Senate Report 112-26 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORT

[Senate Report 112-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress 1st
Session SENATE Report
112-26
_______________________________________________________________________

Calendar No. 80

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

REPORT

[to accompany s. 1253]

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

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

----------

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

June 22, 2011.--Ordered to be printed

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
?

112th Congress
1st Session SENATE Report
112-26
_______________________________________________________________________

Calendar No. 80

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

REPORT

[to accompany s. 1253]

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

__________

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

June 22, 2011.--Ordered to be printed
?

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

(112th Congress, 1st Session)

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN CORNYN, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut

Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director

David M. Morriss, Minority Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview....................................... 2
Scoring of budgetary effects (sec. 4).................... 3
Explanation of funding summary........................... 3
Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal
Year 2012 Table.................................... 4
National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table.. 8
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations................. 10
Title I--Procurement............................................. 10
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 10
Explanation of tables.................................... 10
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 10
Subtitle B--Navy Programs.................................... 10
Multiyear procurement authority for mission avionics and
common cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S helicopters (sec.
121)................................................... 10
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs............................... 10
Procurement of advanced extremely high frequency
satellites (sec. 131).................................. 10
Availability of fiscal year 2011 funds for research and
development relating to the B-2 bomber aircraft (sec.
132)................................................... 11
Availability of fiscal year 2011 funds to support
alternative options for the extremely high frequency
terminal Increment 1 program of record (sec. 133)...... 12
Limitations on use of funds to retire B-1 bomber aircraft
(sec. 134)............................................. 12
Limitation on the retirement of U-2 aircraft (sec. 135).. 12
Subtitle D--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 13
Inclusion of information on approved Combat Mission
Requirements in quarterly reports on use of Combat
Mission Requirements funds (sec. 151).................. 13
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (sec. 152)............ 13
Report on plan to implement Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 measures within the Joint Strike
Fighter aircraft program (sec. 153).................... 14
Multiyear procurement authority for airframes for Army
UH-60M/HH-60M helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S
helicopters (sec. 154)................................. 15
Designation of undersea mobility acquisition program of
the United States Special Operations Command as a Major
Defense Acquisition Program (sec. 155)................. 15
Transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft to the Army
(sec. 156)............................................. 16
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft
re-engining program (sec. 157)......................... 17
Budget Items................................................. 18
Army..................................................... 18
Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and
Surveillance System................................ 18
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System................. 18
Stinger air defense missile system modifications..... 19
Abrams upgrade program............................... 19
Integrated air burst weapons system family........... 19
M2 .50 caliber machine gun........................... 20
Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun.................. 20
Joint Tactical Radio System.......................... 20
Ground Soldier System................................ 20
Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team................... 21
Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund................... 21
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........ 21
Navy..................................................... 21
F/A-18E/F............................................ 21
Mobile User Objective System......................... 21
Consolidated afloat networks and enterprise services. 22
Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force 22
Air Force................................................ 23
HH-60M............................................... 23
Light attack armed reconnaissance aircraft........... 23
F-16 modifications................................... 24
Family of advanced beyond line of site terminals..... 24
GPS III Space Segment................................ 24
Defense-wide............................................. 24
Defense Information Systems Agency satellite......... 24
High Speed Assault Craft............................. 25
Non-Standard Aviation................................ 25
Village Stability Operations and Afghan Local Police
unfunded requirements.............................. 26
Items of Special Interest.................................... 27
C-27J.................................................... 27
Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station................. 28
Intercontinental ballistic missiles modifications........ 28
Joint Tactical Radio System.............................. 28
Light tactical vehicles.................................. 29
Multiyear procurement savings estimates.................. 30
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 33
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 33
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 33
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 33
Prohibitions relating to use of funds for research,
development, test, and evaluation on the F136 engine
(sec. 211)............................................. 33
Limitation on use of funds for Increment 2 of B-2 Bomber
aircraft Extremely High Frequency Satellite
Communications Program (sec. 212)...................... 33
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike (sec. 213)...................................... 34
Marine Corps Ground Combat Vehicles (sec. 214)........... 35
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters.......................... 38
Enhanced oversight of missile defense acquisition
programs (sec. 231).................................... 38
Ground-based Midcourse Defense program (sec. 232)........ 39
Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)....... 40
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 41
Extension of requirements for biennial roadmap and annual
review and certification on funding for development of
hypersonics (sec. 251)................................. 41
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 42
Contractor cost-sharing in pilot program to include
technology protection features during research and
development of certain defense systems (sec. 261)...... 42
Budget Items................................................. 42
Army..................................................... 42
Medium Extended Air Defense System................... 42
Army test and evaluation............................. 42
Navy..................................................... 43
Naval laser technology............................... 43
Naval electromagnetic railgun........................ 44
Air Force................................................ 44
Metals Affordability Initiative...................... 44
Conventional weapons technology...................... 44
Intercontinental ballistic missile demonstration and
validation......................................... 44
Space situational awareness systems.................. 45
Space-based Infrared System.......................... 45
Next generation aerial refueling aircraft............ 46
CSAR HH-60 recapitalization.......................... 47
Air Force test and evaluation........................ 47
F-22A squadrons...................................... 48
Defense-wide............................................. 48
Data to decisions programmatic decrease.............. 48
Department of Defense research & engineering cyber
security activities................................ 49
Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD)
programmatic decrease.............................. 49
Industrial Base Innovation Fund...................... 49
Hybrid air vehicle demonstration..................... 50
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation
Program science and technology thrust areas........ 50
Airborne Laser Test Bed.............................. 52
Defense technology transition and transfer programs.. 53
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.................. 53
Ballistic missile defense targets.................... 54
Standard Missile-3 Block IB.......................... 54
Sea-Based X-Band radar............................... 55
U.S.-Israeli cooperative ballistic missile defense
programs........................................... 55
Corrosion prevention and control shortfall........... 56
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA co-development.......... 57
Defense Technical Information Center programmatic
decrease........................................... 57
Development, test, and evaluation.................... 58
Demonstrations and pilot projects on cybersecurity... 58
File Sanitization Tool............................... 59
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs... 60
Items of Special Interest.................................... 61
Advanced affordable turbine engine program............... 61
Air Force weather modernization plan..................... 62
Army robotics............................................ 63
Army Rotorcraft science and technology................... 64
Assessment of recent impacts in rare earth metals markets 65
Assessment of the defense industrial base................ 65
Ballistic missile defense overview....................... 66
Blue Devil Block 2....................................... 69
Defense microelectronics strategy........................ 70
Department of Defense space science and technology
strategy............................................... 71
Global Hawk communications system re-architecture........ 72
High Performance Computing Modernization Program......... 72
Joint Trauma Analysis and Prevention of Injury in Combat
Program................................................ 73
Lease of Blue Devil Block 1 aircraft..................... 73
Medical Countermeasures Initiative....................... 74
Medium-range vertical lift unmanned aerial systems....... 74
Nanotechnology research.................................. 76
Navy manned reconnaissance............................... 76
Navy open architecture................................... 77
Paladin Integration Management........................... 78
Surface ship torpedo defense............................. 79
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 81
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 81
Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301)............. 81
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions.............. 81
Modification of energy performance goals (sec. 311)...... 81
Streamlined annual report on the Defense Environmental
Programs (sec. 312).................................... 81
Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated
Penalties in connection with Jackson Park Housing
Complex, Washington (sec. 313)......................... 82
Requirements relating to Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry investigation of exposure to drinking
water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
(sec. 314)............................................. 82
Discharge of wastes at sea generated by ships of the
armed forces (sec. 315)................................ 82
Subtitle C--Work Place and Depot Issues...................... 83
Minimum capital investment for certain depots (sec. 321). 83
Limitation on revising the definition of depot-level
maintenance (sec. 322)................................. 83
Designation of military industrial facilities as centers
of industrial and technical excellence (sec. 323)...... 83
Report on depot level maintenance and recapitalization of
certain parts and equipment (sec. 324)................. 83
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 84
Study on Air Force test and training range infrastructure
(sec. 331)............................................. 84
Study on training range infrastructure for special
operations forces (sec. 332)........................... 84
Guidance to establish non-tactical wheeled vehicle and
equipment service life extension programs to achieve
cost savings (sec. 333)................................ 84
Modified deadline for annual report on budget shortfalls
for implementation of operational energy strategy (sec.
334)................................................... 84
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 85
Extension of authority for Army industrial facilities to
enter into cooperative agreements with non-Army
entities (sec. 341).................................... 85
Working-capital fund accounting (sec. 342)............... 85
Commercial sale of small arms ammunition and small arms
ammunition components in excess of military
requirements, and fired cartridge cases (sec. 343)..... 85
Authority to accept contributions of funds to study
options for mitigating adverse effects of proposed
obstructions on military installations (sec. 344)...... 85
Utility disruptions to military installations (sec. 345). 86
Budget Items................................................. 86
Army funding decrease for unjustified growth............. 86
Reduction in funding for contract services............... 86
Reduction in funding for Department of Defense business
systems................................................ 87
Management efficiencies in the military intelligence
program................................................ 88
Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances........... 89
Reduction in non-dual status technician limitation....... 90
Operation and maintenance, Air Force administration and
other servicewide activities reduction................. 90
Funding decrease for unexecuted museum................... 90
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 90
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request.. 91
Department of Defense Education Activity Operations and
Maintenance funding.................................... 92
Reimbursement for expenses deferred to fund foreign
operations............................................. 92
Items of Special Interest.................................... 92
Army energy security implementation strategy............. 92
Civil Reserve Air Fleet transportation of military
personnel, equipment and supplies...................... 92
Department of Defense decisions on in-sourcing of
functions currently performed by contractors........... 93
Department of Defense efficiencies initiative and
critical workforce capabilities........................ 94
Department of Defense Inspector General report on Qarmat
Ali.................................................... 95
Energy metering and other energy efficiency technologies. 96
Military commuter centers................................ 96
Net-Zero energy usage on military installations.......... 97
Program management of weapon systems in the sustainment
phase.................................................. 98
Protection of resources at Fort Huachuca, Arizona........ 98
Readiness support for Navy unfunded requirements......... 100
Required action relating to water contamination at Camp
Lejeune................................................ 100
Requirement for Department of Defense input regarding the
Logistics Management Institute's depot study........... 102
Security surveillance at forward operating bases......... 102
Updated requirement for ammunition plant and arsenal
plans.................................................. 102
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 105
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 105
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 105
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 106
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 106
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the Reserves (sec. 412)................................ 106
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 106
Fiscal year 2012 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 106
Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 107
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 107
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 107
Budget Item.................................................. 107
Military personnel funding changes....................... 107
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 109
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 109
Increase in authorized strengths for Marine Corps
officers on active duty (sec. 501)..................... 109
Voluntary retirement incentive (sec. 502)................ 109
National Defense University outplacement waiver (sec.
503)................................................... 109
Modification of definition of ``joint duty assignment''
to include all instructor assignments for joint
training and education (sec. 504)...................... 109
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 110
Authority for order to active duty of members of the
Selected Reserve and certain members of the Individual
Ready Reserve for preplanned missions (sec. 511)....... 110
Modification of eligibility for consideration for
promotion for certain reserve officers employed as
military technicians (dual status) (sec. 512).......... 110
Modification of time in which preseparation counseling
must be provided to reserve component members being
demobilized (sec. 513)................................. 110
Report on termination of military technician as a
distinct personnel management category (sec. 514)...... 111
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 111
Repeal of mandatory high-deployment allowance (sec. 521). 111
Prohibition on denial of reenlistment of members for
unsuitability based on the same medical condition for
which they were determined to be fit for duty (sec.
522)................................................... 111
Expansion of regular enlisted members covered by early
discharge authority (sec. 523)......................... 112
Extension of voluntary separation pay and benefits (sec.
524)................................................... 112
Employment skills training for members of the armed
forces on active duty who are transitioning to civilian
life (sec. 525)........................................ 112
Policy on military recruitment and enlistment of
graduates of secondary schools (sec. 526).............. 112
Subtitle D--Education and Training........................... 112
Enhancement of authorities on joint professional military
education (sec. 541)................................... 112
Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical
accession programs (sec. 542).......................... 113
Reserve component mental health student stipend (sec.
543)................................................... 113
Enrollment of certain seriously wounded, ill, or injured
former or retired enlisted members of the armed forces
in associate degree programs of the Community College
of the Air Force in order to complete degree program
(sec. 544)............................................. 114
Consolidation of military department authority to issue
arms, tentage, and equipment to educational
institutions not maintaining units of Junior ROTC (sec.
545)................................................... 114
Temporary authority to wave maximum age limitation on
admission to the military service academies (sec. 546). 114
Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally..... 114
Reform of offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and
other sexual misconduct under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 551)............................ 114
Authority to compel production of documentary evidence
(sec. 552)............................................. 115
Procedures for judicial review of certain military
personnel decisions (sec. 553)......................... 115
Department of Defense support for programs on pro bono
legal representation for members of the armed forces
(sec. 554)............................................. 115
Subtitle F--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response........... 116
Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office (sec. 561)...................................... 116
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault
Victim Advocates (sec. 562)............................ 116
Access of sexual assault victims to legal assistance and
services of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
Sexual Assault Victim Advocates (sec. 563)............. 116
Requirement for privilege in cases arising under Uniform
Code of Military Justice against disclosure of
communications between sexual assault victims and
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Sexual Assault
Victim Advocates, and certain other persons (sec. 564). 116
Expedited consideration and decision-making on requests
for permanent change of station or unit transfer of
victims of sexual assault (sec. 565)................... 117
Department of Defense policy and procedures on retention
and access to evidence and records relating to sexual
assaults involving members of the armed forces (sec.
566)................................................... 117
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education.................... 117
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 571)................................... 117
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
572)................................................... 117
Three-year extension and enhancement of authorities on
transition of military dependent students among local
educational agencies (sec. 573)........................ 118
Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness........................ 118
Modification of membership of Department of Defense
Military Family Readiness Council (sec. 576)........... 118
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 118
Cold War Service Medal (sec. 581)........................ 118
Enhancement and improvement of Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program (sec. 582)....................... 118
Report on process for expedited determination of
disability of members of the armed forces with certain
disabling conditions (sec. 583)........................ 118
Report on the achievement of diversity goals for the
leadership of the armed forces (sec. 584).............. 119
Specification of period in which application for voter
registration or absentee ballot from an overseas voter
is valid (sec. 585).................................... 119
Items of Special Interest.................................... 119
Comptroller General review of oversight of military
academies and their preparatory schools................ 119
Department of the Air Force Total Force Initiative........... 119
Development of a single Department of the Navy military
justice case processing and tracking system............ 120
Ensuring knowledge of the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act............................ 121
Impact of operational tempo on special operations forces..... 121
Independent Review Panel to Study the Judge Advocate
Requirements of the Department of the Navy............. 122
Military Adaptive Sports Program............................. 123
Preventing foreclosures of service members' mortgages........ 123
Reports on late processing of reports of promotion
selection boards and federal recognition boards........ 123
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education in Department of Defense Education Activity
Schools................................................ 124
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 125
Subtitle A--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 125
One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special
pay authorities (sec. 611)............................. 125
Modification of qualifying period for payment of hostile
fire and imminent danger special pay and hazardous duty
special pay (sec. 612)................................. 126
Subtitle B--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and
Transportation Authorities................................. 126
Consolidation and reform of travel and transportation
authorities of the uniformed services (sec. 621)....... 126
Transition provisions (sec. 622)......................... 127
Subtitle C--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 127
Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance for members of the armed forces
married to other members (sec. 631).................... 127
Limitation on availability of certain funds pending
report on provision of special compensation for members
of the uniformed services with injury or illness
requiring assistance in everyday living (sec. 632)..... 127
Repeal of sense of Congress on age and service
requirements for retired pay for non-regular service
(sec. 633)............................................. 128
Item of Special Interest..................................... 128
Basic allowance for housing for areas with housing shortages. 128
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 129
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program.................................. 129
Annual cost-of-living adjustment in enrollment fees in
TRICARE Prime (sec. 701)............................... 129
Maintenance of the adequacy of provider networks under
the TRICARE program (sec. 702)......................... 129
Transition enrollment of Uniformed Services Family Health
Plan Medicare-eligible retirees to TRICARE for Life
(sec. 703)............................................. 129
Modification of authorities on surveys on continued
viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra (sec.
704)................................................... 129
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits....................... 130
Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for
command-sponsored dependents of members assigned to
remote locations outside the continental United States
(sec. 711)............................................. 130
Transitional health benefits for certain members with
extension of active duty following active duty in
support of a contingency operation (sec. 712).......... 130
Codification and improvement of procedures for mental
health evaluations for members of the armed forces
(sec. 713)............................................. 130
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration....................... 131
Expansion of state licensure exceptions for certain
mental health-care professionals (sec. 721)............ 131
Clarification on confidentiality of medical quality
assurance records (sec. 722)........................... 131
Items of Special Interest.................................... 131
Colorectal cancer screening for Department of Defense
beneficiaries.......................................... 131
Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health
and Traumatic Brain Injury............................. 132
Exploration of care management options under TRICARE for
Life and Uniformed Services Family Health Plan......... 132
Research on musculoskeletal injuries..................... 133
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 135
Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 135
Waiver of requirements relating to new milestone approval
for certain major defense acquisition programs
experiencing critical cost growth due to change in
quantity purchased (sec. 801).......................... 135
Modification of certain requirements of the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (sec. 802)...... 135
Assessment, management, and control of operating and
support costs for major weapon systems (sec. 803)...... 135
Clarification of responsibility for cost analyses and
targets for contract negotiation purposes (sec. 804)... 136
Modification of requirements for guidance on management
of manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition
programs (sec. 805).................................... 136
Management of developmental test and evaluation for major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 806)................ 136
Assessment of risk associated with development of major
weapon systems to be procured under cooperative
projects with friendly foreign countries (sec. 807).... 136
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 137
Inclusion of data on contractor performance in past
performance databases for source selection decisions
(sec. 821)............................................. 137
Implementation of recommendations of Defense Science
Board task force on service contracting (sec. 822)..... 138
Temporary limitation on aggregate annual amount available
for contract services (sec. 823)....................... 139
Annual report on single-award task and delivery order
contracts (sec. 824)................................... 141
Incorporation of corrosion prevention and control into
requirements applicable to development and acquisition
of weapon systems (sec. 825)........................... 141
Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs (sec.
826)................................................... 142
Subtitle C--Amendments Relating to General Contracting
Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations................... 143
Treatment for technical data purposes of independent
research and development and bid and proposal costs
(sec. 841)............................................. 143
Extension to all management employees of applicability of
the senior executive benchmark compensation amount for
purposes of allowable cost limitations under government
contracts (sec. 842)................................... 143
Covered contracts for purposes of requirements on
contractor business systems (sec. 843)................. 143
Compliance with defense procurement requirements for
purposes of internal controls of non-defense agencies
for procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense
(sec. 844)............................................. 143
Prohibition on collection of political information (sec.
845)................................................... 144
Waiver of ``Buy American'' requirement for procurement of
components otherwise producible overseas with specialty
metal not produced in the United States (sec. 846)..... 144
Comptroller General of the United States reports on
noncompetitive and one-offer contracts awarded by the
Department of Defense (sec. 847)....................... 144
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting....... 144
Prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United
States Central Command Theater of Operations (sec. 861) 144
Additional access to contractor and subcontractor records
in the United States Central Command Theater of
Operations (sec. 862).................................. 145
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund to rapidly meet
urgent operational needs (sec. 863).................... 145
Inclusion of associated support services in rapid
acquisition and deployment procedures for supplies
(sec. 864)............................................. 145
Reach-back contracting authority for Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation New Dawn (sec. 865).............. 145
Inclusion of contractor support requirements in
Department of Defense planning documents (sec. 866).... 145
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 145
Extension of availability of funds in the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 881)...... 145
Modification of delegation of authority to make
determinations on entry into Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements with NATO and other friendly
organizations and countries (sec. 882)................. 145
Rate of payment for airlift services under the Civil
Reserve Air Fleet program (sec. 883)................... 147
Clarification of Department of Defense authority to
purchase right-hand drive passenger sedan vehicles and
adjustment of threshold for inflation (sec. 884)....... 147
Extension and expansion of small business programs of the
Department of Defense (sec. 885)....................... 147
Three-year extension of test program for negotiation of
comprehensive small business subcontracting plans (sec.
886)................................................... 147
Five-year extension of Department of Defense mentor-
protege program (sec. 887)............................. 147
Report on alternatives for the procurement of fire-
resistant and fire-retardant fiber and materials for
the production of military products (sec. 888)......... 148
Items of Special Interest.................................... 148
Competition in contracts for services.................... 148
Cost-consciousness in contingency contracting............ 148
Implementation of competition requirement in section 811
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010.............................................. 149
Market research on potential sources of athletic footwear
for members of the armed forces........................ 149
Preference for uniforms, organizational clothing, and
personal equipment that contain recycled materials..... 150
Procedures for suspension and debarment.................. 151
Prompt payment discounts and interest on late payments... 151
Reliability and maintainability of weapon systems........ 152
Streamlining procedures for contract close-out........... 152
Test and evaluation of major defense acquisition programs 153
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 155
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 155
Qualifications for appointments to the position of Deputy
Secretary of Defense (sec. 901)........................ 155
Designation of Department of Defense senior official with
principal responsibility for airship programs (sec.
902)................................................... 155
Memoranda of agreement on synchronization of enabling
capabilities of general purpose forces with the
requirements of special operations forces (sec. 903)... 156
Enhancement of administration of the United States Air
Force Institute of Technology (sec. 904)............... 157
Defense laboratory matters (sec. 905).................... 157
Assessment of Department of Defense access to non-United
States citizens with scientific and technical expertise
vital to the national security interests (sec. 906).... 158
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 158
Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 911)........... 158
Authority to designate increments or blocks of space
vehicles as major subprograms subject to acquisition
reporting requirements (sec. 912)...................... 159
Review to identify interference with national security
Global Positioning System receivers by commercial
communications services (sec. 913)..................... 159
Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters............................. 160
Expansion of authority for exchanges of mapping,
charting, and geodetic data to include nongovernmental
organizations and academic institutions (sec. 921)..... 160
Facilities for intelligence collection or special
operations activities abroad (sec. 922)................ 160
Ozone Widget Framework (sec. 923)........................ 161
Plan for incorporation of enterprise query and
correlation capability into the Defense Intelligence
Information Enterprise (sec. 924)...................... 162
Subtitle D--Cybersecurity Matters............................ 165
Strategy to acquire capabilities to detect previously
unknown cyber attacks (sec. 931)....................... 165
Program in support of Department of Defense policy on
sustaining and expanding information sharing (sec. 932) 169
Items of Special Interest.................................... 169
Determination of funding mechanisms for construction of
test and evaluation facilities......................... 169
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle........................ 170
Examination of Department of Defense science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics workforce needs........... 171
Navy test and evaluation................................. 171
Rocket System Launch Program............................. 171
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 173
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 173
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 173
Defense business systems (sec. 1002)..................... 173
Modification of authorities on certification and
credential standards for financial management positions
in the Department of Defense (sec. 1003)............... 173
Deposit of reimbursed funds under reciprocal fire
protection agreements (sec. 1004)...................... 173
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 174
Five-year extension and modification of authority of
Department of Defense to provide additional support for
counterdrug activities of other governmental agencies
(sec. 1011)............................................ 174
Five-year extension and expansion of authority to provide
additional support for counter-drug activities of
certain foreign governments (sec. 1012)................ 174
Reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign
counter-drug activities (sec. 1013).................... 175
Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide
support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities (sec. 1014)....................... 175
Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1015)...... 175
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 175
Limitation on availability of funds for placing Maritime
Prepositioning Ships squadrons on reduced operating
status (sec. 1021)..................................... 175
Modification of conditions on status of retired aircraft
carrier ex-John F. Kennedy (sec. 1022)................. 176
Authority to provide information for maritime safety of
forces and hydrographic support (sec. 1023)............ 176
Subtitle D--Detainee Matters................................. 176
Authority to detain unprivileged enemy belligerents
captured pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (sec. 1031)............................. 176
Required military custody for members of al-Qaeda and
affiliated entities (sec. 1032)........................ 176
Permanent requirements for certifications relating to the
transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries and other
foreign entities (sec. 1033)........................... 177
Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify
facilities in the United States to house detainees
transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034)....................... 177
Procedures for annual detention review of individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035).................................. 177
Procedures for status determination of unprivileged enemy
belligerents (sec. 1036)............................... 178
Clarification of right to plead guilty in trial of
capital offense by military commission (sec. 1037)..... 178
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 178
Management of Department of Defense installations (sec.
1041).................................................. 178
Amendments relating to the Military Commissions Act of
2009 (sec. 1042)....................................... 178
Department of Defense authority to carry out personnel
recovery reintegration and post-isolation support
activities (sec. 1043)................................. 179
Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of certain
sensitive national security information (sec. 1044).... 179
Clarification of airlift service definitions relating to
the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1045)................ 179
Authority for assignment of civilian employees of the
Department of Defense as advisors to foreign ministries
of defense and international peace and security
organizations (sec. 1046).............................. 180
Net assessment of nuclear force levels required with
respect to certain proposals to reduce the nuclear
weapons stockpile of the United States (sec. 1047)..... 180
Fiscal year 2012 administration and report on the Troops-
to- Teachers Program (sec. 1048)....................... 181
Subtitle F--Repeal & Modification of Reporting Requirements.. 181
Part I--Repeal of Reporting Requirements................. 181
Reduction in Department of Defense reporting requirements
(secs. 1061-1069)...................................... 181
Subtitle G--Other Study and Report Matters................... 182
Modification of dates of Comptroller General of the
United States review of executive agreement on joint
medical facility demonstration project, North Chicago
and Great Lakes, Illinois (sec. 1071).................. 182
Report on plan to implement organizational goals
recommended in the National Security Strategy-2010
(sec. 1072)............................................ 182
Biennial assessment of and report on delivery platforms
for nuclear weapons and the nuclear command and control
system (sec. 1073)..................................... 183
Annual report on the nuclear weapons stockpile of the
United States (sec. 1074).............................. 183
Nuclear employment strategy of the United States (sec.
1075).................................................. 183
Study on the recruitment, retention, and development of
cyberspace experts (sec. 1076)......................... 184
Reports on resolution restrictions on the commercial sale
or dissemination of electro-optical imagery collected
by satellites (sec. 1077).............................. 184
Report on integration of unmanned aerial systems into the
national airspace system (sec. 1078)................... 185
Study on United States force posture in East Asia and the
Pacific region (sec. 1079)............................. 185
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 186
Redesignation of psychological operations as military
information support operations in title 10, United
States Code, to conform to Department of Defense usage
(sec. 1081)............................................ 186
Termination of requirement for appointment of civilian
members of National Security Education Board by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate (sec. 1082).. 186
Redesignation of Industrial College of the Armed Forces
as the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National
Security and Resource Strategy (sec. 1083)............. 186
Designation of Fisher House for the Families of the
Fallen and Meditation Pavilion, Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware, as a Fisher House (sec. 1084)................ 186
Sense of Senate on application of moratorium on earmarks
to this Act (sec. 1085)................................ 187
Technical amendment relating to responsibilities of
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing
and Industrial Base Policy (sec. 1086)................. 187
Technical amendment (sec. 1087).......................... 187
Items of Special Interest.................................... 187
Audit readiness of Department of Defense financial
statements............................................. 187
Combating Terrorism Center............................... 188
Comptroller General of the United States audit of the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency.................... 189
Department of Defense compliance with the Improper
Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010.......... 190
Department of Defense support to counter threat finance
operations............................................. 190
Estimating the cost of global defense posture............ 191
Export control reform.................................... 192
Global Combat Support System-Army........................ 193
Intelligence and information support for
counterinsurgency...................................... 193
Strategic airlift aircraft force structure............... 195
United States force posture in the Asia-Pacific region... 196
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters............................. 199
Authority of the secretaries of the military departments
to employ up to 10 persons without pay (sec. 1101)..... 199
Extension of eligibility to continue federal employee
health benefits for certain employees of the Department
of Defense (sec. 1102)................................. 199
Authority for waiver of recovery of certain payments
previously made under civilian employees voluntary
separation incentive program (sec. 1103)............... 199
Permanent extension and expansion of experimental
personnel program for scientific and technical
personnel (sec. 1104).................................. 199
Modification of beneficiary designation authorities for
death gratuity payable upon death of a United States
Government employee in service with the armed forces
(sec. 1105)............................................ 200
Two-year extension of discretionary authority to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to personnel on
official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1106)............. 200
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1107)............................................ 200
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations................... 201
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 201
Expansion of scope of humanitarian demining assistance
authority to include stockpiled conventional munitions
(sec. 1201)............................................ 201
One-year extension and modification of authorities
applicable to Commanders' Emergency Response Program
(sec. 1202)............................................ 201
Three-year extension of temporary authority to use
acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend
military equipment for personnel protection and
survivability (sec. 1203).............................. 202
Conditional extension and modification of authority to
build the capacity of counterterrorism forces of Yemen
(sec. 1204)............................................ 202
Extension of authority for support of special operations
to combat terrorism (sec. 1205)........................ 203
Limitation on availability of funds for authorities
relating to program to build the capacity of foreign
military forces (sec. 1206)............................ 203
Global Security Contingency Fund (sec. 1207)............. 203
Authority to build the capacity of certain
counterterrorism forces of East African countries (sec.
1208).................................................. 204
Support of forces participating in operations to disarm
the Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1209)................. 205
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan................................................... 205
Extension and modification of logistical support for
coalition forces supporting operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan (sec. 1221)................................ 205
One-year extension of authority to transfer defense
articles and provide defense services to the military
and security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1222) 206
One-year extension of authorities applicable to the
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1223)............ 206
One-year extension of authority to use funds for
reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1224).... 206
Modification of authority on program to develop and carry
out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1225). 206
One-year extension of authority for reimbursement of
certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations (sec. 1226).......... 207
Two-year extension of certain reports on Afghanistan
(sec. 1227)............................................ 207
Authority to support operations and activities of the
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1228)..... 207
Benchmarks to evaluate the progress being made toward the
transition of security responsibilities for Afghanistan
to the Government of Afghanistan (sec. 1229)........... 208
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 208
Report on progress of the African Union in
operationalizing the African Standby Force (sec. 1241). 208
Comptroller General of the United States report on the
National Guard State Partnership Program (sec. 1242)... 209
Items of Special Interest.................................... 209
Burden sharing within NATO............................... 209
Comptroller General of the United States Report on the
Islamic Republic of Iran............................... 210
Report on Taiwan's Air Defense Force..................... 210
Report on U.S.-India Security Cooperation................ 211
United States-Tunisia military-to-military cooperation... 212
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction......................... 213
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and
funds (sec. 1301).......................................... 213
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).............................. 213
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of
excellence in countries outside of the former Soviet Union
(sec. 1303)................................................ 214
Title XIV--Other Authorizations.................................. 215
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 215
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................ 215
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................ 215
Defense Health Program (sec. 1403)....................... 215
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1404).................................................. 215
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide (sec. 1405)....................................... 215
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406).................... 215
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 215
Authorized uses of National Defense Stockpile funds (sec.
1411).................................................. 215
Revision to required receipt objectives for previously
authorized disposals from the National Defense
Stockpile (sec. 1412).................................. 216
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 216
Part 1--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 216
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 1421).......... 216
Part II--Armed Forces Retirement Home Authorities........ 216
Amendment of Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(sec. 1422)........................................ 216
Annual validation of multiyear accreditation (sec.
1423).............................................. 216
Clarification of duties of Senior Medical Advisor
(sec. 1424)........................................ 216
Replacement of local boards of trustees for each
facility with single advisory council (sec. 1425).. 216
Administrators and ombudsmen of facilities (sec.
1426).............................................. 217
Inspection requirements (sec. 1427).................. 217
Repeal of obsolete provisions (sec. 1428)............ 217
Technical, conforming, and clerical amendments (sec.
1429).............................................. 217
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 217
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health
Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1431)...................... 217
Budget Items................................................. 217
Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan...... 217
Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities............. 218
Item of Special Interest..................................... 219
Beryllium stockpile evaluation........................... 219
Title XV--Authorization of Appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations......................................... 221
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 221
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 221
Procurement (sec. 1502).................................. 221
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503).. 221
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504).................... 221
Military personnel (sec. 1505)........................... 221
Working capital funds (sec. 1506)........................ 221
Defense Health Program (sec. 1507)....................... 221
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1508)....................................... 221
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509).................... 222
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 222
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 222
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 222
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 222
One-year extension and modification of authority for Task
Force for Business and Stability Operations in
Afghanistan (sec. 1531)................................ 222
Modification of availability of funds in Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532)....................... 223
Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional
Web Initiative (sec. 1533)............................. 223
Report on lessons learned from Department of Defense
participation on interagency teams for counterterrorism
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (sec. 1534)......... 223
Budget Items................................................. 225
AH-64 Apache Longbow Block III........................... 225
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 225
Marine Corps budget request realignments................. 227
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement...................... 227
Special operations forces aircraft procurement........... 227
Commanders' Emergency Response Program................... 228
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.......................... 228
Trans Regional Web Initiative............................ 228
Item of Special Interest..................................... 229
Improvised explosive device precursor chemicals
originating in Pakistan................................ 229
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations................. 231
Summary and explanation of funding tables.................... 231
Short title (sec. 2001)...................................... 231
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)............................... 231
Funding tables (sec. 2003)................................... 232
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 233
Summary.................................................. 233
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 233
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 233
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 233
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........ 234
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2009 project (sec. 2105).......................... 234
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2010 project (sec. 2106).......................... 234
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2011 projects (sec. 2107)......................... 234
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2012 project (sec. 2108)............................... 234
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008
projects (sec. 2109)................................... 234
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009
projects (sec. 2110)................................... 235
Technical amendments to correct certain project
specifications (sec. 2111)............................. 235
Rescission of Army military construction funds (sec.
2112).................................................. 235
Tour normalization (sec. 2113)........................... 235
Items of Special Interest.................................... 235
Storage of Army artifacts................................ 235
Military realignments in Korea........................... 236
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 239
Summary.................................................. 239
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 239
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 240
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 240
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 240
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008
project (sec. 2205).................................... 240
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009
projects (sec. 2206)................................... 240
Rescission of Navy military construction funds (sec.
2207).................................................. 240
Guam realignment (sec. 2208)............................. 240
Items of Special Interest.................................... 241
Comptroller General report on aircraft carrier
homeporting on the East Coast.......................... 241
Report on the feasibility of moving Marine Corps aviation
on Okinawa from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to
Kadena Air Base........................................ 241
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 245
Summary.................................................. 245
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 245
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 245
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 245
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 246
Modification of authorization to carry out certain fiscal
year 2010 project (sec. 2305).......................... 246
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2009
project (sec. 2306).................................... 246
Rescission of Air Force military construction funds (sec.
2307).................................................. 246
Item of Special Interest..................................... 246
Report on using flying operation costs in the Air Force's
strategic basing process............................... 246
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 249
Summary.................................................. 249
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 249
Authorized defense agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 249
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)................. 249
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 250
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 250
Authorization of appropriations, chemical
demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 250
Rescission of defense agencies military construction
funds (sec. 2412)...................................... 250
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 251
Summary.................................................. 251
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 251
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 251
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 253
Summary.................................................. 253
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 253
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 253
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 253
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 253
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 254
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 254
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008
projects (sec. 2607)................................... 254
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009
projects (sec. 2608)................................... 254
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2009 project (sec. 2609).......................... 254
Item of Special Interest..................................... 254
Guard and Reserve budget requests........................ 254
Title XXVII--Base Closure and Realignment Activities............. 257
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 257
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701).................. 257
Authorized base realignment and closure activities funded
through Department of Defense base closure account 2005
(sec. 2702)............................................ 257
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703).................. 257
Rescission of military construction funds for base
realignment and closure activities funded through
Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec.
2704).................................................. 258
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions........... 259
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 259
General military construction transfer authority (sec.
2801).................................................. 259
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects outside the United States (sec. 2802)......... 259
Clarification of authority to use the Pentagon
Reservation Maintenance Revolving fund for minor
construction and alteration activities at the Pentagon
Reservation (sec. 2803)................................ 260
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 260
Exchange of property at military installations (sec.
2811).................................................. 260
Clarification of authority to limit encroachments (sec.
2812).................................................. 260
Department of Defense conservation and cultural
activities (sec. 2813)................................. 260
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 261
Release of reversionary interest, Camp Joseph T.
Robinson, Arkansas (sec. 2821)......................... 261
Clarification of land conveyance authority, Camp Caitlin
and Ohana Nui areas, Hawaii (sec. 2822)................ 261
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 261
Investment plan for the modernization of public shipyards
under jurisdiction of Department of the Navy (sec.
2831).................................................. 261
Data servers and centers (sec. 2832)..................... 261
Items of Special Interest.................................... 262
Force Protection and Anti-Terrorism Standards................ 262
Defense facility condition index............................. 263
Kansas City Information Technology Center.................... 264
Life cycle cost management in military construction projects. 265
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 267
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 267
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorization......... 267
Overview................................................. 267
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 268
Weapons activities................................... 268
Directed stockpile work.............................. 268
Campaigns............................................ 269
Readiness in the technical base...................... 270
Secure transportation asset.......................... 271
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response........... 272
Facilities and infrastructure........................ 272
Site stewardship..................................... 272
Safeguards and security.............................. 272
National security applications....................... 272
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............ 272
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development........................................ 272
Nonproliferation and international security.......... 273
International nuclear materials protection and
cooperation........................................ 273
Fissile materials disposition........................ 273
United States fissile materials disposition.......... 273
Russian fissile materials disposition................ 273
Global threat reduction initiative................... 274
Naval reactors....................................... 274
Office of the Administrator.......................... 274
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 274
Savannah River Site.................................. 275
Waste Treatment Plant................................ 275
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 275
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 276
Review of security vulnerabilities of national laboratory
computers (sec. 3111).................................. 276
Review by Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense of
Comptroller General assessment of budget requests with
respect to the modernization and refurbishment of the
nuclear security complex (sec. 3112)................... 276
Aircraft procurement (sec. 3113)......................... 276
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers
of excellence in countries outside of the former Soviet
Union (sec. 3114)...................................... 277
Recognition and status of National Atomic Testing Museum
(sec. 3115)............................................ 277
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 277
Report on feasibility of federalizing the security
protective forces contract guard workforce at certain
Department of Energy Facilities (sec. 3121)............ 277
Comptroller General study on oversight of Department of
Energy defense nuclear facilities (sec. 3122).......... 278
Plan to complete the Global Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention program in the Russian Federation (sec.
3123).................................................. 280
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 281
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 281
Authority of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
to review the facility design and construction of the
construction project 10-D-904 of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (sec. 3202).................... 282
Title XXXIII--Maritime Administration............................ 283
Maritime Administration (sec. 3301)...................... 283
Division D--Funding Tables....................................... 285
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 285
Title XLI--Procurement........................................... 286
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 286
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 290
Title XLII--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.......... 292
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 292
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 297
Title XLIII--Operation and Maintenance........................... 298
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 298
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 301
Title XLIV--Other Authorizations................................. 302
Other authorizations (sec. 4401)......................... 302
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 304
Title XLV--Military Construction................................. 305
Military construction (sec. 4501)........................ 305
Title XLVI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 307
Department of Energy national security programs (sec.
4601).................................................. 307
Legislative Requirements......................................... 309
Departmental Recommendations............................. 309
Committee Action......................................... 309
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 310
Regulatory Impact........................................ 310
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 311
Additional Views................................................. 312
Additional views of Mr. McCain........................... 312
Additional views of Mr. Chambliss........................ 318
Additional views of Ms. Ayotte........................... 319
Strategic Airlift Aircraft Force Structure........... 319
Detainee Compromise.................................. 320
Calendar No. 80
112th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 112-26

