budget
request.
Exa-scale computing at the Department of Energy and National Nuclear
Security Administration National Laboratories
To maintain our economic and national security, the
committee believes that the United States must continue to be
at the forefront of high-performance computing technology. The
committee is encouraged by recent progress in developing and
deploying ``peta-scale'' computing at the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
national laboratories.
The budget request includes new strategic investments in
research and development of ``exa-scale'' computing: $90.0
million through the DOE Office of Science and $36.0 million
through the NNSA Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.
The committee believes these investments in next generation
computing systems are critical to the nation, and will not only
help ensure the long-term viability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, but will
also support important technology innovation for the broader
economy.
The committee believes the United States must continue its
leadership in developing and utilizing state-of-the-art
supercomputers, and notes with concern the recent surge of the
People's Republic of China in the field of high performance
computing. In particular, the committee notes China's
deployment of the world's first and third fastest
supercomputers in rankings published in November 2010, while
the NNSA laboratories did not have a machine in the top five of
these rankings for the first time in 20 years.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
The budget request contained $2.3 billion for Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), an increase of $477.2
million above the amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
RTBF supports the physical infrastructure and operational
readiness of the nuclear security enterprise. RTBF funds are
divided between Operations and Maintenance, and Construction
programs. The RTBF program is aligned with and provides
resources to support the execution of all other programs of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including
Directed Stockpile Work, the Campaigns, and Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
The committee has previously noted its concern regarding
funding to support the operations and maintenance of facilities
at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, and the Y-12 Plant in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The committee appreciates the increase in
funds for both facilities in the budget request to support the
increased workload at both plants associated with increases in
life extension program production rates, surveillance, and
dismantlement activities. The committee also notes the increase
in funds provided for material recycle and recovery to support
a similar workload increase.
The budget request for RTBF included funds for the two
largest ongoing NNSA infrastructure projects: $300.0 million
for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility
at Los Alamos National Laboratory and $160.2 million for the
Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security
Complex. Elsewhere in this title, the committee discusses its
concerns regarding these important projects, including the
continuing cost increases and schedule delays associated with
them. The committee recommends $2.3 billion for Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities, the amount of the budget
request.
Report on project management for large-scale construction
programs
The committee believes that successful, efficient, and
timely completion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Building Replacement (CMRR) at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-
12 National Security Complex are critical to the long-term
sustainability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee
is concerned that, given its history regarding management of
large-scale construction projects, the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) may encounter significant
difficulty in managing and executing these programs to build
two large, and wholly unique, nuclear facilities
simultaneously.
The committee notes with concern the large cost growth and
schedule delays of both of these programs as they have advanced
in the design process. With the designs for UPF and the major
nuclear component of CMRR only 45 percent complete, expected
total project costs for constructing the facilities have
increased several times over compared to original estimates.
The original 2004 maximum cost estimate for CMRR was less than
$1.0 billion; the current expected maximum cost for CMRR, based
on the 45 percent complete design of the nuclear facility, has
increased dramatically to over $6.0 billion. Similarly, the
expected maximum cost for UPF has increased from $3.5 billion
in 2007 to $6.5 billion today. As discussed in documents
accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget request, NNSA will not
determine full baseline costs for these facilities until their
designs are 90 percent complete. The committee agrees with this
decision to establish a mature design before full cost
estimates are developed, and expects NNSA to avoid concurrent
design and construction for these facilities.
The committee recognizes the one-of-a-kind nature of these
facilities and the difficulties in estimating their costs and
schedules in conceptual phases. However, the dramatic increases
in the expected costs of these facilities, coupled with their
importance to sustaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent,
demonstrate the need for strong oversight of the project
management approach taken by NNSA for constructing these
facilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, by March 15, 2012, on NNSA's approach to
co