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

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

_______

June 22, 2011.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1253]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill (S. 1253) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends
that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2012;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2012;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2012;
(4) impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2012; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2012.

Committee overview

The United States armed forces have been involved in armed
conflict for almost 10 years. Whether engaged in combat in
Afghanistan or Iraq, assisting our North Atlantic Treaty
Organization allies to protect the civilian population in
Libya, delivering humanitarian assistance to victims of an
earthquake and tsunami in Japan, training foreign national
forces to combat terrorism in their own countries, or assisting
State and federal agencies responding to flooding or other
emergencies here at home, the men and women of our armed
forces, both active and reserve, are serving honorably and
courageously to promote and defend our Nation's interests. They
do so often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to
themselves and their families.
The administration has honed its counterinsurgency strategy
in Afghanistan, is putting in place a new leadership team,
deployed additional U.S. forces, stressed a more regional
approach, has made substantial military progress on the
ground--particularly in the south, and is preparing to
transition to Afghan security lead of certain areas in a
deliberate, organized and coordinated manner. The redeployment
of U.S. forces from Iraq continues.
After more than 9 years of war, our military, particularly
our ground forces, continue to show signs of stress and the
readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of
their assigned missions has been negatively impacted.
To date in this First Session of the 112th Congress, the
Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 29 hearings
and numerous briefings on the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2012 and related defense matters.
In order to provide a framework for the consideration of
these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines to guide
its work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012. These guidelines are:
1. Improve the quality of life of the men and women of the
all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard, and Reserves)
and their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian
personnel, through fair pay, policies and benefits, and address
the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured service members and
their families.
2. Provide our service men and women with the resources,
training, technology, equipment (especially force protection),
and authorities they need to succeed in accomplishing their
missions.
3. Enhance the capability of the armed forces to conduct
counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to
Afghanistan, as appropriate.
4. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials
by strengthening and accelerating nonproliferation programs,
maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of
the nuclear weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety,
security, and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery
systems, and the nuclear infrastructure.
5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter
nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, cyber warfare,
and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery.
6. Enhance the capability of the security forces of allied
and friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and
other violent extremist organizations.
7. Seek to reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking
action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness
of the military services to conduct the full range of their
assigned missions.
8. Terminate troubled, wasteful or unnecessary programs and
activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense
expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit problems.
9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels
and seek greater energy security and independence and pursue
technological advances in traditional and alternative energy
storage, power systems, operational energy tactical advantages,
renewable energy production, and more energy efficient ground,
air, and naval systems.
10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant
laws and regulations.

Scoring of budgetary effects (sec. 4)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).

Explanation of funding summary

The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2012 was $688.9
billion and was in three parts: $553.0 billion for the base
budget of the Department of Defense; $117.8 billion for
overseas contingency operations, which funds the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan; and $18.1 billion for national security
programs in the Department of Energy.
The bill authorizes $682.5 billion for national defense
discretionary programs and includes $547.1 billion for the base
budget of the Department of Defense, $117.3 billion for
overseas contingency operations, and $18.1 billion for national
security programs in the Department of Energy.
The administration's budget for national defense also
included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that
do not require further authorizations, mandatory programs that
are part of current law, and a mandatory proposal dealing with
concurrent receipt. When these programs are added to the
administration's budget the total request for national defense
totaled $702.9 billion as re-estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office.
The following two tables summarize the direct
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2012 defense programs. The first table summarizes
committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction
of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending
from the trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home which
is outside the national defense budget function. The second
table summarizes the total budget authority implication for
national defense by adding funding for items that are not
within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not
require an annual authorization.

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Senate
Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE............................

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations

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

Title I: PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................... 7,061,381 -451,100 6,610,281
Missile Procurement, Army....................................... 1,478,718 -164,500 1,314,218
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army......................... 1,933,512 304,300 2,237,812
Procurement of Ammunition, Army................................. 1,992,625 0 1,992,625
Other Procurement, Army......................................... 9,682,592 -420,600 9,261,992
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................... 220,634 -220,634 0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................... 18,587,033 -495,000 18,092,033
Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................... 3,408,478 -205,000 3,203,478
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps.................. 719,952 719,952
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy................................. 14,928,921 0 14,928,921
Other Procurement, Navy......................................... 6,285,451 -12,000 6,273,451
Procurement, Marine Corps....................................... 1,391,602 1,000 1,392,602
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force................................. 14,082,527 -180,049 13,902,478
Missile Procurement, Air Force.................................. 6,074,017 -40,000 6,034,017
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................ 539,065 0 539,065
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................... 17,602,036 0 17,602,036
Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................... 5,365,248 -31,600 5,333,648
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund............................. 100,000 0 100,000
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT........................................... 111,453,792 -1,915,183 109,538,609

Title II: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION
RDT&E, Army..................................................... 9,683,980 -316,805 9,367,175
RDT&E, Navy..................................................... 17,956,431 -44,900 17,911,531
RDT&E, Air Force................................................ 27,737,701 -229,213 27,508,488
RDT&E, Defense-Wide............................................. 19,755,678 125,100 19,880,778
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense.......................... 191,292 0 191,292
Subtotal, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION.............. 75,325,082 -465,818 74,859,264

Title III: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army................................. 34,735,216 -469,100 34,266,116
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 3,109,176 3,109,176
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 7,041,432 -20,000 7,021,432
Operation and Maintenance, Navy................................. 39,364,688 -298,300 39,066,388
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 5,960,437 -28,800 5,931,637
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 1,323,134 1,323,134
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 271,443 271,443
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................ 36,195,133 -636,900 35,558,233
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 3,274,359 3,274,359
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 6,136,280 6,136,280
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide......................... 30,940,409 -1,029,480 29,910,929
US Court Of Appeals For The Armed Forces........................ 13,861 13,861
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid.................. 107,662 107,662
CooperativeThreat Reduction..................................... 508,219 508,219
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund.......................... 305,501 305,501
Environmental Restoration, Army................................. 346,031 0 346,031
Environmental Restoration, Navy................................. 308,668 0 308,668
Environmental Restoration, Air Force............................ 525,453 0 525,453
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide......................... 10,716 0 10,716
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites.......... 276,495 0 276,495
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................... 5,000 0 5,000
Deferred Expenses for Foreign Operations........................ 0 406,605 406,605
Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 170,759,313 -2,075,975 168,683,338

Title IV: MILITARY PERSONNEL.................................... 142,828,848 -380,600 142,448,248

Title XIV: OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Working Capital Fund, Army...................................... 101,194 -6,700 94,494
Working Capital Fund, Air Force................................. 65,372 -6,300 59,072
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide.............................. 31,614 0 31,614
Working Capital Fund, DECA...................................... 1,376,830 0 1,376,830
National Defense Sealift Fund................................... 1,126,384 0 1,126,384
Defense Health Program.......................................... 32,198,770 0 32,198,770
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense................ 1,554,422 0 1,554,422
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense............ 1,156,282 -39,000 1,117,282
Office of the Inspector General................................. 289,519 43,400 332,919
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 37,900,387 -8,600 37,891,787

Subtotal, Division A, Base Budget............................... 538,267,422 -4,846,176 533,421,246

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

Title XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

PROCUREMENT, OCO
Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................... 423,400 -53,000 370,400
Missile Procurement, Army....................................... 126,556 126,556
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army......................... 37,117 37,117
Procurement of Ammunition, Army................................. 208,381 208,381
Other Procurement, Army......................................... 1,398,195 1,398,195
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................... 2,577,500 -44,366 2,533,134
Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................... 730,960 730,960
Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................... 41,070 41,070
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps.................. 317,100 317,100
Other Procurement, Navy......................................... 281,975 281,975
Procurement, Marine Corps....................................... 1,260,996 -175,000 1,085,996
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force................................. 527,865 -70,000 457,865
Missile Procurement, Air Force.................................. 28,420 28,420
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................ 92,510 92,510
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................... 3,204,641 3,204,641
Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................... 469,968 -71,800 398,168
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund............................. 100,000 100,000
Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Veh Fund....................... 3,195,170 3,195,170
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO...................................... 15,021,824 -414,166 14,607,658

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION, OCO
RDT&E, Army..................................................... 8,513 8,513
RDT&E, Navy..................................................... 53,884 53,884
RDT&E, Air Force................................................ 142,000 142,000
RDT&E, Defense-Wide............................................. 192,361 192,361
Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO............................................ 396,758 396,758

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO
Operation and Maintenance, Army................................. 44,302,280 -25,000 44,277,280
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 217,500 217,500
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 387,544 387,544
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund................................ 12,800,000 12,800,000
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund................................. 475,000 -75,000 400,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy................................. 7,006,567 7,006,567
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 3,571,210 27,000 3,598,210
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 74,148 74,148
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 36,084 36,084
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................ 10,719,187 10,719,187
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 142,050 142,050
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 34,050 34,050
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide......................... 9,269,411 -11,300 9,258,111
Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO........................ 89,035,031 -84,300 88,950,731

MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO......................................... 11,228,566 11,228,566

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO
Working Capital Fund, Army...................................... 54,000 54,000
Working Capital Fund, Air Force................................. 12,000 12,000
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide.............................. 369,013 -38,500 330,513
Defense Health Program.......................................... 1,228,288 1,228,288
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense............ 486,458 486,458
Office of the Inspector General................................. 11,055 11,055
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO............................. 2,160,814 -38,500 2,122,314

Subtotal, Division A, OCO Budget................................ 117,842,993 -536,966 117,306,027

Total, Division A............................................... 656,110,415 -5,383,142 650,727,273

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations

Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI--XXVI)

Titles XXI--XXVI: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army..................................... 3,235,991 -169,100 3,066,891
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps.................... 2,461,547 -273,925 2,187,622
Military Construction, Air Force................................ 1,364,858 -137,800 1,227,058
Military Construction, Defense-Wide............................. 3,848,757 -467,840 3,380,917
Chemical Demilitarization Construction.......................... 75,312 75,312
NATO Security Investment Program................................ 272,611 272,611
Military Construction, Army National Guard...................... 773,592 773,592
Military Construction, Army Reserve............................. 116,246 116,246
Military Construction, Navy Reserve............................. 280,549 280,549
Military Construction, Air National Guard....................... 26,299 26,299
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve........................ 33,620 33,620
Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................. 12,489,382 -1,048,665 11,440,717

Titles XXI--XXVI: FAMILY HOUSING
Family Housing Construction, Army............................... 186,897 186,897
Family Housing O&M, Army........................................ 494,858 494,858
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps.............. 100,972 100,972
Family Housing O&M, Navy and Marine Corps....................... 367,863 367,863
Family Housing Construction, Air Force.......................... 84,804 84,804
Family Housing O&M, Air Force................................... 404,761 404,761
Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide................................ 50,723 50,723
Homeowners Assistance Fund...................................... 2,184 2,184
Family Housing Improvement Fund................................. 1,284 1,284
Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING........................................ 1,694,346 1,694,346

Title XXXVII: BRAC
Defense Base Closure Account 1990............................... 323,543 323,543
Defense Base Closure Account 2005............................... 258,776 258,776
Subtotal, BRAC.................................................. 582,319 582,319

Total, Division B............................................... 14,766,047 -1,048,665 13,717,382

SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B.......................... 553,033,469 -5,894,841 547,138,628
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B........................... 117,842,993 -536,966 117,306,027

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051).............................. 670,876,462 -6,431,807 664,444,655

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

Division C (Titles XXXI and XXXII)

Department of Energy Authorization (Title XXXI)

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability..................... 6,187 -6,187

Title XXXI: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities.............................................. 7,629,716 -1,000 7,628,716
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................ 2,549,492 -2,813 2,546,679
Naval Reactors.................................................. 1,153,662 1,153,662
Office of the Administrator..................................... 450,060 450,060
Subtotal, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 11,782,930 -3,813 11,779,117

Title XXXI: ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup................................... 5,406,781 10,000 5,416,781
Other Defense Activities........................................ 859,952 859,952
Subtotal, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............ 6,266,733 10,000 6,276,733

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..................................... 18,055,850 18,055,850

Title XXXII: DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................... 29,130 4,187 33,317
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.................. 29,130 4,187 33,317

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053)..................... 18,084,980 4,187 18,089,167

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)............................. 688,961,442 -6,427,620 682,533,822

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600).......... 67,700 67,700

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

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Senate
Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee...................
SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B.......................... 553,033,469 -5,894,841 547,138,628
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B........................... 117,842,993 -536,966 117,306,027
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051).............................. 670,876,462 -6,431,807 664,444,655
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053)..................... 18,084,980 4,187 18,089,167
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)............................. 688,961,442 -6,427,620 682,533,822

Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or
Do Not Require Additional Authorization........................................................................
Defense Production Act Purchases................................ 19,964 19,964
Indefinite Account: National Science Center, Army............... 25 25
Indefinite Account: Overseas Military Facility Investment 1,000 1,000
Recovery.......................................................
Indefinte Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property................ 9,000 9,000
Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property.................. 22,000 22,000
SCN--Reappropriation (unspecified transfers to SCN: in annual 20,000 20,000
DoD appropriations bill).......................................
SCN--Use of expired funds for reimbursements to the Claims and 8,000 8,000
Judgement Fund (in annual DoD appropriations bill).............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051............................... 79,989 79,989
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program................. 109,000 109,000
Assumed Rescission (DOE Weapons Activities)..................... -40,000 -40,000
Assumed Rescission (Nuclear Non-Proliferation).................. -30,000 -30,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053............................... 39,000 39,000
Other Discretionary Programs.................................... 6,960,000 6,960,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054............................... 6,960,000 6,960,000
Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050)................... 7,078,989 7,078,989

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary....................................................
Department of Defense--Military (051)........................... 670,956,451 -6,431,807 664,524,644
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053).......................... 18,123,980 4,187 18,128,167
Defense-Related Activities (054)................................ 6,960,000 6,960,000
Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary............ 696,040,431 -6,427,620 689,612,811

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)................................................
Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement 5,408,000 5,408,000
Fund...........................................................
Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory........................ 1,326,000 1,326,000
Offsetting receipts............................................. -1,801,000 -1,801,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051............................... 4,933,000 4,933,000
Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and 1,344,000 1,344,000
other..........................................................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053............................... 1,344,000 1,344,000
Radiation exposure compensation trust fund...................... 45,000 45,000
Payment to CIA retirement fund and other........................ 514,000 514,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054............................... 559,000 559,000
Total National Defense Mandatory (050).......................... 6,836,000 6,836,000

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory......................................
Department of Defense--Military (051)........................... 675,889,451 -6,431,807 669,457,644
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053).......................... 19,467,980 4,187 19,472,167
Defense-Related Activities (054)................................ 7,519,000 7,519,000
Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and 702,876,431 -6,427,620 696,448,811
Mandatory......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Explanation of tables

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for procurement activities at the levels
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.

Subtitle B--Navy Programs

Multiyear procurement authority for mission avionics and common
cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S helicopters (sec. 121)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract to
purchase mission avionics and common cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S
helicopters, subject to the Secretary providing a certification
that all of the criteria in section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, have been met.
The Department of the Navy is projecting that contracting
for mission avionics and common cockpits under a multiyear
contract would allow the Federal Government to achieve roughly
11.8 percent savings when compared to acquiring the same
systems for MH-60 helicopters using annual contracts.

Subtitle C--Air Force Programs

Procurement of advanced extremely high frequency satellites (sec. 131)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to acquire two Advanced
Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellites under a fixed price
contract. The provision would further cap the total cost of the
satellites at $3.1 billion but provide limited exceptions to
this cap. The provision would also permit the Secretary to
incrementally fund the contract over a 5 year period. Thirty
days after entering into the contract, the provision would
direct the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees setting forth the specifics of the contract,
which would include the cost savings and total cost of the
contract. A second report would be due 90 days after the date
of the contract describing the amount of the cost savings
achieved and how the Secretary plans to use the savings to
improve the capability of military satellite communications. In
addition, the provision would authorize the Secretary to use
prior year funds for advance procurement for AEHF satellite 6.
Finally, the provision would set forth a sense of Congress that
the cost savings achieved through the contracting authority
provided in the provision should result in no less than 20
percent cost savings.
The committee supports this approach to procuring these
large satellites. The committee is concerned, however, about
the approach to add additional capability or to modernize
future AEHF or other communications satellites.
Under the Air Force plan any savings from the AEHF fixed
price contract would be used to fund improvements. While the
committee would prefer a separate line for new technologies,
the Air Force plan is acceptable if the improvements are
competitively selected and the technology development funds
support all military communications satellites, not just AEHF.
This line should also support technologies that could be used
either to incrementally improve existing satellites or to
reduce the risk on new technologies for future satellites. In
addition, the committee believes that any new technologies
improvements should be competitively awarded.
The committee notes that the Air Force Space and Missile
System Center generally does not meet its small business goals.
The new technology line would provide an opportunity for the
Air Force to tap into the creativity of small business to
develop new technologies for future upgrades and improvements.
The committee notes that the actual cost of new military
satellites has routinely exceeded the projected cost and a
number of satellite programs over the last 2 decades have
experienced multiple Nunn-McCurdy cost breaches. According to
testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on May
11, 2011, the Government Accountability Office testified ``the
majority of large-scale acquisition programs in the Department
of Defense's (DOD) space portfolio have experienced problems
during the past two decades that have driven up costs by
billions of dollars, stretched schedules by years, and
increased technical risks.'' While the causes have varied
amongst programs, common themes, such as immature technologies,
and unrealistic cost estimates have emerged. The growth in
satellite development and acquisition costs has caused the Air
Force to cancel, defer, or delay other space systems as a
result.
The AEHF satellite has also experienced cost growth and
schedule delays. With the launch of the first AEHF satellite in
2010 and the second scheduled for 2012, the committee supports
the Air Force decision to buy the next two AEHF satellites
using a block buy fixed price contract approach.
The committee notes the Air Force originally proposed to
buy the two AEHF satellites using multiyear procurement
authority but withdrew this request shortly after the budget
was submitted. Multiyear authority is not suitable for the AEHF
proposal, which did not meet the statutory requirements for
multiyear procurement.

Availability of fiscal year 2011 funds for research and development
relating to the B-2 bomber aircraft (sec. 132)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to use up to $20.0 million in
prior year balances available in the B-2 bomber program in
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), line 35, and not needed
for low observable signature and supportability modifications
and trainer system upgrades, to continue the modifications
necessary to allow the B-2 to carry a mix of conventional
rotary launcher assembly and smart bomb rack assembly
conventional weapons from a single aircraft. This effort was
started in fiscal year 2011, is funded in the future-years
defense program, but is not funded in the fiscal year 2012
budget request. This provision would authorize the Secretary of
the Air Force to use funds already in the B-2 program budget to
continue the mixed load modifications.

Availability of fiscal year 2011 funds to support alternative options
for the extremely high frequency terminal Increment 1 program
of record (sec. 133)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to use up to $15.0 million in
prior year balances available in the B-2 bomber program in
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), line 35, and not needed
for low observable signature and supportability modifications
and trainer system upgrades, to continue to explore
alternatives to the Increment 1 Extremely High Frequency (EHF)
terminal program of record. The provision would authorize the
Secretary to use these funds as part of the EHF terminal
program which is funded in APAF line 76. The EHF terminal will
be used in the B-2 and other aircraft.

Limitation on use of funds to retire B-1 bomber aircraft (sec. 134)

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent any
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act from being
obligated or expended to retire any B-1 bomber aircraft until
the Secretary of the Air Force submits a retirement plan to the
congressional defense committees. The plan would identify which
aircraft would be retired, an estimate of the savings to be
achieved, the amount of those savings that will be reinvested
for modernization of the remaining B-1 bomber aircraft, and a
plan for sustainment and modernization of the B-1 through 2022.
When the retirement plan is submitted, the Secretary would be
permitted to retire up to six B-1 aircraft as proposed in the
fiscal year 2012 budget request. The provision would also set
forth a sense of Congress that of the savings gained from the
retirement of six B-1 aircraft, at least 60 percent of the
savings should be reinvested in sustainment and modernization
of bomber aircraft of which 35 percent of the savings should be
specifically invested in the B-1.

Limitation on the retirement of U-2 aircraft (sec. 135)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibitthe
retirement of the U-2 aircraft until the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies that the operating and
sustainment (O&S) costs for the Global Hawk are less than the O&S costs
for the U-2 on a comparable flight-hour cost basis.
Data from the Air Force Total Ownership Cost database
indicate that the average hourly cost per flight hour of the
Global Hawk is approximately $35,000 as compared to a cost of
approximately $31,000 for the U-2. Mission personnel costs for
the unmanned Global Hawk are substantially higher than those of
the manned U-2, despite the fact that the number of flight
hours for the Global Hawk, and the number of aircraft, are
substantially below those of the U-2. The committee notes that
these costs could go up as the Air Force fields Block 30 and
Block 40 Global Hawk aircraft with advanced signals
intelligence and moving target indicator radar payloads.
The Air Force indicates that the data presented to the
committee may be somewhat skewed by what the department regards
as initial startup charges, but these costs still seem
excessive, compared to the capability per flight hour that the
U-2 provides.
The committee is concerned that these high O&S costs will
be replicated in the Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance
(BAMS) program, which is highly common to the Air Force Global
Hawk system.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to produce a plan
to reduce the O&S costs of the Global Hawk and BAMS systems,
and report to the congressional intelligence and defense
committees by April 1, 2012. The plan should identify all of
the significant cost drivers for Global Hawk and BAMS O&S, and
whether and how they can be reduced, including software
maintenance and crew costs. The plan should include a strategy
for migrating to an open architecture for avionics and payload
integration to enable companies to integrate new or modified
capabilities and to reduce the total lifecycle cost of upgrades
and sustainment.

Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters

Inclusion of information on approved Combat Mission Requirements in
quarterly reports on use of Combat Mission Requirements funds
(sec. 151)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
quarterly reporting requirements associated with the use of
Combat Mission Requirements funds by U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) included in the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The committee understands that the Combat Mission
Requirements account continues to play an important role in
providing funding for critical equipment to satisfy emergent
requirements for deploying and deployed special operations
forces. The committee appreciates USSOCOM's efforts to provide
greater detail on the use of Combat Mission Requirements funds
in recent reports and expects these additional reporting
requirements to provide additional transparency on the use of
such funds.
The committee also notes that USSOCOM has requested a one-
year increase in its Combat Mission Requirements account from
$20.0 million to $50.0 million. The committee supports this
one-year increase to support unforeseen requirements associated
with the deployment of special operations forces to the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility, but expects future
budget requests to return to the previous level of $20.0
million as projected in the future years defense program.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (sec. 152)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that, in entering into a
contract for the fifth low-rate initial production (LRIP)
contract lot for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) aircraft: (1) the contract is a fixed price contract; and
(2) the contract requires the contractor to assume full
responsibility for costs under the contract above the target
cost specified in the contract.
The Department has made the JSF program the cornerstone of
its tactical aviation modernization strategy. Because of its
critical contribution to future force capability, the committee
supports continued development and acquisition of the JSF, but
not at any cost. This provision supports getting the program on
track and keeping it there.
By requiring the contractor to assume full responsibility
for all costs under the contract above the target cost level,
the committee is reflecting its grave concern that LRIP-4
contract allows the contractor to be awarded a considerable fee
even in the event of significant cost growth under that
contract. The committee will be monitoring the program's
performance under the LRIP-4 contract very closely.
The committee appreciates that there may be constructive
changes to the LRIP-5 contract that the Defense Department may
need to negotiate, based on changes that derive from the
continuing system development and demonstration program, or
from other valid government requirements. Those constructive
changes may cause an increase in cost relative to the target
cost, which should be borne by the government.

Report on plan to implement Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 measures within the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program
(sec. 153)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to produce a report on the Under Secretary's plans
for implementing provisions of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) for the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The provision would require that
the Under Secretary submit that report at the same time as the
President submits his budget request for fiscal year 2013.
The statement of managers accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)
discussed potential competition of life support systems for the
JSF program. Section 202 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 requires that the Secretary of Defense
ensure that the acquisition strategy of every major defense
acquisition program (MDAP) includes ``measures to ensure
competition, or the option of competition, at both the prime
contract level and the subcontract level (at such tier or tiers
as are appropriate) of such program throughout the life-cycle
of such program as a means to improve contractor performance. .
. .'' The Act also lists a number of measures that such
competition may include if such measures are cost-effective.
These measures include dual sourcing and unbundling of
contracts.
The statement of managers also said, ``As the Defense
Department's largest MDAP, the conferees believe the F-35
program should be one of the first to benefit from
implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009. The conferees expect that, over the next budget cycle,
the Department and the F-35 Program Executive Office (PEO) will
develop a specific plan for how the F-35 PEO will implement the
provisions of that Act.''
As far as the committee has been able to determine, the
Department has taken no action on developing such a strategic
plan for the JSF program. The committee understands that the
program has been in turmoil for the past 2 years. However, with
overall program cost control a major concern, and recent
testimony by the Under Secretary that projected life cycle
costs of the JSF are unaffordable, the committee believes that
action to implement the Act for the JSF program is long
overdue.

Multiyear procurement authority for airframes for Army UH-60M/HH-60M
helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters (sec. 154)

The committee recommends a provision that 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 Army UH-60M/HH-60M airframes
and, acting as executive agent for the Department of the Navy,
for MH-60R/MH-60S airframes.
The committee notes that this would be the eighth multiyear
procurement contract over the long life of the H-60 helicopter
program. The committee believes the program continues to meet
the criteria for multiyear procurement. The committee is
concerned, however, that the current multiyear contract,
awarded in 2007, failed to achieve the savings projected at the
time of approval of that contract. When the Department sought
authorization for the 2007 multiyear contract, the Army
estimated savings of 5.5 percent versus annual procurements. In
retrospect, the Army now estimates that the contract only
achieved savings of 4 percent. This is not encouraging.
The committee expects that committing future Department
leaders, Congress, and taxpayers to multiyear contracts is
justified by the substantial savings that would not be achieved
by annual contracts. The Army is projecting savings for this
next multiyear contract, if authorized, to be 10 percent. This
projection may be overly optimistic given the performance of
the last multiyear contract. The committee recommends
supporting the Department's request for multiyear contract
authority, but directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
congressional defense committees with an annual briefing during
the executionof this contract on progress achieved in meeting
or exceeding the projected savings used to justify granting this
authority. This briefing shall accompany the Army's annual budget
request.

Designation of undersea mobility acquisition program of the United
States Special Operations Command as a Major Defense
Acquisition Program (sec. 155)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to designate the undersea mobility program, including
the Dry Combat Submersible-Light (DCSL), Dry Combat
Submersible-Medium (DCSM), Shallow Water Combat Submersible
(SWCS), and Next-Generation Submarine Shelter acquisition
programs under U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as an
Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID Major Defense Acquisition
Program.
Combat submersibles are used for shallow water infiltration
and exfiltration of special operations forces, reconnaissance,
resupply, and other missions. As demonstrated by previous
combat submersible acquisition programs, these systems and
associated support equipment are inherently complicated and
expensive to develop and procure.
According to the Government Accountability Office,
approximately $677.5 million was expended to develop and
procure the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) to fill
USSOCOM's requirement for a dry combat submersible for special
operations personnel. The ASDS program suffered from
ineffective contract oversight, technical challenges, and
reliability and performance issues. The first and only ASDS
platform reached initial operating capability in 2003,
approximately 6 years behind schedule. Unfortunately, the ASDS
was rendered inoperable by a catastrophic battery fire in
November 2008 and was deemed too costly to repair by the
Commander of USSOCOM. The Joint Multi-Mission Submersible
(JMMS) program was initiated in fiscal year 2010 to fill the
requirement for a dry combat submersible, but cancelled later
that year due to unacceptably high total program costs. Both
the ASDS and JMMS programs were designated ACAT ID programs by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
In August 2010, USSOCOM announced a new acquisition
strategy to meet its undersea mobility requirements consisting
of the DCSL, DCSM, SWCS, and Next-Generation Submarine Shelter
programs. USSOCOM also announced that these individual programs
would be managed by USSOCOM, with milestone decision authority
vested in the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive. The committee
recognizes the enduring requirement for undersea mobility
capabilities for special operations forces and supports
USSOCOM's efforts to acquire a family of wet and dry
submersibles at a lower unit cost relative to previous programs
by utilizing mature and commercial off the shelf technologies
where available. However, the committee believes that the total
acquisition costs, potential risks, and past history of
undersea mobility acquisition programs necessitates the program
oversight of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.

Transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance aircraft to the Army (sec. 156)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan for the
orderly transfer of the Air Force C-12 Liberty intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft to the Army.
The committee's expectation is that, in the long run, the
Department of Defense does not require two sets of 37 C-12-
based ISR aircraft in two different military departments. The
Army has a long-term requirement for a C-12-based ISR platform
as one of the elements to replace the Guardrail Common Sensor
and to meet the requirements of the Aerial Common Sensor
program. The committee's expectation is that the Army could
modify the Air Force Liberty aircraft over time to the
configuration of the Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance
and Surveillance System (EMARSS).
The Army needs to retire the Guardrail Common Sensor
aircraft, and could make use of the personnel in that program
to crew the transferred Liberty aircraft to ensure no break in
operational support for deployed forces. The Air Force could
make use of the personnel freed up from the Liberty program to
support the growth of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle orbits, which the
Air Force explains is currently limited by crews rather than
airframe production capacity.
The proposed transfer would save the Department
considerable funds by avoiding the procurement of 37 C-12s for
EMARSS.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on this plan to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees no later than the time the fiscal year
2013 budget request is submitted to Congress. However, the
committee expects that the Department of Defense would provide
this requested information well before this deadline. The
committee urges the Department to provide the plan and its
elements in a timely manner so as to inform the fiscal year
2012 National Defense Authorization Act conference.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft re-engining
program (sec. 157)

The committee recommends a provision that would require:
(1) the Air Force Audit Agency to submit to the congressional
defense committees the results of a financial audit of the
funds previously authorized and appropriated for the Joint
Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft re-
engining program; and (2) the Secretary of the Air Force to
ensure that any funds described authorized and appropriated for
the JSTARS re-engining program are obligated and expended for
the purpose for which originally authorized and appropriated,
including, but not limited to, the installation of two engine
ship sets on two operational JSTARS aircraft and the purchase
of two spare engines.
The budget request included $29.1 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, for the E-8 Modifications Program,
including $13.5 million for various logistics support
activities associated with the program to re-engine the Joint
Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft.
The Air Force experienced cost growth on the engines for
these modifications. The committee recognizes that a
significant portion of the cost increases that arose were the
result of having to restructure the acquisition program from a
commercial-type acquisition contract to one that follows normal
defense acquisition rules. In further review of the increase,
the Air Force indicated that the cost increases, while
troubling, would have only extended the payback period for the
investment by 1 year till 2018.
The Air Force decided to delay the re-engining program
pending a study of overall ground moving target indicator
(GMTI) requirements. Regardless of what that study concludes,
however, the committee believes that re-engining the JSTARS
fleet makes sense. Re-engining would lead to improvements in
mission capability and safety of flight margins. If, as
indicated by the Air Force, re-engining would actually pay back
the investment costs in savings in operating and support costs,
it would make economic sense as well. Unless the Defense
Department were to decide that it can afford to divest itself
of the broad area GMTI capability before 2018, the investment
would be worth it.
The committee believes that the JSTARS system and the broad
area GMTI capability it provides will have an important place
in the future force structure. However, even if the Air Force
study were to conclude that some new system or combination of
systems would provide better broad area GMTI for the future, it
is hard to imagine that another alternative would actually
begin complete fielding of a JSTARS replacement capability
before the re-engining pays for itself.
The committee believes the Air Force should move
expeditiously to complete that review and define its GMTI path
forward.

Budget Items

Army

Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System

The budget request included $539.6 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), for the Enhanced Medium Altitude
Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS). Of this
amount, the request includes $451.1 million to support the low
rate initial production (LRIP) of 18 systems. The Army awarded
a contract in November 2010 to develop and produce four
development EMARSS systems. However, a stop-work order was
issued in December 2010 when contractor bid protests were filed
at the Government Accountability Office. The protests were
subsequently dismissed. Because of the bid protest delay,
however, the amount of time needed for system development to
prepare for limited user testing, support a Milestone C
decision, and award a LRIP contract for an additional 18
systems will likely slip to fiscal year 2013. Procurement funds
for award of an LRIP contract in 2012 is premature. The
committee recommends a decrease of $451.1 million in APA for
EMARSS.

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System

The budget request included $314.2 million in Missile
Procurement, Army (MPA), for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System (GMLRS). The committee notes that the GMLRS program has
produced over 9,000 rockets with over 6,000 more programed for
delivery through fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Nearly 2,000 GMLRS
rockets, with safer unitary warheads, have been expended in
support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2005. The
budget request procures nearly 3,000 more rockets that would
not begin to be delivered until the middle of fiscal year 2013.
Prior year and current production, on hand quantities,
potentially declining consumption rates in support of combat
operations, and overseas contingency operations funds provided
elsewhere in this bill are sufficient to meet theater and any
unforeseen requirements with a minimum of risk. The committee
recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in MPA for GMLRS.

Stinger air defense missile system modifications

The budget request included $14.5 million in Missile
Procurement, Army (MPA), for the modification of Stinger air
defense missile systems. The Army has requested the
reallocation of these funds to PE 23801A for the missile and
air defense product improvement program. The committee
recommends a decrease of $14.5 million in MPA and an increase
of $14.5 million in PE 23801A to support the Army's service
life extension program for the Stinger air defense missile
system.

Abrams upgrade program

The budget request included $181.3 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M1 Abrams tank
upgrade program. This program converts early versions of M1/
M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP)
configuration improving survivability, automotive power,
computer systems, and night vision capabilities. The budget
request will upgrade 21 tanks to complete fielding of the M1A2
SEP version to the active Army. The committee is aware that
beginning in fiscal year 2013 the Army will have no Abrams tank
upgrade program for 3 to 4 years at which time it plans to
start its next series of improvements. The Army argues that the
fiscal year 2012 request completes its Abrams tank upgrade plan
and that the cost to restart the industrial base in 3 to 4
years is less expensive than upgrading a minimum of 70 tanks
per year just to keep industrial capability in place. The
committee is concerned, however, that the Department of Defense
and the Army may be accepting greater than necessary or
advisable risk in the armored vehicle industrial base. The
committee is also aware that the Army has initiated an
independent review of this long-term tank modernization
strategy including the potential impact on the industrial base
and the costs of restarting tank upgrades. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the congressional
defense committees with the report from this independent
review.
In order to preserve industrial capability through fiscal
year 2012 and give the Army time to complete an independent
review or other cost and business case analysis, the committee
recommends an increase of $322.0 million in WTCV for the
upgrade of 49 additional M1A2 SEP tanks.

Integrated air burst weapons system family

The budget request included $16.0 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the XM25 Counter
Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) system. The Army has
requested the reallocation of these funds to PE 64601A to
continue engineering and manufacturing development testing
activities of the XM25 CDTE. Prototype XM25s are currently
undergoing evaluation in a forward operating assessment in
Afghanistan with encouraging results. The committee recommends
a decrease of $16.0 million in WTCV and an increase of $16.0
million in PE 64601A to support the Army's continued
development and testing of the XM25 CDTE.

M2 .50 caliber machine gun

The budget request included $65.1 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for procurement of new M2
.50 caliber machine guns. The Army has requested the
reallocation of a portion of these funds to M2 .50 caliber
machine gun modifications to enhance and correct safety issues
with the existing M2 .50 caliber machine gun fleet. The effort
to modify and upgrade the M2 fleet to M2A1 has a higher Army
priority than buying new machine guns. The committee recommends
a decrease of $34.0 million in WTCV for M2 .50 caliber machine
guns and an increase of $34.0 million in WTCV for M2 .50
caliber machine gun modifications.

Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun

The budget request included $28.8 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the lightweight .50
caliber machine gun. The Army has requested the reallocation of
a portion of these funds to PE 64601A for the fabrication and
retesting of additional parts due to a part failure that
occurred during limited user testing. The committee recommends
a decrease of $1.7 million in WTCV and an increase of $1.7
million in PE 64601A for lightweight .50 caliber machine gun
system development and demonstration.

Joint Tactical Radio System

The budget request included $775.8 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Joint Tactical Radio System
(JTRS) of which $204.8 million is for the JTRS-Ground Mobile
Radio (GMR) and $144.8 million for the JTRS-Aviation and
Maritime/Fixed (AMF) radio. The committee notes that the JTRS-
GMR program is pending a Nunn-McCurdy breach assessment and low
rate initial production will likely slip 6 months or more. The
JTRS-AMF program's Milestone C decision for the Maritime/Fixed
radio has slipped to September 2012 and contract award will
likely slip into fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in OPA for JTRS GMR and
Maritime/Fixed radios due to schedule delays.

Ground Soldier System

The budget request included $184.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Ground Soldier System (GSS)
Nett Warrior Increment 1. The committee notes that the GSS, and
its terminated predecessor the Land Warrior program, have
demonstrated some utility as a small unit (platoon and squad)
command, control, navigation, and communications capability.
Based on recent limited user testing, however, the system has
not demonstrated the expected utility at the lower team leader
or individual soldier levels. This raises uncertainty regarding
the Army's requirements and acquisition strategy that could
result in a delay of the program's planned Milestone C decision
later this year. The committee recommends a decrease of $28.3
million in OPA for GSS Nett Warrior Increment 1, and an
increaseof $7.6 million in PE 64827A to support continued
efforts with configuration development to lower system cost, weight,
and power consumption.

Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team

The budget request included $243.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Early-Infantry Brigade Combat
Team (E-IBCT) Brigade Combat Team (BCT) modernization program.
The E-IBCT program was terminated in February 2011 by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases in
OPA of $123.3 million for BCT Training/Logistics Management,
$57.1 million for BCT Training/Logistics Management Increment
2, and $11.9 million for BCT Unmanned Ground Vehicle Increment
2.

Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

The budget request includes $220.6 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) operations
line of operation. The committee recommends transferring all of
JIEDDF funds from title I to the same budget activity in title
XV, which funds the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) of
the Department. The committee believes JIEDDO should be in the
OCO portion of the budget request as it was established in
response to threats confronted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan
and Iraq.

Navy

F/A-18E/F

The budget request included $2,431.7 million to purchase 28
F/A-18E/F aircraft. This is 27 more than was planned in the
fiscal year 2010 future-years defense program (FYDP).
The Navy requested these additional aircraft as part of an
overall increase of 41 F/A-18E/F in the FYDP. The Navy
increased the request in fiscal year 2012 and over the FYDP
made to reduce fighter shortfall to a ``manageable level of 65
aircraft.''
Since then, Congress passed the Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-
10), which included $495.0 million to purchase an additional
nine F/A-18E/F aircraft. More recent information from the
Department of the Navy, which accounts for the extra nine
aircraft and other changes, estimates that the shortfall is now
expected to be 52 aircraft.
The committee accepts the Navy's word that the Navy can
manage the shortfall at a level of 65 or fewer aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $495.0
million and nine aircraft from the fiscal year 2012
authorization request.

Mobile User Objective System

The budget request included $238.2 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy (WPN) for the Mobile User Objective System
(MUOS). The committee recommends a reduction of $205.0 million.
MUOS is an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) communications
satellite system that is critically needed to sustain and
improve narrow band communications but has been delayed
approximately 2 years as a result of technical challenges. The
current constellation of UHF satellites, the Ultra High
Frequency Follow-On (UFO) is fragile and should be replaced as
soon as possible. The committee notes that the first MUOS
satellite is currently scheduled to launch in February 2012
with the second satellite scheduled for launch in November
2012. The fourth MUOS satellite will not launch until early in
fiscal year 2015. As launch vehicles are generally purchased 2
years prior to launch, the launch vehicle for MUOS satellite 4,
currently funded in the fiscal 2012 budget request does not
need to be purchased until fiscal year 2013. As a result the
committee recommends a reduction of $205.0 million for the
launch vehicle for the fourth MUOS satellite.
While the launch of the first MUOS satellite in February
2012 is a much anticipated event, the committee remains
concerned that even with the launch of the first satellite, the
UHF constellation remains fragile. For many years the committee
has urged the Navy to look at options including hosted payloads
to augment the UHF constellation in the event of a failure of a
UFO satellite. The Navy has gone so far as to put out sources
sought notices for additional capability but never followed
through, largely as a result of the cost growth in MUOS.
Recently the committee has become aware of several hosted
payload options that could provide additional UHF capability.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the
hosted payload or any other options to provide additional UHF
capacity and determine the cost, schedule, and feasibility of
acquiring this capacity, and report to the committee the
results of the review no later than March 2012.

Consolidated afloat networks and enterprise services

The budget request included $195.1 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), for various activities supporting the
consolidated afloat networks and enterprise services (CANES)
program, and $12.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, for CANES development activities in PE
33138N. The budget request also included $177.5 million in OPN
for ship communications automation projects.
Because of funding restrictions under a series of
continuing resolutions this fiscal year, the Navy has had to
restructure various milestone events in the CANES program,
resulting in an overall program delay of 5 months. The CANES
fielding delay also has resulted in increased sustainment costs
for legacy ship-based networks. Based on these changes, the
Navy has requested a reallocation of the budget request to
reflect the delay and increased sustainment costs for legacy
programs.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $89.6
million for the CANES procurement program, leaving a total of
$105.5 million. The committee also recommends an increase in PE
33138N of $12.0 million for CANES development, and an increase
of $77.6 in OPN for ship communications automation to support
legacy programs during the period of the CANES program delay.

Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force

The budget request included $89.5 million in Procurement,
Marine Corps, for radio systems, including command and
communications equipment for the Marine Corps Chemical,
Biological, and Nuclear Incident Response Force (CBNIRF). The
CBNIRF is the Nation's premier military unit for responding
rapidly to chemical, biological, and nuclear incidents. In
addition to its domestic duties as a component of the Defense
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response Force
under U.S. Northern Command, the CBNIRF deployed to Japan to
assist with the response to its nuclear reactor crisis. As a
result of lessons learned from this deployment, the Commandant
of the Marine Corps assessed additional equipment upgrade needs
for the CBNIRF that had not been clear prior to the fiscal year
2012 budget submission. The Commandant identified these needs
as unfunded requirements.
The committee recommends $90.5 million in Procurement,
Marine Corps, for upgraded equipment for the CBNIRF, an
increase of $1.0 million, to respond to the unfunded
requirements identified by the Commandant.

Air Force

HH-60M

The budget request included $104.7 million to purchase
three HH-60M aircraft.
Since then, Congress passed the Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-
10), which included $303.4 million to purchase an additional 10
HH-60M aircraft. With those additional purchases, two aircraft
in the budget request are not needed at this time.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $69.9
million and two aircraft from the fiscal year 2012
authorization request.

Light attack armed reconnaissance aircraft

The budget request included $158.5 million to purchase nine
aircraft under the light attack armed reconnaissance (LAAR)
aircraft program, and $23.7 million PE 27100F within Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, to conduct: (1)
system engineering; (2) prime mission equipment integration;
(3) test planning and execution; and (4) development and
operational testing. The Air Force intends to purchase another
six aircraft in fiscal year 2013, for a total program of 15
aircraft.
Under the LAAR program, the Air Force would competitively
acquire an aircraft that would be used to train U.S. pilots to
train partner nation pilots to conduct strike, armed
reconnaissance and advanced aircraft training for irregular
warfare. This program provides a continental U.S.-based
capability to support irregular warfare efforts that help
prepare partner nations defend themselves.
Although the committee understands that there might be a
requirement for providing such training in the future, it is
not aware of any specific current demand for this capability or
a particular aircraft. In that circumstance, the committee sees
no need to begin procurement until the research and development
effort has resulted in designing and testing an acceptable
configuration for the aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $158.5
million for the LAAR program, leaving a total of $23.7 million
in research and development funds to conduct the activities as
requested.

F-16 modifications

The budget request included $73.3 million for various F-16
modifications, including $16.6 million to replace the advanced
air-to-air interrogator units on F-16 Block 50/52 aircraft with
new equipment having Mode 5 identification capability.
Because of delays in developing the hardware, the Air
Force's funding is misaligned in the budget. Procurement funds
available from fiscal year 2011 will be used to buy the Mode 5
equipment in fiscal year 2012, delaying the need for additional
procurement funds until fiscal year 2013.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $16.6
million for the Mode 5 identification modification program for
the F-16.

Family of advanced beyond line of site terminals

The budget request included $50.9 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), and $104.5 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for the Family of Advanced
Beyond Line of Sight Terminals (FAB-T). The committee
recommends that of this amount $63.8 million in OPAF and $47.1
million in APAF be used for advanced procurement to support the
Air Force decision to restructure the FAB-T program.

GPS III Space Segment

The budget request included $81.8 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), line 19 for advanced procurement
for long lead items for Global Position System (GPS) III
satellites 5 and 6.
The committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in
long lead procurement.
The committee fully supports the GPS program and
congratulates the Air Force on the recent launch of the GPS IIF
satellite. In order to reduce the annual cost of the GPS
program, the Air Force restructured the GPS program in fiscal
year 2011. As a result, instead of buying long lead items for
satellites 3, 4, and 5 in fiscal year 2011 as planned, the Air
Force bought long lead items for only satellites 3 and 4. As a
result of these actions and a reprogramming in fiscal year
2011, the program has excess money.

Defense-wide

Defense Information Systems Agency satellite

The budget request includes $362.9 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
to lease or buy and to support a dedicated commercial satellite
to provide primarily military Ka band satellite communications
in theater. DISA currently spends approximately $500.0 million
annually for commercial satellite communications for the U.S.
Central Command theater. Additional funds are requested to
support terminal upgrades.
The committee supports the idea of planned-for commercial
satellite communications. Commercial satellite communications
are currently purchased on as-needed basis with short-term
contracts using multiple commercial satellites. While this
approach has provided sufficient commercial communications, it
has proved to be more expensive than a long-term arrangement.
Moreover, although DISA has not encountered significant
difficulties in meeting bandwidth demand in theater, the
committee is concerned that excess capacity on commercial
satellites may not always be available in the quantities
needed. On the other hand, as-needed commercial satellite
communications will probably always be needed to address surge
and gap requirements.
The committee believes that before committing to a single
satellite for a single theater, in a purchase or capital lease
arrangement, DISA should conduct an Analysis of Alternatives
(AoA) that looks at the possibility of purchasing services on
multiple satellites in a multiyear type approach to ensure
lower cost and increased flexibility or other creative
approaches to providing reliable communications. Before
entering into a contract to buy or a capital lease for a single
satellite, the committee directs DISA to report on the results
of the AoA, and to provide the analytic basis for the preferred
option.

High Speed Assault Craft

The budget request included $6.9 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for maritime combatant craft systems, but no
funding for High Speed Assault Craft (HSAC) for U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM). Theater Naval Special Warfare
(NSW) forces currently utilize a rapidly aging fleet of Mk V
Special Operations Craft (SOC) and Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIB)
to perform a range of functions ranging from maritime
interdiction to infiltration/exfiltration of personnel to
partner nation engagement and training. The combination of Mk V
SOC and RIB retirements and unexpected program delays for the
follow-on platform known as the Combatant Craft Medium are
expected to create a maritime combatant craft capability gap in
the 2013 to 2015 timeframe. As a result, the Commander of
USSOCOM has identified a $15.0 million shortfall in funding for
six HSACs. The HSAC is currently in the NSW inventory and has
been identified as the only existing maritime surface platform
that meets Theater NSW requirements in the near-term.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, for HSACs for USSOCOM. The committee
also recommends USSOCOM consider service life extension options
for existing Mk V SOC and RIB platforms to mitigate any
additional maritime combatant craft capability gaps.

Non-Standard Aviation

The budget request included $272.6 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for Non-Standard Aviation (NSAV) platforms to
support Theater Special Operations requirements for mobility
and aviation foreign internal defense (AVFID) missions. The
committee recommends a decrease of $105.1 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, for NSAV aircraft. The committee
also recommends a transfer of $8.5 million from Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) Procurement, Defense-wide, to the
base budget for a total authorization of $176.0 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, for NSAV aircraft. The committee
believes that funds reduced from this funding line can better
be used to satisfy critical unfunded requirements identified by
the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.
The committee recognizes the requirement for NSAV platforms
to provide for the movement of special operations forces in
austere and remote locations not serviced by commercial or
other military aviation. The committee has supported funding
for NSAV aircraft and previously authorized the procurement of
21 light and 12 medium NSAV aircraft. However, the committee
believes the total basis of issue requirement of 17 medium NSAV
aircraft has not been adequately justified and, therefore,
authorizes funds to procure 3 of the 5 requested NSAV medium
aircraft and associated spares.
The committee is aware that the Department currently meets
only half of the demand for training partner nation aviation
forces and supports the mandate of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review to build the capacity of the Air Forces 6th Special
Operations Squadron to undertake such missions. However, the
committee believes the full request for the procurement of
eight AVFID aircraft has not been adequately justified and is
ahead of need. Therefore, the committee authorizes funds to
procure four of the eight requested AVFID aircraft and
associated spares.
The budget request included $8.5 million in OCO
Procurement, Defense-wide, for upgrades to eight PC-12 NSAV
aircraft to bring them into a common configuration with the
rest of the fleet. The committee believes these upgrades are
unjustified as an OCO expenditure and are inconsistent with the
Department's efforts to shift U.S. Special Operations Command
funding to the base budget where appropriate. Therefore, the
committee recommends a shift of these funds from OCO to the
base budget.

Village Stability Operations and Afghan Local Police unfunded
requirements

The committee notes that General Petraeus, Commander of
International Security Assistance Force and Commander of U.S.
Forces-Afghanistan, and others have emphasized the importance
of the Village Stability Operations (VSO) and Afghan Local
Police (ALP) programs to the strategy in Afghanistan. Under the
ALP program, special operations forces work with local
villagers to empower communities to create their own protection
force answerable to the local elders and under the oversight of
the Ministry of Interior. The VSO program adds a
communitydevelopment component designed to build a connection to the
Afghan Government. The committee believes that such population-centric
security and stability programs are key elements to the
counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.
The VSO and ALP programs rely heavily on the deployment of
small special operations teams who live and work in the rural
communities they are supporting. Such deployments, usually
geographically separated from the larger coalition military
footprint, require special operations teams to provide their
own force protection, mobility, communications, and other
enabling capabilities.
The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has
identified a total of $50.0 million in emergent unfunded
requirements for force protection and ground mobility
capabilities to support the deployment of special operations
teams to support VSO and ALP programs. Therefore, the committee
recommends the following increases in Procurement, Defense-
wide: $27.8 million for Tactical Vehicles; $15.6 million for
Intelligence Systems; $4.0 million for Small Arms and Weapons;
and $2.6 million for Soldier Protection and Survival Systems.

Items of Special Interest

C-27J

The budget request included $571.6 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, to buy nine C-27J aircraft. This
purchase would complete the current program of record with a
total of 38 aircraft. When there were separate C-27J programs
within the Army and Air Force, the Army had established the
requirement for filling the direct support role as 78 aircraft,
based on an analysis of alternatives.
Subsequently, the Air Force decided that a total program of
38 C-27Js would be sufficient to meet their responsibility for
providing direct support mission capability for the Army. The
Air Force based this conclusion on: (1) an analysis of the
Army's demand for direct support mission support; (2) a
Mobility Capability Requirements Study conclusion that the
programmed Air Force fleet of 401 C-130 aircraft exceeded
maximum demand for intra-theater airlift in any wartime
scenario by 66 C-130 aircraft; and (3) an analysis that showed
that a supply of 38 C-27J aircraft, along with 20 C-130
aircraft diverted from an intra-theater airlift mission to the
Army direct support mission, would meet the Army's needs.
The Defense Department (DOD) also has requirements for
supporting domestic missions, such as those from the Department
of Homeland Security. Absent other information, it would appear
to the committee that the Department merely assumes that it can
muster the appropriate support for domestic missions from
within those forces that are derived from war fighting
requirements. Just as it has turned out that the current
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq were not exactly the ``lesser
included contingencies'' that previous defense planning had
assumed, it is altogether possible that the same would be true
for meeting whatever domestic demands may be placed on the
Department.
The set of circumstances raises several questions: (1)
since the cost per flying hour should be much less expensive
for a C-27J aircraft, should the Air Force buy more C-27Js
specifically for meeting the Army direct support mission,
rather than recapitalizing C-130 inventory that may be excess
to intra-theater airlift requirements?; and (2) is there an
appropriate structure and processes in place for estimating
requirements for DOD domestic support and translating those
requirements into DOD programs, to the extent that the
requirements may not be satisfied within existing DOD forces?
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
conduct a cost/benefit analysis of buying more C-27Js than the
current 38-aircraft program specifically for meeting the Army
direct support mission, rather than recapitalizing C-130
inventory that may be excess to intra-theater airlift
requirements.
The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy to provide a report on the appropriate structure and
processes in place that DOD should have for estimating
requirements for DOD domestic support and translating those
requirements into DOD programs, to the extent that the
requirements may not be satisfied within existing DOD forces.
The committee directs the Department to provide both of the
reports no later than the submission of the fiscal year 2013
budget request.

Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station

The committee notes that the Common Remotely Operated
Weapons Station (CROWS) program has successfully delivered over
7,000 systems that have provided vehicle crews increased
lethality and protection in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The committee is also aware of the Army's intention to
transition CROWS procurement to a full and open competition
with multiple providers. The committee supports this approach,
but is concerned that the Army has delayed a competition by
extending the sole source contract currently in place without
sufficient operational justification. Although the Army's CROWS
acquisition plan calls for release of a request for proposal,
evaluation, and qualification of vendors in 2012, the committee
does not understand the apparent intent not to award contracts
or budget necessary funds until 2013. The committee therefore
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees that details the CROWS
acquisition strategy including funding profile and schedule
identifying the specific milestones associated with the
earliest possible competition, proposal submission deadline,
evaluation, vendor qualification, and contract award.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles modifications

The budget request included $126.0 million for Minuteman
III modifications in Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF),
line 9, including $34.0 million for the solid rocket warm line
project. This effort, which in previous years manufactured
motor sets for the Minuteman III (MMIII) Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile (ICBM), is coming to a close. The fiscal year
2012 funds will be used to close out the contracts for motor
production, and many of the facilities will be mothballed.
The committee understands that the Air Force may begin a
new effort in fiscal year 2013 to sustain the MMIII solid
rocket motors. If the Air Force determines that actions with
respect to solid rocket motors will be needed in 2013, and
would prefer to consolidate MMIII facilities and workforce to
prepare for future tasks, in lieu of closing out the contracts,
the Air Force may use up to $12.0 million of the funds
available for the solid rocket motor warm line for
consolidation purposes. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to inform the committee no later than December 1,
2011, of its decision and the funding needed to carry out such
decision.

Joint Tactical Radio System

The committee is aware that after over 10 years of research
and development the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and its
Handheld, Manpack, and Small form/fit (HMS) version is nearing
completion of its engineering and manufacturing development and
is entering low rate initial production (LRIP). Given the
program's history of funding shortfalls and schedule delays,
and under the current and likely future climate of budgetary
pressures, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD-ATL) directed that the JTRS
program focus its continued development efforts on core program
requirements and those threshold capabilities that are within
reach for near-term delivery to the field.
The committee agrees that a tactical network program based
upon radio hardware that is non-proprietary software
programmable is essential to achieving a fully networked
operating force. The Army's tactical network will depend on
technologically mature, reliable, and affordable software
programmable radios. Radios based on non-proprietary software,
or waveforms, allows the Army to choose from a variety of
hardware technologies with a variety of capabilities and at a
variety of costs.
Appropriately, the Army intends to take advantage of full
and open competition among radio hardware manufacturers whose
products meet the technical and operational requirements of the
tactical network. Managing program costs through competition is
critical to the affordability of the Army's tactical network,
particularly given the thousands of radios that will be
provided at lower unit levels and to individual soldiers. In
this regard, the USD-ATL further directed that the Army provide
for his approval a plan ``to introduce competition into the
JTRS production programs at the earliest opportunity.''
The committee strongly agrees that the Army should initiate
the soonest possible full and open competition and directs the
USD-ATL to provide the congressional defense committees with a
briefing on the JTRS-HMS competition plan including schedule
changes that highlight the acceleration of competition,
testing, vendor qualification, funding profile, and contract
methods.

Light tactical vehicles

The committee is concerned about the health of the light
tactical vehicle industrial base given current and future
budgetary pressures and the likelihood of declining funds for
development and procurement by the Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee is aware of the challenges faced by DOD, and
particularly the Army, in planning for and managing its large
and expensive light tactical vehicle fleets. The Department
will continue to analyze and adjust its light tactical vehicle
requirements, fleet configurations, and investment strategies
to make realistic, affordable, and achievable tradeoffs for the
sustainment and modernization of its current capability and
that at the same time develops the next-generation of vehicles.
Given these challenges, the committee is concerned that
uncertainty in the Department's plans will cause uncertainty in
light tactical vehicle industrial base resulting in a loss of
capability and capacity. Army and the Marine Corps plans for
the recapitalization of its armored and utility High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleets over the next
several years could mitigate some of this industrial base risk.
The committee is also aware that the Army and Marine Corps plan
to use a full and open competition, including public, private,
and public-private partnerships, in meeting its HMMWV
recapitalization objectives. The committee also notes that
there appear to be gaps between the Army and Marine Corps in
their recapitalization requirements and that their plans may
not take advantage of existing or emerging automotive, armor,
or force protection technologies. The committee urges the Army
and the Marine Corps to accelerate their HMMWV recapitalization
competition and directs the Secretary of the Army and Secretary
of the Navy to brief the congressional defense committees on
how acceleration of a competition might be accomplished and how
recapitalization of their HMMWV fleets will consider taking
advantage of the integration of new technologies.
The committee is also interested to learn more about the
potential costs, benefits, and risks of increased foreign sales
of U.S. tactical wheeled vehicles. The committee directs the
Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than July 31, 2012, on the foreign sales
of U.S. manufactured tactical wheeled vehicles and the impact
of such sales on the defense industrial base. This study
should: (1) describe the U.S. tactical wheeled vehicle
industrial base, including information currently available on
prime and sub-tier contractors; (2) analyze the sales of
tactical wheeled vehicles to foreign governments through
foreign military sales and direct commercial sales over at
least the last 5 years; (3) identify factors that could impact
the sale and export of tactical wheeled vehicles, including
U.S. policy and regulations and foreign competition for
worldwide sales; and (4) assess the strategic and technical
risks of the sale of tactical wheeled vehicles to foreign
governments as seen by the Departments of State, Defense, and
Commerce.

Multiyear procurement savings estimates

The committee has been supportive of the Department's
ability to enter into multiyear procurement contracts when all
of the criteria in section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, are met. The committee wants to clarify that, in
determining ``substantial savings'' under the meaning of
section 2306b, the Department should be careful to filter
claims of ``cost avoidance'' that would tend either to: (1)
inflate the costs associated with executing annual procurement
contracts; or (2) understate the costs executing multiyear
procurement contracts. The concern is that analysts could use
inappropriate optimism to estimate savings on a multiyear
contract, or could overstate the costs of executing an annual
procurement strategy. In either circumstance, the estimated
savings could present an erroneous picture of the potential
rewards of approving multiyear authority.
This year, in the case of the request for multiyear
procurement authority for mission avionics and common cockpits
for Navy MH-60R/S helicopters, the Navy estimated that the cost
of procuring the MH-60R/S cockpits and mission avionics under a
single 5-year multiyear procurement contract, as compared to
five successive single-year procurements, would save 11.2
percent. The Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
directorate agreed with that estimate.
After further review, the committee determined that this
savings estimate depends on congressional approval of a follow-
on multi-year procurement in fiscal year 2017. If Congress were
to fail to approve that follow-on multiyear procurement, the
Navy would have to find additional funding to reimburse the
contractor team for purchase in each of the 5 years comprising
the proposed multiyear procurement. While the committee agrees
that, in this limited sense, ``cost avoidance'' can demonstrate
``substantial savings'' for purposes of section 2306b of title
10, United States Code, the use of other more nebulous kinds of
cost avoidance for the same purpose would not be appropriate.
If the case is strong for multiyear procurement without a
finding of ``substantial saving,'' Congress can make
exceptions. As provided in report language accompanying section
811 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), multiyear
procurement proposals unsupported by a finding of ``substantial
savings'' may still be approved on the basis of an
``exceptionally strong case'' that the proposal meets the other
requirements of subsection (a) of section 2306b of title 10,
United States Code. However, actions to inflate the savings
estimates that do not bear up under scrutiny could actually
result in denial of multiyear authority when all other
requirements could be met.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation
activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division
D of this Act.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Prohibitions relating to use of funds for research, development, test,
and evaluation on the F136 engine (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit:
(1) the obligation of any funds in this Act for research,
development, test, or evaluation on the F136 engine; and (2)
the consideration of any research, development, testing and
evaluation of the F136 engine conducted and funded by the
contractor as an allowable charge on any future government
contract, either as a direct or an indirect cost.
Limitation on use of funds for Increment 2 of B-2 Bomber aircraft
Extremely High Frequency Satellite Communications Program (sec.
212)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary from obligating or expending funds for Increment
2 of the B-2 Bomber aircraft Extremely High Frequency (EHF)
Satellite Communications program, until the Secretary of the
Air Force makes a series of certifications and a report with
respect to the acquisition plan for Increment 2. Increment 2
consists of the integration of an EHF terminal and low
observable antenna for secure strategic communications. The
required certifications would be that the U.S. Government owns
the data rights for the antennas, and that the antenna
technology selected is the most cost effective and lowest risk
option for the B-2. The report would include a detailed plan
setting forth the projected cost and schedule for the research,
development, and testing of the antenna. The new terminal and
antenna are needed to provide secure, protected communications
using the new Advanced EHF satellite, the first of which was
launched last summer.
The committee notes that the antenna being developed for
the B-2 is an active electronically steered array (AESA)
antenna. This is the first time that an EHF AESA antenna is
being developed for an aircraft. This technical challenge is
complicated by the fact that it is for the B-2 and must be
compatible with the low observable characteristics of the B-2
itself. As a result the committee is worried about both the
cost of developing and procuring an AESA EHF antenna and
ability to maintain the schedule. The committee wants to ensure
that this very expensive and technologically challenging
approach is appropriate and, if appropriate, that it is managed
effectively and efficiently.
The committee notes that the Air Force chartered an
independent review team to review, among other things, the
technical challenges of developing an AESA EHF antenna for the
B-2. This team made several recommendations with respect to the
challenges of the development effort, including that the Air
Force mature the antenna to a technology readiness level 7
before installing it on a test B-2 aircraft. The committee
directs the Air Force to follow the recommendations of the
review team.
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
Navy from obligating more than 50 percent of the funding
authorized for UCLASS until the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies to the
congressional defense committees that he has approved an
acquisition plan for the UCLASS program at Milestone A that
requires implementing open architecture standards for the
UCLASS program.
The budget request contained $121.2 million in PE 64404N to
start a program called Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). The Navy intends to allocate
more than $2.5 billion in development funding over the course
of the future-years defense program (FYDP).
The Congress provided clear direction in section 144 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), calling for the Department to
establish a policy and acquisition strategy for common ground
stations and payloads for manned and unmanned aerial vehicle
systems. The purpose of the direction was to facilitate
competitive procurement, open architecture, common ground
station interoperability and standardization, and competition
throughout the life cycle of acquisition programs.
To date, the committee can detect very little progress in
implementing this guidance.
In a broader context, the lack of access to weapons systems
technical data hinders competition throughout the life cycle of
weapons systems. The Defense Department should be insisting on
open systems architecture and obtaining rights to technical
data necessary to foster fair and open competition throughout
the life cycle of all manned and unmanned systems. Providing
access to necessary technical data to a broader range of
potential contractors would remove a significant barrier to
competition. Without such access, fair and open competition for
follow on contractor logistics support and maintenance activity
is severely limited, if not impossible. Enhancing the
opportunity for competition has the potential to create
efficiencies, significantly reduce life cycle costs and ensure
the viability of a robust aftermarket contractor logistics
support and maintenance industrial base. In that regard, the
committee is pleased to note that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued
direction to the military departments and agencies regarding
this issue in a memorandum dated November 3, 2010, titled
``Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power--Obtaining
Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending.'' The
committee requests the Under Secretary to provide periodic
briefings to the committee on his progress in implementing that
directive.
UCLASS presents another opportunity to implement that
guidance. This is a new start effort with the fiscal year 2012
budget where the Navy can get the program off on the right
path.
Marine Corps Ground Combat Vehicles (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1)
prohibit the Department of Defense from granting Milestone B
approval for the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) pending
completion of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the
Amphibious Combat vehicle (ACV); (2) specify requirements for
the conduct of the AoA; (3) require the Director of Cost
Analysis and Program Evaluation to conduct a life cycle cost
assessment of the portfolio of Marine Corps ground vehicles as
a condition for Milestone B approval for ground vehicle
acquisition programs; and (4) authorize the Marine Corps to
reallocate funds within the budget request for the Assault
Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) 7A1, the MPC, and the ACV to support
the ACV AoA and ACV requirements definition. The amount
recommended for authorization for these ACV activities is $30.0
million.
Affordability of Marine Corps ground vehicles
The Marine Corps states that it terminated the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) because its projected
budget will not support the acquisition cost or the operating
and sustainment (O&S) costs. To support this conclusion the
Marine Corps provided budget projections of the cost to buy the
EFV, the MPC, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and other less
numerous and expensive vehicles. These cost projections
substantially exceed representative budget planning
assumptions, such as zero real growth in the outyears from the
average level of spending over the last 30 years on the
acquisition of ground vehicles. Likewise, the Marine Corps
provided projections of the cost of operating its current and
planned ground vehicle fleets, which also showed a towering bow
wave in the outyears.
The committee agrees that the Marine Corps faces an immense
budget challenge, but the problem is not confined to the EFV or
the amphibious assault mission area. The fact is that the data
that the Marine Corps presents shows that the Marine Corps'
ground vehicle portfolio is unaffordable by the Corps' metrics
even if a new amphibious tractor is removed altogether. The
same is true for the O&S budget. Reducing the cost of an
amphibious tractor from an $18.0 million EFV to $10.0 million
(the lower side of the estimate for an ACV) would not fix the
projected budget shortfall.
The reality is that modern ground vehicles are going to be
much more expensive than they were in the past. Aside from the
growth in digital electronics for sensing, targeting,
communicating, and controlling the vehicle, ground vehicles
must provide much higher levels of protection to cope with more
lethal threats and the ubiquity of those threats to all
vehicles at all times on the modern, hybrid battlefield. The
MRAP program illustrates this new reality--a very heavy and
heavily armored truck with reduced mobility that cost
approximately $1.0 million each. The High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled vehicle, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, is to
be replaced by the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle which is
expected to cost at least several hundred thousand dollars.
The Marine Corps is going to have to come to grips with the
fact that it will have to spend significantly more money on
ground vehicles in the future. In view of the coming austerity,
the Marine Corps will have to make difficult tradeoffs in
multiple areas. The Marine Corps cannot escape this predicament
by terminating the EFV alone. The Marine Corps also cannot make
acquisition decisions on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis, but rather
must always consider the portfolio as a whole.
It is also important to put the cost of the EFV in
perspective. The current estimate of approximately $18.0
million per vehicle is certainly a lot of money. But the
vehicle carries a full Marine rifle squad. By comparison,
Bradley fighting vehicles, which would not be regarded as
extravagant, cost approximately $9.0-10.0 million, according to
the Marine Corps, but carry only half as many troops. Thus,
putting Marines in Bradleys, which cannot swim at all, would
cost more than the EFV. Moreover, Bradleys would take up far
more space on the Navy's amphibious ships than EFVs for the
same lift capacity. The EFV would cost much more than the
Marine Corps hoped and expected, and the Marine Corps may not
be able to afford it, but it is not out of line with its
complex mission and other fighting vehicles.
The committee also notes that the Marine Corps acquires a
new amphibious assault vehicle only once every several decades
(the current vehicle is 40 years old), and that the amphibious
assault mission is the core mission of the Marine Corps. It is
not unreasonable to expect the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the
Defense Department to deviate from 30-year averages in combat
vehicle acquisition to recapitalize the very equipment on which
the Marine Corps most depends. Indeed, one would expect
tradeoffs to be made in virtually all other budget categories
to support the primary needs of amphibious assault.

Failure of the requirements process

Based on testimony from the Department, it now appears to
the committee that the Marine Corps' requirements process that
led to the EFV requirement for high water speed was essentially
mistaken--yielding a mistake that cost the taxpayer $3.0
billion and cost the Marine Corps as much as two decades of
lost time. At the end of the Cold War, the Marine Corps and the
Navy sought greater standoff distance for launching amphibious
assaults, and the Marine Corps assumed that the combat
capability of Marines riding in a relatively slow, non-planing
vehicle would begin to erode after approximately 1 hour. This
assumption was based on experience with the legacy AAV. The
Marine Corps' current expectation is that a modern vehicle with
high-quality seats that provides cool fresh air and good
lighting to passengers can carry Marines for 2 hours or more
without causing detrimental levels of troop fatigue. The Marine
Corps also now states that high-water speed is not important
operationally--that 10-knot speed is as good as 25 knots from
the perspective of operational effectiveness and survivability.
If the Marine Corps is correct in these new beliefs, a non-
planing--and hence slower--amphibious tractor could still
support the standoff ranges that the Marine Corps and the Navy
seek. These expectations will need to be tested and verified in
the AoA. The Navy is now saying, however, that it believes its
ships can be adequately defended even if the AoA determines
that amphibious attacks must be launched from a distance of 10
nautical miles rather than 25 nautical miles. The Navy is
expressing this belief after 20 years of stressing the need for
much larger standoff distances, and despite the fact that anti-
access threats have increased since the EFV was initiated in
the early 1990s, and are projected to increase further in
coming decades.
This distressing history illustrates the importance of
getting requirements right. The requirements for the EFV,
evidently, were not adequately scrutinized, challenged, or
backed up by evidence. This mistake must not be repeated. The
Marine Corps should substantiate all of the driving
requirements for ACV with testing where possible, and with
exercises and modeling and simulation where empirical testing
is not practical. There must be evidence that the Navy can
defend its ships at the standoff distances imposed by the
characteristics of the EFV replacement.

The relationship between the ACV and the MPC

The Marine Corps decided it needed a modern personnel
carrier when the EFV cost escalated sharply and after the
Marine Corps' experience in Iraq showed the need for higher
levels of armor protection than EFV would provide in some
ground combat situations. The Marine Corps decided at that time
to reduce the buying of EFVs to less than 600 and to buy
approximately 600 personnel carriers.
The Marine Corps assumed that the personnel carrier would
be able to lift only half of a rifle squad--half of what an EFV
would lift. Thus, in terms of lift equivalents, the 600 MPCs
would equate to 300 EFVs. The MPC is roughly estimated to cost
$5.0-6.0 million. Thus the cost to lift a squad with MPCs is
projected to cost $10.0-12.0 million, which is the approximate
target cost for the ACV.
Engineering analysis may show that a non-planing vehicle
could carry enough armor to protect Marines adequately during
extended land operations--through all campaign phases--
eliminating the operational requirement for a separate MPC. It
is thus possible that, at the end of the AoA, after further
testing of the EFV System Development and Demonstration (SDD-2)
prototype vehicles and the AAV, and with some technology
development and demonstration, the Marine Corps will conclude
that an ACV could meet the needs not only of amphibious assault
but also the requirements that the MPC is designed against
(chiefly enhanced protection levels).
If that happens, and if the Marine Corps could buy an ACV
for the same or lower amount than two MPCs, the Marine Corps
would be better off buying ACVs only and terminating the MPC
program.
A total of 900 ACVs could meet the Marine Corps' total
armored vehicle lift requirement, and, by providing 300 more
amphibious assault vehicles than planned under the EFV program,
result in an enhanced amphibious assault capability rather than
a diminished one.
With the demise of the EFV program, the MPC moved ahead in
schedule of the Marine Corps' amphibious tractor modernization.
The MPC program is scheduled to pass Milestone B early in
fiscal year 2013. Even though the Navy's Senior Acquisition
Executive hopes to accelerate the completion of the AoA, the
Marine Corps probably will not know by early fiscal year 2013
whether the ACV program will come in at a price and performance
level that would enable the Marine Corps to forego the MPC
program.

Committee recommendations

In light of this complicated situation, the committee
concludes the following:
The Marine Corps must vigorously conduct testing
and some technology demonstrations to support the AoA and ACV
requirements definition. These pre-acquisition activities will
require more than the $12.0 million requested for the ACV. The
Marine Corps estimate is closer to $30.0 million.
The AoA must fully address the driving issues of
concern for the amphibious assault mission, such as the real
requirement for assault launch standoff, and the ability of the
Navy's ships to defend themselves at those ranges.
The Marine Corps cannot afford its current plans
for ground vehicle modernization, regardless of the cost of a
replacement for the EFV. The Marine Corps and the Department of
Defense oversight process must evaluate and manage the Marine
Corps ground vehicle programs on a portfolio basis.
The AoA and ACV requirements process may determine
that a smaller pure fleet of ACVs would provide better
performance at less cost than a mix of amphibious tractors and
armored personnel carriers. Therefore, it makes no sense to
enter SDD on the MPC until those evaluations are complete.
This provision recommended by the committee reflects
theseconclusions.

Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters

Enhanced oversight of missile defense acquisition programs (sec. 231)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 225 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to require the
Comptroller General to review, for fiscal years 2012 through
2015, the annual reports of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on
acquisition baselines and variances and assess the extent to
which MDA has achieved its acquisition goals and objectives.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General to
report to the congressional defense committees on such
assessment, and provide any findings and recommendations on
missile defense acquisition programs that the Comptroller
General considers appropriate. The provision would also provide
a 3-year sunset for reports required on activities of the
Missile Defense Executive Board.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has played an instrumental role over many years in
the oversight of missile defense acquisition programs, and in
helping improve the oversight and accountability of such
programs. Section 225 established the requirement for MDA
acquisition baselines and annual reports on those baselines and
variances. The existing legislative mandate for GAO's review of
missile defense acquisition programs originated in fiscal year
2002, and is now out of date with the new MDA acquisition
baseline process. The committee believes it is important for
GAO to review and report on the new process.

Ground-based Midcourse Defense program (sec. 232)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress concerning the December 2010 flight-test
failure of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, and
the approach the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should take in
correcting the problem encountered in that failed flight-test.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress two reports, 1 year apart, on the plan of
the Department of Defense for correcting the GMD flight-test
failure problem, and any progress toward achieving that plan.
The reports would describe the Department's plans for
diagnostic, design, testing, and manufacturing actions, as well
as the impacts on and adjustments to the GMD program resulting
from the corrective plan. The reports would also describe
enhancements to the capability of the GMD program over the last
two years.
The committee is deeply concerned that the GMD program has
experienced two successive flight-test failures, and believes
that it should be the highest priority of MDA to ensure that it
fully understands and corrects the problem that caused the
December 2010 flight-test failure. The committee commends MDA
for the thorough and disciplined approach it is taking to
understand the problem, and for suspending further production
of Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicles (EKV) for the GMD interceptors
until MDA has verified through extensive testing that the
problem has been successfully corrected. Given the high level
of concurrency that the GMD program has experienced in the
past, and the resulting technical challenges, it is essential
for the Department to take the steps needed to ensure that the
GMD program achieves the levels of reliability, availability,
sustainability, and operational performance that will allow it
to continue providing protection of the United States against
potential future missile attacks from nations such as North
Korea and Iran. The committee commends the Secretary of Defense
for his commitment to take such steps.
The MDA has informed Congress that it has sufficient funds
planned and available in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to
formulate and implement the corrective action plan for the
flight-test failure problem, and that additional funding in
fiscal year 2012 would not accelerate that corrective process.
The committee notes that MDA is deferring previously planned
GMD work that is affected by the flight-test failure--such as
EKV production--as well as other lower priority work, and
redirecting such funding to pay for the corrective action
process. In this regard, the provision would express the sense
of Congress that the Department should plan for and budget
sufficient future funds for the GMD program to ensure the
ability to complete and verify an effective correction to the
flight-test failure problem, and to mitigate the effects of
corrective actions on previously planned work that is deferred
as a result of such corrective actions.
If, in the course of its effort to correct the flight-test
failure problem, MDA determines that the funding available and
planned within the GMD program budget in fiscal year 2012 is
not sufficient for correcting the flight-test failure problem,
the committee observes that MDA could consider additional
funding sources within the MDA budget but outside of the GMD
program, and the Department of Defense could submit a
reprogramming request to Congress.
The committee is aware that the Government Accountability
Office has performed an initial analysis of the GMD program
that indicates $403.3 million of fiscal year 2012 funding may
be excess to program needs, because of the deferred work
related to the corrective actions planned for the flight-test
failure problem. The committee will continue to monitor the
funding needed to correct this problem, but is concerned that
reducing this funding could hinder or delay the effort to
correct the problem fully and verifiably through extensive
ground- and flight-testing.
The committee believes that production of EKVs, and planned
refurbishment of fielded EKVs, should not resume until MDA has
verified through extensive ground- and flight-testing that the
correction is successful. Otherwise, there is a risk of
building systems with potential design or hardware flaws that
would require future repair at additional cost.
Finally, the committee believes that MDA should ensure that
it takes the time and all steps necessary to ensure the
successful correction of the flight-test failure problem
without succumbing to pressures to meet schedules or deadlines.
Schedule-driven pressures have led to previous technical
problems, and it is essential to avoid such pressures to ensure
success in correcting the flight-test problem.

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress in support of efforts of the United States to
pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia that would
enhance the security of the United States, its North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, and Russia, particularly
against missile threats from Iran. The provision states that
the United States should pursue such cooperation in a manner
that ensures the protection of United States classified
information. The provision would also require the President to
submit a report to Congress on the status of efforts between
the United States and Russia, and between NATO and Russia, to
reach agreement on missile defense cooperation.
The committee notes that, for more than a decade, the
United States has been pursuing and discussing cooperation with
Russia on shared early warning and ballistic missile defense
issues. Congress has supported such efforts, and section 221 of
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) states the sense of Congress
``to support the efforts of the United States government and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to pursue cooperation
with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense
relative to Iranian missile threats.''
In addition to United States bilateral efforts with Russia
on missile defense cooperation, NATO has undertaken efforts to
seek such cooperation with Russia. At the Lisbon Summit in
November 2010, NATO committed to ``actively seek cooperation on
missile defence with Russia,'' and declared that ``NATO-Russia
cooperation is of strategic importance,'' and that ``the
security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia
is intertwined.''
The committee believes that missile defense cooperation
with Russia could enhance the security of the United States,
and could send a strong signal to Iran that the United States
and Russia are joined in their opposition of Iran's nuclear and
missile programs. The committee commends the administration for
seeking such cooperation, and for its commitment to take the
steps necessary to ensure that United States information is
adequately safeguarded.

Subtitle D--Reports

Extension of requirements for biennial roadmap and annual review and
certification on funding for development of hypersonics (sec.
251)

Section 218 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
established a Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics (JTOH)
with the requirement to produce a roadmap for the hypersonics
programs of the Department of Defense every 2 years and an
annual review and certification on funding for hypersonic-
related programs. This requirement terminates in 2012. The
committee feels that there is great value in the JTOH
producingthis roadmap to further coordination and communication within
the Department and with other agencies such as the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. Furthermore, the overarching goals for
hypersonics technology development are provided in the National
Aeronautics Research and Development Plan that is updated every 2
years, with Department of Defense participation. This Plan is required
by the National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy that was
established by Executive Order 13419 and is valid through 2020.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
date required for the hypersonics technology roadmap and annual
review activities through 2020.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Contractor cost-sharing in pilot program to include technology
protection features during research and development of certain
defense systems (sec. 261)

Section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
directed the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program
to develop and incorporate technology protection features in
any designated system during the research and development phase
of such a system. The committee recommends a provision, as
requested by the Department of Defense, that provides
additional authority to require cost-sharing with contractors
for those activities that enhance or enable the exportability
of such designated systems.

Budget Items

Army

Medium Extended Air Defense System

The budget request included $406.6 million in PE 64869A for
continued development of the tri-national Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS). This request would fund a proposal to
restructure the MEADS development program with Germany and
Italy into a ``proof of concept'' effort. This proposed effort
would require a total of $804.0 million in United States
funding over fiscal years 2012-2013, the remaining amount of
U.S. funding agreed in the tri-national Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) concerning the MEADS program. The committee
recommends a reduction of $406.6 million in PE 64869A, the
entire amount of the budget request for continued development
of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
The committee recognizes that an authorization of no funds
could result in the unilateral withdrawal from the tri-national
MEADS MOU with a maximum termination liability of $690.0
million. The committee urges the Department to work with
Germany and Italy to pursue lower-cost outcomes and to
determine if any existing MEADS technology can be harvested and
or transitioned for the benefit of current or future planned
United States air and missile defense programs and, failing
that, if Germany and Italy will agree to a cost-shared
multilateral withdrawal from the MOU. The committee directs the
Department of Defense to report to the congressional defense
committees, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, on the
future options for MEADS, and the results of its efforts to
pursue lower-cost MEADS outcomes.

Army test and evaluation

The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request contained a
proposed reduction in the Army's major test and evaluation
operations and sustainment account of $100.0 million in fiscal
year 2012 compared to fiscal year 2011 plans. The committee
notes that such a significant proposed budget reduction is
inconsistent with the critical role that testing and evaluation
activities play in the acquisition process, as well as
statements by senior Department of Defense officials who state
that a robust developmental test and evaluation capability is
important. The Army has informed the committee that this
reduction was committed in error and that the Army is working
to restore this funding.
The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to PE
605601A to help restore resources for the Army's test and
evaluation activities. However, the committee expects the Army
to fulfill its commitment to identify the remaining funds
needed to restore developmental test and evaluation activities
to an acceptable level from within its budget. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the
congressional defense committees on the status of these
activities no later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Navy

Naval laser technology

The budget request included $60.0 million in PE 602114N for
directed energy research. The committee recommends a reduction
of $30.0 million to terminate the Free Electron Laser (FEL) and
continue pursuing other laser technologies such as fiber and
slab solid state lasers that have more near-term applications
as weapon systems.
The Navy is pursuing a variety of directed energy weapons
to provide naval platforms with point defense capabilities
against current and future surface and air threats, including
anti-ship cruise missiles and swarms of small boats. The key
laser systems are the Laser Weapon System (LaWS), the Maritime
Laser Demonstration (MLD), and FEL. The LaWS and MLD have been
demonstrated against an unmanned aerial vehicle and small boat
respectively, with the MLD test being conducted on a ship and
the LaWS test being conducted from shore. The FEL is in a much
earlier state of development and has just commenced the
critical design phase.
The committee understands that each of these lasers is
based upon different technologies with different capabilities
and different stages of development and technical risk. Earlier
this year, the Congressional Research Service published a
report, ``Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile
Defense: Background and Issues for Congress'' that laid out a
number of options for Congress, ranging from altering the
Navy's funding requests for the development of potential
shipboard lasers to encouraging or directing the Navy to adopt
a program of record for procuring a production version of a
shipboard laser with a roadmap that calls for installing lasers
on specific ships by specific dates.
The committee believes that in the current budgetary
environment, the Navy needs to develop a broader affordable
strategy on which laser systems it will develop and migrate
onto ships or other platforms. In light of these
considerations, the committee directs the Navy to conduct
comparative analyses and testing to determine whether the LaWS
or the MLD or both should be carried forward for further
technology maturation and ultimate integration as a shipboard
weapon system. The strategy should also include plans for which
ships will receive which laser weapons systems. Furthermore,
the committee expresses concerns over the technical challenges
such as thermal management considerations and packaging that
the FEL potentially faces in scaling to a megawatt class laser
for actual weapon use.

Naval electromagnetic railgun

The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 602114N and
$16.9 million in PE 603114N for the development of an
electromagnetic railgun.
The Navy is developing an electromagnetic railgun (EMRG)
for engagements of surface and air threats at long-ranges up to
200 nautical miles. While such a capability theoretically could
be revolutionary, the committee believes that the technical
challenges that have to be overcome in order to develop a fully
operational weapon system that will have realistic power and
thermal management requirements suitable for ships, as well as
far greater barrel life compared to current barrel life, are
daunting.
Based upon the committee's belief that the significant
future resources required for attempting to develop and
operationalize an EMRG would be better spent on other naval
science and technology activities, the committee recommends
authorizing no funding in these PE's for the EMRG and
recommends terminating the program.

Air Force

Metals Affordability Initiative

The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63112F for
the development of advanced materials for weapon systems. The
committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to support the
Metals Affordability Initiative, a joint government and
industry consortium aimed at strengthening the metals
industrial base through collaborative, competitive, merit-based
technology development and transition projects. The overall
program helps improve current processing technologies and
develop novel techniques for primary metal production, part
manufacturing, and weapon system support. The technology
developed in this program has become pervasive in both legacy
and developmental military systems across all the services.
While the committee has been supportive of this program, and
has noted that the Air Force has increased its funding for this
program, it strongly urges the Air Force to institutionalize
this program with adequate resources in future years.

Conventional weapons technology

The budget request included $54.0 million in PE 603601F for
conventional weapons technology--a 240 percent growth compared
to the budget request in fiscal year 2011. Due to the
significant growth that is not sufficiently justified, the
committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million.

Intercontinental ballistic missile demonstration and validation

The budget request includes $67.2 million for
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) demonstration and
validation in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDTE) Air Force, PE 63851. The committee recommends an
additional $20.0 million to allow the Air Force to address long
deferred ICBM sustainment issues.
In 2010, the Air Force developed an ICBM system roadmap to
lay out the plans and requirements to sustain the Minuteman III
(MMIII) ICBMs through 2030. The roadmap identified four major
areas of concern: (1) aerospace vehicle equipment, which
includes the reentry system/reentry vehicle, and the guidance
and propulsion systems; (2) the operational ground equipment;
(3) the systems engineering integration and test equipment; and
(4) real property and real property installed equipment. The
additional $20.0 million would allow the Air Force to address
many of the challenges in sustaining the MMIII ICBMs to 2030.
These issues include fuse refurbishment and related test
equipment and cables, obsolete electronic guidance system
parts, radiation hardness testing for solid state electronics,
battery issues, propulsion system issues, launch and flight
hardware issues, missile alert facility electronics and ground
power communications, system test equipment, and many more
items. Making all of this more complicated is a diminishing
vendor base and difficulty retaining the skilled technicians
and engineers needed for the program.

Space situational awareness systems

The budget request includes $273.7 million in PE 64425F
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force for
space situational awareness systems. The committee recommends
an increase of $6.0 million to support the military utility
evaluation of a new sensor.
One of the goals of the space situational awareness program
is to develop new sensors to detect, track, and characterize
emerging threats to space systems. The Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) recently built a 3.5 meter
space surveillance telescope (SST), which is currently
undergoing testing by DARPA and the Air Force. Later this year
the Air Force will begin a military utility analysis that is
expected to continue into late in 2012. DARPA will transition
the SST to the Air Force at the end of 2011.
In the planning for the DARPA transition to the Air Force
no money was included in the Air Force fiscal year 2012 budget
request to support the SST in order to complete the military
utility assessment. The Air Force is also planning to integrate
the SST into the space situational awareness network as a
contributing sensor in fiscal year 2012. The SST is one of the
candidate telescopes for deployment at two additional sites to
ensure global coverage of deep space.
The committee recommends $6.0 million for the SST military
utility assessment.

Space-based Infrared System

The budget request included $573.0 million for the Space-
based Infrared system (SBIRS) for Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64441 line 72, including $214.9
million for ground development but no money for data
exploitation. The SBIRS program is a missile early warning,
technical intelligence, and battle space awareness system with
Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) sensors and Geosynchronous Earth
Orbit (GEO) satellites. The committee recommends an additional
$15.0 million for HEO and GEO ground integration and data
exploitation. The committee also recommends an additional $20.0
million to begin an effort to integrate the Space and
Atmospheric Burst Reporting System (SABRS) nuclear detection
sensor on the GEO satellite numbers 5 and 6.
The GEO-1 satellite, which had been plagued by years of
schedule delays and cost overruns, was successfully launched on
May 14, 2011. The satellite is in its proper orbit and in the
early stages of checkout.
In previous years additional funds were needed to resolve
GEO-1 problems. As a result, funds to support ground
integration and HEO data exploitation were diverted to resolve
the GEO-1 issues. Congress provided additional funds in fiscal
year 2009 and in 2010 to increase the analytic efforts to
support HEO sensors so that the full capability of the HEO
sensors can be understood and exploited including the benefits
from HEO stereo applications. With the new GEO sensors on orbit
there is much to be done to exploit the new sensor alone and in
conjunction with the two HEO sensors.
The committee directs the Air Force to include adequate
funding in the fiscal year 2013 budget request to understand
and fully utilize the new GEO and HEO sensors.
The committee notes and supports the new Joint Overhead
Persistent Infra-red (OPIR) Ground effort underway to establish
an interagency and interoperable ground architecture for OPIR
assets using a service oriented architecture approach. This
collaborative approach should result in a more effective and
efficient use of OPIR sensors and information.
The committee recommends the additional $20.0 million for
integration studies for SABRS on the GEO satellite numbers 5
and 6 to ensure that integration is included as the Air Force
plans for a block buy of GEO satellites 5 and 6 in fiscal year
2013.
The committee notes that the OPIR architecture study, which
was due in 2010, is still not completed. This study is
essential for making decisions with respect to future OPIR
requirements including those for SBIRS satellites and sensors
and the Precision Tracking Satellite System being developed by
the Missile Defense Agency.

Next generation aerial refueling aircraft

The budget request included $877.1 million to continue
development of the KC-46A, the next-generation aerial refueling
aircraft.
The Air Force developed the budget estimates before signing
the contract for the KC-46A and before knowing the funding
required, and the timing of that requirement. Based on a
comparison of the program's fiscal year 2012 budget submission
and the contemplated funding allotments for fiscal year 2011
specified in the recently signed engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) contract, the Air Force already has funds
that are well in excess of what is needed to execute the
current KC-46A contract. The program will need roughly $753.5
million to cover planned fiscal year 2011 activities, but the
program has $830.5 million available in fiscal year 2011 from
regular appropriations and the Tanker Replacement Transfer
Fund. This means that $77.0 million is available within the
program to pay for fiscal year 2012 KC-46A EMD activities.
In addition, the fiscal year 2012 budget request of $877.1
million for KC-46A EMD exceeds fiscal year 2012 requirements
for the EMD by $50.1 million. In total, this means that the
budget request for fiscal year 2012 exceeds the amount of funds
to keep the KC-46A program fully funded and on schedule by a
total of $127.1 million.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $127.1
million in the budget request for the KC-46A EMD program.

CSAR HH-60 recapitalization

The budget request included $94.1 million to develop a
replacement for the HH-60G helicopter being flown by combat
search and rescue (CSAR) forces within the Air Force.
The budget request was based on an acquisition strategy
that would have led to procuring a Government, off-the-shelf/
Contractor, off-the-shelf (GOTS/COTS) aircraft modified with
mission equipment to perform the CSAR mission. The research and
development funds requested would have been used to: (1) buy
two production-representative GOTS/COTS test aircraft; and (2)
integrate subsystems and the associated software development
into those airframes.
Since submitting the budget, the Air Force has decided to
implement a full and open competition acquisition strategy for
the HH-60 recapitalization program. Under this approved
strategy, the Air Force will need to spend sufficient time
developing the request for proposals, evaluating them, and
selecting a winning offer. This added effort will mean that the
Air Force will be unable to award a contract until fiscal year
2013.
The Air Force says that they now need $11.0 million in
fiscal year 2012 for the HH-60 recapitalization program to
execute this new acquisition strategy. Therefore, the committee
recommends a reduction of $83.1 million.
The Air Force has requested that some of these funds be
used instead for making modifications to existing CSAR assets.
Specifically, the Air Force has asked that $54.6 million be
transferred to the HH-60 modifications line, and $10.4 million
be transferred to the HC-130 modifications line. The committee
recommends those transfers.

Air Force test and evaluation

The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request contained a
proposed reduction to the Air Force's major test and evaluation
operations and sustainment account of $109.0 million in fiscal
year 2012 compared to fiscal year 2011 plans. The committee
notes that such a significant proposed budget reduction is
inconsistent with the critical role that testing and evaluation
activities play in the acquisition process, as well as
statements by senior Department of Defense officials who state
that a robust developmental test and evaluation capability is
important. The Air Force has informed the committee that this
reduction was committed in error and that the Air Force is
working to restore this funding.
The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to PE
605807F to help restore resources for the Air Force's test and
evaluation activities. However, the committee expects the Air
Force to fulfill its commitment to identify the remaining funds
needed to restore developmental test and evaluation activities
to an acceptable level from within its budget. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the
congressional defense committees on the status of these
activities no later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

F-22A squadrons

The budget request included $718.4 million for various
development activities to support the F-22A fighter fleet.
Subsequent to submitting the budget, the Air Force decided
that some of these funds were excess to their needs. The Air
Force now believes they need to fund development of: (1)
Increments 3.2A, 3.2B, and 3.2C at $550.0 million per year to
support a common software configuration for the F-22A Block 30
and Block 35 aircraft; (2) automatic ground collision avoidance
system (AGCAS), with fiscal year 2012 funding of $18.1 million;
and (3) a modification to the on-board oxygen generating system
(OBOGS) to solve safety of flight concerns. The Air Force has
not yet developed an estimate of the cost of designing an OBOGS
modification for the F-22A aircraft.
Beyond these requirements, the Air Force does not believe
that they can usefully execute F-22A research and development
activities in fiscal year 2012. Therefore, the committee
recommends a reduction of $140.0 million, which would fully
fund the Increment 3.2A/B/C and AGCAS efforts and set aside
$10.3 million for conducting fiscal year 2012 activities to
upgrade or replace the current F-22A OBOGS.

Defense-wide

Data to decisions programmatic decrease

The budget request included $9.2 million in PE 602663D8Z
for Data to Decisions Applied Research and $9.2 million in PE
603663D8Z for Data to Decisions Advanced Technology
Development, both under the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering.
The committee acknowledges the importance of efforts to
reduce the time between data collection and making relevant
decisions to include developing new techniques for data shaping
and exploitation. However, the committee is aware of a number
of programs across the services and in the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, as well as the intelligence
community, where related work on these topics is ongoing.
Hence, the committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering to focus on appropriately
coordinating these various activities instead of managing its
own programs. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of
$4.0 million in each of the above program element lines.

Department of Defense research & engineering cyber security activities

The budget request included $9.7 million in PE 602668D8Z
for Cyber Security Research and $10.7 million in PE 603668D8Z
for Cyber Security Advanced Research under the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASDR&E).
The committee notes the broad range of cyber security-
related activities in the Department, including the services
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and
the lack of appropriate coordination across these entities.
The committee is concerned that ASDR&E needs to develop its
own funding lines instead of working with the Department of
Defense's Chief Information Officer to coordinate and influence
the services' and DARPA's activities in this arena. Hence, the
committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in each of the
above program element lines.

Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD) programmatic decrease

The budget request included $187.7 million in PE 603648D8Z
for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD).
While the committee acknowledges the importance of JCTD
projects, it is concerned about budget growth over the last two
years. The fiscal year 2011 budget request was 30 percent
higher than the fiscal year 2010 budget request and despite
congressionally directed reductions, this year's request is
still 18 percent higher than the fiscal year 2010 request.
Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in
this program element line.

Industrial Base Innovation Fund

The budget request included $17.9 million in PE 63680D8Z
for defense-wide manufacturing science and technology. The
committee, along with other congressional defense committees,
has been a strong supporter of programs that sustain and
advance targeted sectors and capabilities of the defense
industrial base. A February 2006 report by the Defense Science
Board regarding the Department of Defense's Manufacturing
Technology Program points out that manufacturing technology
plays a critical role in addressing development, acquisition,
and sustainment problems associated with advanced weapons
programs and recommended increased funding in this area.
The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million to
continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund program. The
committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to continue to make
competitive, merit-based investments in manufacturing research
that address defense industrial base shortfalls especially
those related to more urgent production requirements and
diminishing sources of defense material. Furthermore, the
committee strongly urges the Department to institutionalize
this program with adequate resources in future years and
consider it as an important component of its wider
manufacturing and industrial base strategy.

Hybrid air vehicle demonstration

The budget request included $27.0 million in PE 63699D8Z
for Emerging Capabilities Technology Development, of which
$15.0 million is for Project Pelican, a 5-year effort to build
a flying prototype of a rigid aeroshell variable buoyancy air
vehicle for logistics support. The characteristics of this air
vehicle closely track those of the Army's Long Endurance Multi-
intelligence Vehicle (LEMV), which is slated for operational
deployment to Afghanistan in less than a year. Moreover, there
is a commercial initiative to fly a prototype hybrid vehicle
within 1 year that is planned to carry 35 tons of cargo. This
commercial prototype could be accessed by the Department of
Defense for far less than the cost of building Pelican, and
could be employed directly by U.S. Transportation Command to
test out the technology and develop concepts of operation and
military requirements for such vehicles. This commercial
venture plans to fly a 50-ton vehicle within 2 years, and a
vehicle in the 500-ton class soon thereafter.
The committee notes that U.S. Transportation Command has
conducted in-depth studies of the potential for both hybrid air
vehicles and advanced, long-range, heavy-lift rotorcraft to
substantially reduce the cost of delivering cargo overseas,
reduce fuel consumption, reduce resupply times, and enable
resupply directly to the point of need--including in areas and
disaster situations where airfield, road, and rail
infrastructure is either destroyed or unavailable.
The committee recommends termination of the Pelican
project, and authorization of funds for a demonstration of a
commercially funded hybrid air vehicle designed for lifting
tens of tons of cargo. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering is directed to sponsor this
demonstration on behalf of U.S. Transportation Command. The
committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million from the
request for Pelican, and an additional $2.0 million for the
logistics demonstration, for a net reduction of $13.0 million
in PE 63699D8Z.

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program science and
technology thrust areas

The budget request did not include any funding for the
defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program (RIP)
established by section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The RIP is a competitive, merit-based program designed to fund
innovative technologies, reduce acquisition or life cycle
costs, address technical risks, improve the timeliness of test
and evaluation outcomes, and rapidly insert technologies needed
to meet critical national security needs. The committee notes
that $439.0 million was appropriated for the RIP in the
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10).
The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in
funding for the RIP, to be allocated as follows:
1. Enhancing energy security and independence: $50.0
million for increased investment in technologies that
will improve energy efficiency, enhance energy
security, and reduce the Department's dependence on
fossil fuels through advances in traditional and
alternative energy storage, power systems, renewable
energy production and more energy efficient ground,
air, and naval systems. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense remains critically dependent upon
energy for both its far-flung infrastructure, and for
its global military operations. Today, the Department
consumes as much energy as two-thirds of all the
world's nations. Improved energy efficiency in remote
areas such as Afghanistan can reduce the dependence of
our armed forces on fragile fuel supply lines that are
vulnerable to enemy attack and help save lives;
2. Developing advanced materials: $50.0 million for
increased investment in a broad range of materials
technologies, both organic and inorganic, that can
provide enhanced performance in extreme environments;
enhanced strength and reduced weight for the spectrum
of applications from aerospace to lighter soldier
loads; enhanced survivability of ground, air, and naval
systems; and tailored physical, optical, and
electromagnetic properties for a wide variety of the
challenging environments and unique properties demanded
of military systems. Such materials could include
advanced composites and metals, nanomaterials, and
rare-earth alternatives. Investments could also address
new techniques for manufacturing and processing these
materials, including advancements in forming, joining,
and machining. Whether increasing survivability or
improving fuel efficiency for greater performance,
advanced materials are a foundational enabling
component of military systems across all services and
all warfighting domains;
3. Improving manufacturing technology and the defense
industrial base: $50.0 million for increased investment
in advanced and innovative manufacturing technologies
across the spectrum of applications to significantly
compress design to production time cycles, reduce cost,
minimize waste and energy consumption, and improve
product quality and reliability. Historically, the
Department has heavily invested in the technologies to
improve the performance of military systems, but not in
the processes to improve the production of those
military systems. Numerous high-level studies have
stressed the benefits of advancing the state of
manufacturing technologies--whether for a ship hull or
a radiation-hardened chip--for long-term savings and
the need to capitalize on the latest innovations in
manufacturing processes for defense systems. Projects
in this area should be coordinated with the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and
Industrial Base Policy to ensure that investments are
guided, in part, by shortfalls identified in industrial
base analyses such as the ``Sector by Sector, Tier by
Tier (S2T2)'' study effort; and
4. Advancing microelectronics: $50.0 million for
increased investment in the development of resilient
advanced microprocessors, application-specific
integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays,
printed circuit boards, photonics devices, and other
related electronics components for the next-generation
of military and intelligence systems. Similar to
advanced materials, advanced microelectronics are a
cross-cutting enabler across all military systems.
Given that the majority of costs of most advanced
weapons platforms are in electronics and supporting
software, investments in this area to improve
processing capacity, decrease weight and power
requirements, and increase resiliency should have high
payoff.
Funding authorized for the RIP may be used to augment
existing research and development efforts or initiate new
projects. As provided in section 1073, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer funds available for the RIP to the research,
development, test, and evaluation accounts of a military
department, defense agency, or the unified combatant command
for special operations forces pursuant to a proposal, or any
part of a proposal, that the Secretary determines would
directly support the purposes of the program. All such funding
is required by law to be allocated on the basis of a merit-
based selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or
similar competitive process.

Airborne Laser Test Bed

The budget request included $96.3 million in PE 63901C for
directed energy research for the Missile Defense Agency. The
large majority of this funding is to continue operation and
maintenance of the Airborne Laser Test Bed (ALTB) as a science
and technology platform for high-energy laser research. The
ALTB is a Boeing 747 aircraft that was originally built as the
Airborne Laser prototype technology demonstration and
development aircraft, equipped with a large chemical oxygen
iodine laser, that the Secretary of Defense deemed was not
suitable to develop as a weapon system. The committee notes
that the Missile Defense Agency does not have any high-energy
laser weapon system development programs, and that no existing
high-energy laser technology is remotely mature enough to
develop as an operationally effective or cost-effective
ballistic missile defense capability within a decade.
Less than one-fifth of the budget request is for continued
exploratory development of the Diode-Pumped Alkali Laser System
(DPALS) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This
development effort does not use the ALTB platform. In addition,
other components of the Department of Defense are conducting
research and development on potential future high-energy laser
technology for missions other than missile defense.
The committee believes that the level of funding requested
for the ALTB is not justified, and that other missile defense
programs are of significantly higher priority and would be
improved substantially with additional funding. Accordingly,
the committee recommends $36.3 million in PE 63901C, a
reduction of $60.0 million, with the intent that these excess
funds should be transferred to higher priority, near-term
regional missile defense capabilities against existing and
growing threats.
Furthermore, the committee recommends that the Department
of Defense consider alternative options for using the ALTB
aircraft as a test and evaluation (T&E) asset for missions
requiring heavy lift and launch capability. The committee notes
that the B-52 aircraft currently used for such T&E missions are
more than 50 years old, and a newer airframe could be an
important T&E asset, potentially improving the affordability
and timeliness of such T&E missions.

Defense technology transition and transfer programs

In the fiscal year 2012 budget request, the Department
provided no funding for the Defense Acquisition Challenge
program, as well as the Technology Transition Initiative.
The Department of Defense has a number of programs focused
on the transfer of technologies from the Department of Defense
to U.S. companies and the transition of technologies from the
Department's science and technology base to defense acquisition
programs. These programs include the statutorily established
and funded Technology Transfer program, the Technology
Transition Initiative, and the Defense Acquisition Challenge
program.
The committee believes that technology transition is
important for innovation in defense weapons systems and
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 603942D8Z for the
Technology Transition Initiative.
The committee also notes that section 253 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) directed the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to assess the
feasibility of consolidating the various technology transition
programs into a unified effort managed by a senior official of
the Department. The due date for this report was October 1,
2009; however, the congressional defense committees have still
not received this report.
Given the general importance of technology transition
activities for the vitality of the defense industrial base, and
given that the Department has not delivered the above mentioned
report yet, the committee is directing the General
Accountability Office to conduct a study of the effectiveness
ofthe various technology transition programs in the Department
and report findings to the congressional defense committees no later
than 1 year after the enactment of this Act.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

The budget request included $290.5 million in PE 63881C for
the Missile Defense Agency for continued development of the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. THAAD is a
land-based, globally deployable missile defense system designed
to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles,
which constitute the vast preponderance of missile threats
facing the United States and its allies and partners. The THAAD
system uses the AN/TPY-2 radar, which can also be deployed
independently as a forward-based tracking radar, as is
currently the case in Shiriki, Japan, and in Israel. The THAAD
program has demonstrated significant success in its flight test
program, and is entering its initial production phase.
The committee notes that the THAAD program experienced
technical problems with safety components designed to prevent
accidental missile ignition, which led to production delays,
which were exacerbated significantly by the funding uncertainty
imposed by the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolutions.
Although the quality and production problems with the safety
device, known as a Laser-Initiated Optical Switch, have been
corrected, there remain problems with production rate capacity
of the missile. For example, production of the Flight Sequence
Assembly is too low to permit the planned production rates
required to meet inventory objectives and schedules.
The committee is concerned that without additional effort
to improve the production rate capacity for the THAAD missile,
it could experience additional and significant production
schedule delays. Therefore, the committee recommends $310.5
million in PE 63881C, an increase of $20.0 million, to purchase
additional production tooling and test equipment, and to
develop production process improvements, that will permit
production of the THAAD interceptor missiles at the rates
required to meet inventory objectives and schedules.

Ballistic missile defense targets

The budget request included $1.1 billion in PE 63888C for
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for missile defense testing
and targets, including $540.7 million for targets to be used in
missile defense tests. Of this amount for targets, $158.0
million is requested for extended Medium-Range Ballistic
Missile (eMRBM) targets.
As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted,
MDA initiated an undefinitized contract action for the eMRBM
targets in April 2010. That contract action remains
undefinitized more than a year later, and has a not-to-exceed
amount of $496.0 million. The total amount of funding planned
and budgeted for the eMRBM targets for fiscal years 2010
through 2012 is $392.0 million, significantly less than the
$496.0 million not-to-exceed amount. An MDA official
acknowledged to GAO that the amount that would be needed
through fiscal year 2012 is expected to be lower than the
budgeted amount, which includes the $158.0 million requested
for fiscal year 2012. However, MDA will not know how much less
will be needed until it definitizes the contract later this
year.
The committee believes the budget request for eMRBM targets
exceeds the amount needed. The committee recommends $500.7
million for the targets portion of PE 63888C, a decrease of
$40.0 million for the eMRBM targets effort.

Standard Missile-3 Block IB

The budget request included $960.3 million in PE 63892C for
the Missile Defense Agency for continued development and
testing of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system and the
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB interceptor missile.
The Aegis BMD system is the centerpiece of the European
Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense, each phase
of which is built upon the four successive generations of the
SM-3 interceptor. The SM-3 Block IB interceptor is planned to
be deployed during Phase 2 of the EPAA, in the 2015 timeframe,
both at sea and at an Aegis Ashore site on land in Romania. The
Block IB interceptor is expected to constitute the large
majority of the SM-3 inventory, with more than 350 missiles
planned.
The Block IB missile has experienced technical difficulties
and delays related to the solid-fueled Throttleable Divert and
Attitude Control System (TDACS) that would steer the kinetic
kill vehicle directly into a threat missile reentry vehicle.
These delays have caused a delay in testing and production of
the Block IB missile, and up to 30 additional Block IA missiles
will be produced to fill the gap. The first flight-test of the
Block IB missile is scheduled for late summer 2012, and there
are seven flight tests planned before a full-rate production
decision would be made.
The cost of the effort to correct the TDACS problem has
also caused a reduction in the initial number of Block IB
missiles to be procured in fiscal year 2012, from 66 to 46. The
production rate is planned to increase fourfold, from two per
month in fiscal year 2012 to nearly eight per month in fiscal
year 2017. The committee is concerned that the production line
will not be able to achieve and sustain the planned increase in
production rate, and that this could cause production delays,
inventory shortfalls, and cost increases.
Therefore, the committee recommends $990.3 million in PE
63892C, an increase of $30.0 million, to purchase production
tooling and special test equipment to permit an increase in the
production rate of SM-3 Block IB, and to permit sustainment of
that higher production rate.

Sea-Based X-Band radar

The budget request included $177.1 million in PE 63907C for
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for continued operation of the
Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar. This level of funding is planned
for the next 5 years, for a total of $871.8 million dollars
from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.
The SBX radar is a large MDA radar operated by the Navy. It
is installed on a converted floating oil-drilling platform that
moves at less than 10 miles per hour. It operates in the
Pacific Ocean to support flight-tests, but does not have a
permanent homeport. Hypothetically, it could be available to
support missile defense operations, but only if it is located
in the right location at the right time, which could be
difficult because of its slow speed.
During the February 2010 flight-test of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense system (designated FTG-06), SBX was the only
sensor, and it failed part way through the test, which failed
to achieve an intercept. This SBX failure required a software
correction to fix the problem. The SBX system, which has been
in service only a few years, entered a shipyard in May 2011 for
3 months for maintenance.
The committee believes that $177.0 million per year is an
excessive cost to operate and maintain a test asset that may
not be in place for missile defense operations. The committee
recommends $157.1 million in PE 63907C, a decrease of $20.0
million. The committee directs MDA to explore options with the
Navy for less costly and more efficient ways to operate and
maintain the SBX radar, and to inform the congressional defense
committees, prior to the submission of the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2013, of its findings and any plans to
reduce the annual expense of the SBX radar system.

U.S.-Israeli cooperative ballistic missile defense programs

The budget request included $106.1 million in PE 63913C for
the Missile Defense Agency for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile
defense programs, including: $11.8 million to improve the
existing Arrow Weapon System, $53.2 million for continued
development of the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor missile, and
$41.1 million for co-development of a short-range missile
defense system called ``David's Sling.'' These systems are part
of Israel's layered defenses against missiles of differing
ranges, from longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria, to
short-range ballistic missiles and large-caliber rockets of the
type fired at Israel by Hezbollah from Lebanese territory in
the summer of 2006, to the very short-range rockets fired from
Gaza. The United States is co-managing and jointly developing
these systems to ensure that they are compatible and
interoperable with U.S. missile defense systems.
The committee recognizes that the missile threat to Israel
from ballistic missiles and rockets of varying ranges is
increasing, and that effective missile defenses are an
important component of Israel's security and regional
stability. The committee understands that development of the
Arrow-3 and David's Sling systems are behind their intended
schedules, and according to the budget request ``the technology
and schedule for Arrow-3 have been assessed by MDA as high
risk.'' The committee believes it is important to enhance
development of these systems to reduce their technical and
schedule risk, while also improving the capability of the
existing Arrow Weapon System, in a manner that is consistent
with the terms and conditions of the joint Project Agreements
governing the management of these cooperative projects.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million in PE 63913C, including $25.0 million to enhance the
development, testing, and integration of the David's
Slingshort-range ballistic missile defense system, $20.0 million for
the Arrow System Improvement Program, and $5.0 million for continued
development and risk reduction of the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor.

Corrosion prevention and control shortfall

The budget request included $19.7 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), of which only $3.2
million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion
Program. The DOD consequently identified to the committee a
fiscal year 2012 corrosion control shortfall in requirements of
$32.1 million and a $34.7 million shortfall in fiscal year
2011.
The Government Accountability Office has consistently
reported to Congress that corrosion is costly and can have
negative effects on military equipment in terms of cost,
readiness, operator and maintenance burdens, and safety. The
DOD estimated in 2010 that corrosion of military equipment
costs the military services over $22.0 billion per year. The
committee notes that the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office
within the DOD Corrosion Program delivers a 57 to 1 ratio
return on investment to the taxpayer through corrosion project
opportunities and activity requirements. Ensuring proper
corrosion prevention and control plays a major role in the
sustainment costs and life cycle range of many current and
future weapon systems including the F-22, F-35, and various
ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft.
The committee continues to urge the Secretary of Defense to
fully fund the corrosion control requirements in the fiscal
year 2013 base budget request.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.1
million in RDT&E for the DOD Corrosion Program to address the
identified shortfall.

Standard Missile-3 Block IIA co-development

The budget request included $424.5 million in PE 64881C for
the Missile Defense Agency for co-development with Japan of the
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptor for the Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system.
The SM-3 Block IIA interceptor is being developed
cooperatively by the United States and Japan as the next-
generation of Aegis BMD capability. It will have significantly
greater range and discrimination capability compared to the SM-
3 Block IB interceptor, and is intended to provide defense
against intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), as well
as some capability against some first-generation
intercontinental ballistic missiles from nations such as North
Korea and Iran.
The SM-3 Block IIA is planned to be deployed as part of
Phase 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile
defense, in the 2018 timeframe, both on land and at sea. It is
expected to be deployed at an Aegis Ashore site in Poland at
that time.
The committee is concerned that the inherent complexity of
a bi-national development program, and the level of technical
sophistication of the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, increase the
development and schedule risk of the program.
The committee believes that the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor,
combined with future variants of the Aegis Weapon System, will
form the core of the U.S. and Japanese missile defense
capability against future North Korean and Iranian IRBMs, and
believes additional effort is warranted to provide
developmental and schedule risk reduction.
The committee recommends $444.5 million in PE 64881C, an
increase of $20.0 million, to purchase equipment to test
software integration, and to accelerate software integration as
a risk reduction measure for development of the SM-3 Block IIA
interceptor in order to reduce development risk and provide
additional schedule margin.

Defense Technical Information Center programmatic decrease

The budget request included $56.3 million in PE 605801KA
for the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
The committee acknowledges the importance of DTIC's efforts
to act as a hub connecting users and data in the research and
engineering community. However, the committee remains concerned
about DTIC's growth plans and budget growth, including an over
45 percent growth in the budget request for the Information
Analysis Centers. The committee understands these Centers
provide valuable information, but encourages them to
investigate cost-sharing mechanisms with their customers.
Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in
this program element line.

Development, test, and evaluation

The budget request included $15.8 million in PE 605804D8Z
for development, test, and evaluation which was a decrease of
about $3.0 million from the fiscal year 2011 budget request,
and about $10.0 million below the fiscal year 2011
appropriation of $25.9 million.
The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) required 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.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department's defense-
wide systems engineering budget request is over two and half
times greater than for the developmental, test, and evaluation
budget request. Hence, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million in the above program element line.

Demonstrations and pilot projects on cybersecurity

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) contained a provision
(sec. 215) that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct
demonstrations and pilot projects to support improved
acquisition practices and operational capabilities for
cybersecurity. Congress appropriated $10.0 million in fiscal
year 2010, and a total of $40.0 million in fiscal year 2011,
for classified and unclassified cybersecurity demonstrations
and pilots. The Department of Defense conducted multiple pilot
projects over the last year with these funds, and is planning
for new pilots and subsequent phases of pilots already
underway. The committee is impressed by the results to date and
supports continuation and expansion of these activities.
The Department of Defense requested $52.6 million for the
Defense Industrial Base cybersecurity pilot spread across
multiple components under the Information Systems Security
Program. However, the Department requested no funds to sustain
the other pilot initiatives.
The committee is concerned that the Department has not
identified an official who shall have primary responsibilities
for policy direction and management of the pilot activities. To
date, the pilots have been selected and overseen in an ad hoc
manner by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USDP).
The Department also has not yet established procedures and
mechanisms for transitioning, as appropriate, cyber pilot
projects into the acquisition process or directly into
operational use.
The committee is mindful of the fact that the CIO is still
evolving and its personnel base is not settled. However, the
committee believes that the CIO's Office is the most logical
sponsor of the pilots. The CIO's Office would coordinate with
the USDP, and consult with U.S. Cyber Command, the Defense
Information Systems Agency, the National Security Agency, and
the military departments. The committee could support a
delegation of pilot execution authority from the CIO to another
component within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The committee directs the CIO to develop a management
structure and transition process for the cyber pilot
activities.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee discusses the
necessity of adding capabilities to the Department's
cybersecurity defenses to rapidly and reliably discover attacks
that have not been seen before. This discovery requirement
should be a primary consideration in the selection of cyber
pilot initiatives for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends $20.0 million for cybersecurity
pilots and demonstrations for fiscal year 2012 in PE 32019K to
be allocated by the CIO. The committee directs that all funds
in this program be allocated in accordance with the
requirements of section 4001, through a competitive, merit-
based process.

File Sanitization Tool

The budget request included $348.6 million in PE 33140G for
the Information Systems Security Program. Several years ago,
military networks, including classified networks, were infected
with a propagating virus that was initially introduced via USB
flash drive or ``thumb drive'' removable media devices. This
event was used within and by the executive branch as a sort of
``exhibit A'' to emphasize to leadership and Congress that
cyber threats were all too real. This event was followed by the
recent Stuxnet worm, which is also believed to have been
implanted via a thumb drive.
The committee is concerned, however, about the Defense
Department's follow through. The use of thumb drives and other
removable media was restricted for a time, and the National
Security Agency (NSA) on an urgent basis developed a
devicecalled the File Sanitization Tool (FiST) to check and cleanse the
content of thumb drives. This device was developed and basically
available for use within months of the original incident. It took
another 16 months before the predecessor to U.S. Cyber Command issued a
directive mandating use of FiST.
Subsequently, a data call was issued to all Department of
Defense components to determine how many of these devices
needed to be procured to enable secure file transfer from one
network to another. This data call resulted in the
identification of an initial requirement of over 700 FiST
devices. Over the next two years, however, only 57 devices have
actually been purchased and deployed, even though they cost
only a few thousand dollars apiece. NSA was left to wonder what
happened, doubting that the requirement had gone away, since
thumb drive use was resumed in mid-2009. And the committee is
left to wonder whether the alarm conveyed to Congress about
this entire episode was reflected in words only.
Further interactions with the Department have not settled
the issue. On the one hand, especially in the aftermath of the
Wikileaks disaster, the Department really has dramatically, and
one assumes permanently, reduced the number of computers and
personnel allowed to use any removable media. In addition, it
is true that the Department is increasing the availability and
use of electronic, in-line security guards for file uploading
and transfer, which can in principle perform many or all of the
FiST functions.
On the other hand, the disparity between the original
estimates for FiST devices and the small number actually in use
is so great that doubt persists. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense and NSA recently sent out another data call through
U.S. Cyber Command for FiST devices. At the time the committee
prepared this report, the results were not available.
The committee recommends an authorization of $3.0 million
above the requested amount for NSA to provide additional FiST
devices pending the results of the new data call.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs

The budget request included $2.98 billion for the research
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). While DARPA's fiscal performance has
notably improved, the committee is still concerned about the
timeliness of sustained funding execution. The committee
recommends a reduction of $150.0 million from DARPA's overall
budget to reflect continuing concerns about timely and
effective execution of funds by the agency, as well as concerns
about specific programs.
DARPA is pursuing the development of a vertical takeoff and
landing road-worthy vehicle under the Transformer Vehicle
program. The committee expresses doubts about the probability
of successfully meeting the ambitious goals of this program and
will watch this program carefully. The committee notes other
similar ambitious programs, such as the Submersible Aircraft,
have not been successful and have been terminated.
The committee supports DARPA's efforts to revolutionize
manufacturing technologies and methods. The Fast, Adaptable,
Next-Generation Ground Combat Vehicle is such a program where
model-based design tools and highly adaptable foundry-style
manufacturing techniques are being explored with respect to
combat vehicle design and production. The committee is aware
that force protection and related armor technologies are an
integral component of any ground combat vehicle and is
concerned that DARPA and the FANG program are not adequately
addressing the force protection requirements of ground combat
vehicles. Hence, the committee directs DARPA to work with the
Army and other relevant entities to ensure that force
protection requirements are addressed as a priority design
variable.
The committee commends DARPA's efforts to develop solutions
for portable, tactical power and energy generation, and storage
needs for warfighters--particularly at forward operating bases
(FOB) that are reliant upon vulnerable fuel-supply routes. The
committee is supportive of the various programs in the Agency's
energy portfolio, but raises issues about the Small Rugged
Reactor Technologies program. The committee is concerned that
DARPA is not addressing sufficiently the broad spectrum of
policy and regulatory issues associated with deploying a small
nuclear power source to a FOB, or other remote location, and
directs the Agency to work with its transition partner(s) to
address these safety and security issues, fuel cycle and other
sustainment issues, as well as issues regarding public
relations and strategic communications that would have to be
addressed when deploying such a system to a host nation.
Furthermore, the committee is aware of new developments in the
commercial sector focusing on small nuclear reactors and urges
DARPA to ensure that its program leverages those activities
that are relevant to the maximum possible extent.
The committee fully supports DARPA's efforts to seek new
innovative solutions to complex military problems. However, the
committee is concerned with the apparent lack of clarity of the
Unconventional Warfighters program, including its use of
animals. The committee urges DARPA to better define the goals,
objectives, and means to successfully execute this program.
The committee appreciates DARPA's efforts to cooperate with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
help instill a more innovative approach for space technology
development at NASA. However, the committee is concerned about
two programs that appear to be emerging as a result of this
interaction. The committee is concerned that the Horizontal
Launch Study is leading to a new DARPA program for an airborne
launch system that is not well defined. Hence, the committee
directs DARPA not to spend more than $1.0 million of $8.0
million requested in PE 603287E for horizontal launch
activities until a well defined plan for the program is
presented to the congressional defense committees. In addition,
this plan should address how this proposed program will
fundamentally lower launch costs compared to the Pegasus
program that DARPA successfully developed in 1990, and how
projected launch costs compare to currently available
commercial launch costs or equivalent payloads.
Lastly, the committee is concerned about DARPA's potential
plans for a follow up program to the Manned Geostationary Earth
Orbit Servicing Study. The committee fully supports the
development of advanced robotics systems for servicing
spacecraft and has been an advocate of broader efforts within
the Department of Defense to design modular spacecraft with
common interfaces and ``plug-and-play'' components that would
facilitate on-orbit servicing. However, the committee is
concerned about the Department engaging in any human
spaceflight-related activities. Hence, the committee directs
DARPA to focus solely on unmanned space technology.

Items of Special Interest

Advanced affordable turbine engine program

The committee is aware of the Army's Advanced Affordable
Turbine Engine (AATE) science and technology program. The
objective of this program is to develop a significantly more
powerful turbo-shaft helicopter engine providing improved
operational capability for the UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache,
and Future Force rotorcraft. Other goals of the program are 25
percent better fuel economy, 65 percent greater horsepower to
weight ratio, 35 percent less production and maintenance cost,
and 20 percent greater design life. The committee understands
that the Army intends to transition the program out of science
and technology to the Program Executive Office (PEO) Aviation
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012 for engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD). Upon transfer to PEO Aviation,
the program will be known as the Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP).
The budget request includes $21.5 million in PE 23744A for
ITEP to begin EMD and to support the planned contract award to
the selected prime contractor for system development and
platform integration. The committee notes that the program's
current funding profile does not support more than one engine
developer through EMD. Section 202 of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requires
that the acquisition strategy for a major defense acquisition
program include measures to ensure competition, or the option
of competition, throughout the life cycle of a program if such
measures are cost effective.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, not
later than September 30, 2011, on the Army's acquisition
strategy to transition the AATE program to ITEP including the
cost effectiveness and schedule implications of possible
measures to support competition after the Milestone B decision.

Air Force weather modernization plan

The mission of the Air Force Weather Agency is to maximize
America's power through the exploitation of timely, accurate,
and relevant weather information, anytime, everywhere. This
capability plays a crucial role in daily operations and
missions throughout the world from Afghanistan and Libya to
Japan and here in the United States. Fundamental to the success
of these operations and missions is access to accurate and
timely weather information--both terrestrial as well as in
space--with the requisite spatial and temporal resolution. In
order to maintain and improve these capabilities, it is
important that the Air Force Weather Agency remain at the
cutting edge of scientificand technical areas relevant to
space-based and terrestrial weather observations, data analysis and
forecasting, and real-time information dissemination.
In order to aid its long-term planning, the committee
directs the Air Force to develop a strategic weather
modernization plan with technology roadmaps over the next 10
years to sustain, modernize, and field weather technologies and
capabilities as needed in order to meet current and future
mission requirements and submit this plan to the congressional
defense committees not later than 1 year from the enactment of
this Act.
This plan should also include the Department of Defense's
global weather observation capability, which includes the
weather satellites that have a broad range of active and
passive sensors capable of measuring surface, atmospheric, and
space weather conditions. However, these weather satellites are
aging and their remaining service lives are limited. The
administration's decision to cancel the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) has only
exacerbated the problem. Two programs have been established as
successors to NPOESS--the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)
with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS) with the
Air Force. There is a need to ensure these two new satellite
systems are funded and fielded on time since the JPSS
satellites are intended to replace existing satellites that
provide information to the Department of Defense in the
afternoon, and the DWSS satellites are intended to replace
existing satellites that provide information to the Department
of Defense in the early morning.
The committee notes that because of the delays and ultimate
cancellation of the NPOESS program, an NPOESS prototype
satellite, called the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) must now
serve as an interim operational satellite for the afternoon
orbit. Furthermore, as a result of reductions in the NOAA
budget in fiscal year 2011, the JPSS program is now
approximately 1 year behind schedule. The projected launch date
for the first JPSS weather satellite is well beyond the
expected life of the current afternoon satellite and possibly
even beyond the life of the prototype NPP satellite. The first
DWSS launch is also now scheduled for beyond the expected life
of the current Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
satellite number 19, which is currently planned to be launched
in 2012. Given the criticality of these satellite
constellations, this strategic weather modernization plan
should include the weather satellites and options if the launch
and deployment of JPSS and DWSS are delayed further.

Army robotics

Robotic ground vehicles have the potential to meet current
and future Army requirements for critical operational
capabilities including explosive ordnance disposal,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and large-scale
transportation of supplies. The development of effective and
reliable ground robotic systems requires much more research in
order to achieve a better understanding of autonomous,
partially autonomous, and remote control systems. The Army has
invested in a number of ground robotics projects ranging from
basic research on autonomous systems to more applied research
investigating aspects of intelligent ground systems such as
fully autonomous leader/follower dynamics, tactical formations,
and human machine interfaces. The scientific challenges in the
research and development of effective and reliable ground
robotics control systems can be daunting. However, as the
military has learned with unmanned air systems, the potential
operational payoff can be exceptionally high.
Robotics development is underway in a number of Department
of Defense agencies. Leading the research effort in ground
robotics and autonomous control systems is the Army's Tank and
Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center working
collaboratively with industry and academia, as well as the Army
Research Laboratory with the Robotics Collaborative Technology
Alliance. The Army also works closely with the Robotic Systems
Joint Project Office that is dedicated to continuous
improvement of unmanned system capabilities to meet current and
future joint military requirements.
The committee understands that Army leadership is in the
process of determining operational and technical requirements
for ground robotics vehicles that will guide the development of
a long-term research, development, and acquisition strategy.
The committee is looking forward to seeing this strategy by the
end of 2011 and looks forward to working with the Army to
ensure that its research and development investments in robotic
ground vehicles will meet current and future needs.

Army Rotorcraft science and technology

Rotorcraft have been crucial to the success of U.S.
military operations around the world, especially in Afghanistan
where the rugged terrain hampers large-scale timely maneuvers
by ground forces. Despite their critical importance, the
Department of Defense's strategy for rotorcraft modernization
has been focused on providing ``near-term `as-needed' vertical
lift capability advancements in an incremental approach''--as
observed in the Department's congressionally-directed Future
Vertical Lift (FVL) Strategic Plan released last year. In an
attempt to address long-term strategic needs with opportunities
to insert more revolutionary technologies, the FVL Strategic
Plan laid out a time-phased decisions roadmap for the
development of next-generation vertical lift aircraft, as well
as associated science and technology research. Both were based
upon a capabilities-based assessment that identified 55 tasks
with numerous gaps grouped into 6 capability areas focused on
vertical lift for troop movement; fire support; reconnaissance,
surveillance and target acquisition; network-enabled command
and control; vertical lift for sustainment and supply; and
enhanced safety and survivability of rotorcraft.
As a result of these renewed efforts on advanced
rotorcraft, the Army initiated a Joint Multi-Role (JMR)
Technology-enabled Capability Demonstrator (TCD) program and
released a Broad Area Announcement earlier this year for JMR
demonstrator configuration trades and analysis. These efforts
are expected to culminate in JMR TCD flight demonstrations in
fiscal years 2017-2020 that would support development and
potential fielding of the first JMR platform in the 2030
timeframe. In addition, the Navy increased investments in an
Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System, and in support of a
Medium Range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System.
While the committee encourages the Department and services
to revitalize the state of its rotorcraft research and
development, it still has a number of concerns. While the JMR
is considered ``joint'', the committee understands that only
the Army has articulated and is actively developing
requirements for a future rotorcraft capability. Hence, the
committee directs the Air Force and Navy, if they desire to be
participants with the JMR program, to provide their
requirements input and notify the congressional defense
committees of their plans no later than September 30, 2011.
The committee notes that the FVL Strategic Plan identifies
four classes of JMR platforms (light, medium, heavy, and
ultra), and that development timelines for fielding these new
platforms will require the current fleet of rotorcraft to be
operational well past the 2040 timeframe. The committee
encourages the Army to seek the broadest range of new
technological ideas, including those from small businesses and
for low-cost flight demonstrations, to maximize innovation in
areas such as performance, survivability and affordability for
enhancements to the current fleet in the interim and for the
next-generation of military rotorcraft. In addition, the
committee strongly urges the Army to have at least two
technology demonstrators in its final TCD selection process to
ensure the greatest open and full competition.
Lastly, the committee strongly urges the Army to
investigate competitive prize awards--as have been successfully
applied in other fields--either for full or scaled technology
demonstrations at the vehicle or component level. Given the
challenges associated with scaling rotorcraft performance, the
committee encourages the Army to consider requesting an
independent entity such as the Army Science Board, the Board on
Army Science and Technology of the National Academies, or a
federally funded research and development center to assess the
current state of the science of rotorcraft scalability so that
less expensive scaled demonstrations may be able to inform how
more costly full-scale designs will perform.

Assessment of recent impacts in rare earth metals markets

In April 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported (GAO-10-617R Rare Earth Materials in the Defense
Supply Chain) that the use of rare earth materials is
widespread in components of major defense weapon systems,
including precision guided munitions, stealth technology,
electric drive ship programs, missile systems, and command and
control systems. The GAO report indicated that current
capabilities to process rare earth metals into finished
materials are limited mostly to Chinese sources. Congress
addressed this issue in Section 843 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) by directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake an
assessment of supply and demand for rare earth materials in
defense applications and to develop a plan to ensure the long-
term supply of critical materials.
The committee directs the Department to include in the
assessment and plan, an analysis of the impact of any
developments since enactment of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 such as reduced
export quotas, new taxes on rare earth exports, or the
stockpiling of rare earth materials in the global rare earths
marketplace.

Assessment of the defense industrial base

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review states that ``America's
security and prosperity are increasingly linked with the health
of our technology and industrial bases.'' The committee
strongly agrees with this observation and supports the
important roles and responsibilities of the Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and
Industrial Base Policy--a position created in the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383). The committee understands that the
Department, through this office, is currently conducting a
broad defense industrial base assessment, known as a ``Sector
by Sector, Tier by Tier (S2T2)'' study. Given that section 812
of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) directed
the Secretary to submit an annual report on the United States'
defense industrial base capabilities, the committee looks
forward to seeing the results of this S2T2 study in the next
submission of this annual report to the congressional defense
committees.
To further the health and vitality of the defense
industrial base, the committee has been supportive of the use
of Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (Public Law 81-774)
title 3 funds for sustaining and advancing the industrial base
sectors that are critical to national security. The committee
is interested in how the determination of DPA title 3 projects
will be linked to the outcome of the S2T2 study that will
presumably identify those sectors of the defense industrial
base that may require additional resources, such as through DPA
title 3 funds. Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy to submit an annual report by April 1, to the
congressional defense committees containing a prioritized list
of potential investments required to address industrial base
shortfalls to be expected to be funded by the Department in
future years through the DPA title 3 program.

Ballistic missile defense overview

The budget request included $10.7 billion for missile
defense, including $8.6 billion for the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) and nearly $2.1 billion for Army and related missile
defense programs. This represents an increase of $450.0 million
over the amount requested for fiscal year 2011 for missile
defense. Future budget plans for missile defense retain this
significant level of funding; the planned budget for MDA from
fiscal years 2011 to 2016 is roughly $52.0 billion. As part of
the Secretary of Defense efficiencies initiative, MDA found
$2.4 billion in efficiencies over the 5-year period from fiscal
year 2012 through 2016, while maintaining the same planned
missile defense program content.
The February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR)
established a number of policy and strategy priorities in
missile defense, and the budget request would provide funds to
continue to implement them.
In the area of homeland defense, 30 Ground-Based
Interceptors (GBI) have been deployed in Alaska and California,
and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is
providing protection of the United States from potential future
missile attacks from nations such as North Korea and Iran. The
GMD system experienced two flight-test failures in 2010 with
its newest model of GBI, one in January, and one in December.
MDA believes it has corrected the problems from the first
failure, and is working to correct the problem from the second
failure as its top priority. (This issue is addressed elsewhere
in this report.)
However, in addition to its efforts to ensure the
successful correction to the December flight-test problem, MDA
is also providing enhancements to GMD system, and taking steps
to hedge against future threat uncertainties, as indicated in
the BMDR. These enhancements include installing a second fire
control node at Fort Greely, Alaska, and planning to install a
new communications terminal on the East Coast of the United
States. The hedging options include installing seven spare GBI
silos at Fort Greely, and keeping six old silos available in
mothballed status, instead of decommissioning them.
In the area of regional defense, there have been several
notable developments. At its November 2010 Lisbon Summit, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decided to develop a
missile defense system to defend the territory, population, and
forces of NATO Europe. It also endorsed the U.S. European
Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense as a
valuable contribution to this NATO system.
In March 2011, the Navy deployed the USS Monterey, an Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) cruiser, to Europe as the first
step in implementing Phase 1 of the EPAA. The Monterey is
equipped with Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA interceptors,
which demonstrated the ability to defeat an intermediate-range
missile target using launch data from a forward-based radar
during a flight-test in April 2011. The other component of EPAA
Phase 1 is the planned deployment of an AN/TPY-2 radar in
southeastern Europe by the end of the year, the same type of
radar used in the Aegis BMD flight-test in April. The United
States has entered discussions with NATO allies about the
location for the radar. This radar will also provide enhanced
data for the GMD system, and improve its capability for
homeland defense.
In May 2010, the United States and Romania announced the
agreed location in Romania for an Aegis Ashore missile defense
site to be deployed in the 2015 timeframe for Phase 2 of the
EPAA. The United States plans to deploy a land-based Aegis BMD
system there with SM-3 Block IB missiles, as well as aboard
Aegis BMD ships. The first flight-test of the SM-3 Block IB
missile is planned for late summer of 2011, to be followed by
11 additional intercept flight tests prior to the Phase 2
deployment. MDA plans to produce more than 300 Block IB
missiles, starting with 46 planned for procurement in fiscal
year 2012.
Phase 3 of the EPAA will involve deployment in the 2018
timeframe of the next-generation of the Aegis BMD system with
the SM-3 Block IIA missile, at an Aegis Ashore site in Poland
and at sea. Poland is moving toward final approval of the
negotiated deployment agreement. Phase 3 will provide a
capability to defend against large numbers of medium-range and
intermediate-range missiles, using advanced sensor data to
achieve early intercepts.
In Phase 4 of the EPAA, the SM-3 Block IIB is planned to be
deployed on land in the 2020 timeframe. It is intended to have
the ability to defend all of Europe against possible future
intermediate- and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles
from Iran, and to have the ability to augment the GMD system in
defending the Homeland against such long-range Iranian
missiles. MDA is currently working to define the system design,
anddeveloping technologies that will be incorporated into the
missile.
The committee notes that the SM-3 Block IIB development
program is being managed initially by the MDA technology
development organization, rather than by the Aegis BMD program
office. The committee expects the SM-3 Block IIB development
program to be coordinated closely with the Aegis BMD program
office, and to transition to that office as soon as is
programmatically sound (MDA has indicated by 2013) in order to
ensure it benefits from the successful Aegis BMD development
and management philosophy.
As announced in the BMDR, the Phased Adaptive Approach to
regional missile defense will be used in the Middle East and
Asia, tailored to the circumstances of each region. The United
States has a strong cooperative missile defense program with
Japan, including co-development of the SM-3 Block IIA missile
that is planned for deployment in Phase 3 of the EPAA. Japan
has four Kongo-class ships with SM-3 Block IA missiles, and
will be able to increase their capability with the Block IIA
missile.
In the Middle East, the United States is working with its
Gulf Cooperation Council partners on concepts for an integrated
air and missile defense system to provide enhanced defense
against Iranian regional missile threats. The United Arab
Emirates has expressed interest in purchasing the U.S. Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system now being produced
for the U.S. Army.
After delays in the initial production of the THAAD
missile, MDA plans to procure 68 missiles in fiscal year 2012.
Current plans call for 9 THAAD batteries, each with 6 missile
launchers and 48 missiles. THAAD will provide enhanced land-
based terminal defense against short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles, both within and outside the atmosphere. The
first 2 THAAD batteries have been delivered to the Army, and 24
additional missiles will be delivered in fiscal year 2012.
One of the key enablers of Phases 3 and 4 of the EPAA will
be new sensor systems to track threat missiles and permit
earlier launch and engagement of large numbers of threat
missiles. In addition to planning to build additional AN/TPY-2
radars as forward-based sensors for regional defenses, MDA is
developing two new sensor systems: the Airborne Infrared (ABIR)
system and the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS). The
delay in the enactment of the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Resolution Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law
112-10) fiscal year 2011 defense appropriation delayed each of
these programs 1 year.
The ABIR program is intended to develop infrared missile
tracking sensors to be deployed on unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV) that would provide fire-control quality target tracks for
regional missile defense engagements. It would take several
UAVs simultaneously airborne at the right time and in the
correct areas to provide needed coverage, with possible
limitations based on airspace overflight access, non-
persistence, and poor weather.
The PTSS program is planned to develop and integrate
infrared missile tracking satellites that will provide constant
coverage of threat ballistic missiles after their rocket motors
finish burning. MDA has engaged two defense laboratories with
extensive satellite development experience to work with
industry in designing the first two prototype satellites, using
stable and simple requirements, mature and low-cost technology,
and a non-proprietary design. The Government Accountability
Office has indicated these are good acquisition practices, but
has also noted concerns about an optimistic acquisition
schedule. The committee requests that, as part of its annual
review of missile defense programs, GAO assess MDA's management
of PTSS, and make any recommendations for acquisition
improvement.
MDA plans to verify the capability and integration of the
two prototype satellites with the missile defense command and
control system, which will provide the Aegis BMD system with
early fire-control quality engagement tracks for large numbers
of threat missiles. Industry will then compete to build the
production satellites. PTSS sensor information would also
improve the capability of the GMD system for homeland defense.
As noted last year, the committee believes that these
programs are making significant improvements to homeland and
regional missile defense, and that they represent important
progress in implementation of the policies and strategies
elaborated in the BMDR.

Blue Devil Block 2

The budget request included $53.1 million in PE 63203F for
the development of Advanced Aerospace Sensors, including the
Blue Devil Block 2 Quick Reaction Capability (QRC). The
committee notes that early reports indicate that the Blue Devil
Block 1 deployment in Afghanistan is making significant
contributions in Regional Command South, particularly in
support of prosecuting high-value targets (HVT). The committee
has supported the Blue Devil Block 2 program, but is concerned
about recent turmoil in program plans.
Blue Devil Block 1 evolved from experiments conducted
several years ago by the National Security Agency (NSA) and
several other organizations to operationally integrate multiple
types of sensors to enable real-time tipping from one sensor to
another. For example, a signals intelligence (SIGINT) intercept
and geolocation would be used to immediately cue observation of
the target on wide-area airborne surveillance (WAAS) imagery,
and then tracking of the target with narrow-field-of-view full
motion video.
Blue Devil block 1 makes use of legacy Angel Fire WAAS
sensors on small, manned aircraft, that are modified for higher
resolution by reducing the field-of-view, coupled with arrays
of fixed (but movable) SIGINT nodes that are used for intercept
and geolocation. There are many platforms and systems that
advertise ``multi-sensor integration,'' but almost always the
different sensors are tasked independently or they do not or
cannot view the same piece of terrain at the same time. Blue
Devil is different: this QRC is designed to give ground forces
a new capability to detect, locate, identify, and track targets
seamlessly, building on concepts and practices pioneered by
special forces to tightly integrate sensors and pursuit
operations.
Blue Devil Block 2 is to build on Block 1 by providing much
greater persistence with a long-endurance airship, an advanced
WAAS camera with much wider field of view and increased
resolution, and much more flexible SIGINT capabilities by
moving from a ground-based architecture to a single sensor
suite on the airship.
The Air Force transferred responsibility for Blue Devil
recently to the Big Safari Program Office, which promptly
proposed wholesale changes to the program--an entirely
different platform, continued use of legacy WAAS cameras, and
different SIGINT sensors. The Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Task Force intervened to prevent most of these
changes, but the SIGINT situation remains muddled.
The committee is told that U.S. Central Command does not
require coverage of so-called high-band targets in Block 2,
even though that capability is deployed in Block 1 and
reportedly is the capability most relied on for successful HVT
prosecution. This inconsistency is compounded by the fact that
a high-band capability may again be a requirement for a second
phase of block 2. The precision geolocation system selected by
NSA and Big Safari cannot operate against high-band targets,
and indeed has not yet flown at all. In contrast, the system
originally planned for Block 2 has been operationally deployed
on other platforms, and can prosecute high-band targets. Yet,
NSA rated them as equivalent in maturity and performance.
Blue Devil Block 2, based on an airship platform, under the
original plans and schedule, would have been a natural stepping
stone from short-duration aircraft to long-endurance hybrid air
vehicles. The airship would have an endurance of 4-5 days, as
compared to, potentially, a month for the Long Endurance Multi-
Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) that the Army is acquiring.
However, the Army now plans to deploy the LEMV to Afghanistan
in the same timeframe as Blue Devil Block 2. Moreover, the Army
is now planning to rapidly equip LEMV, after it is first
demonstrated, with the same sensor systems that were originally
planned for Blue Devil Block 2.
These developments raise the question of the value of Blue
Devil Block 2. The sensor changes raise questions about how
effective and useful it will be, while progress in the LEMV
program raises the issue of whether Blue Devil Block 2 funds
would be better invested in LEMV program acceleration and
expansion. The committee directs the ISR Task Force to examine
these tradeoffs and advise the committee on the most rational
way ahead prior to conference on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Defense microelectronics strategy

Microelectronics components play a vital pervasive role
across the national defense enterprise. Despite the size of
this enterprise, the demand for defense microelectronics
represents less than 0.1 percent of global demand given the
large commercial market. However, the defense community has
unique requirements for microelectronics components such as
radiation-hardened, space-qualified components, or trusted
systems. Furthermore, many aging defense systems require
microelectronics components that are obsolete and no longer
commercially available. Balancing the requirements for high
performance defense-unique microelectronics, with the cost
savings of commercial products, requires a long-term
strategicplan on how the Department of Defense will manage its
microelectronics supply chain.
Recognizing these challenges, Congress has expressed
interest in the status of the defense microelectronics industry
over the years, but has focused on individual components such
as printed circuit boards, or the importance of trusted
systems. What has been lacking has been a more comprehensive,
strategic view encompassing all elements of the
microelectronics sector.
The committee understands that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering is developing a more
comprehensive strategy and plans to secure the microelectronics
supply chain for components including resilient advanced
microprocessors, application-specific integrated circuits,
field programmable gate arrays, printed circuit boards,
photonics devices, and other related electronics components for
the next-generation of military and intelligence systems.
Furthermore, the committee understands that the scope of this
strategy will address the full spectrum of the supply chain
including design, mask development and inspection, fabrication,
packaging and assembly, and testing. The committee looks
forward to the Department briefing the congressional defense
committees on this strategy by September 30, 2011.

Department of Defense space science and technology strategy

The committee has been a strong supporter of the Department
of Defense's space science and technology (S&T) activities to
ensure that advanced technologies are developed and inserted
into future space capabilities to keep our technological edge
in today's contested space environment and to continue to
provide improved global services and capabilities for the
warfighter. However, given the broad scope of these space S&T
activities and the large number of organizations across the
Department involved, the committee has repeatedly asked for a
space S&T strategy that would serve as an overarching strategic
framework to guide, focus, and coordinate these activities, as
well as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. To date,
the Department has developed two space S&T strategies at the
direction of Congress--one in 2004, and the most recent in
2011. The first did not appear to have any enduring impact on
the coordination and execution of the Department's space S&T
activities because it was not institutionalized and accepted by
all the various stakeholders and there did not appear to be any
formal tie to the development and resourcing of programs within
the executing services and agencies.
The committee remains concerned about the Department's
state of planning and coordination of space S&T and is
disappointed in the most recent strategy because it does not
provide a clear picture on how it will be implemented.
Furthermore the strategy should guide the development of a more
detailed roadmap or plan that will be periodically updated
where the goals are quantified, to the extent possible, so that
the department can assess how well it is following its
strategy. The committee expects that any S&T strategy at the
departmental level serve as an overarching guide to most or all
of the S&T activities related to that topic. Furthermore, the
committee expects the Executive Agent for Space and the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to
use this strategy in their appropriate roles of providing
oversight and guidance to the services and relevant defense
agencies.
The committee notes that unlike its space S&T activities,
the Department's aeronautics S&T activities are significantly
better coordinated by a National Aeronautics Research and
Development (R&D) Plan that the Department has a key role in
updating every 2 years. Furthermore, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering uses this Plan as guidance
to develop a more specific R&D capabilities-based plan in
coordination with the services and related defense agencies who
use these overarching plans to help guide their specific
related programs. The committee hopes that the Department takes
lessons learned from its aeronautics community and applies them
to the space S&T community. Without taking stronger
coordinating and long-term strategic actions on space S&T, the
committee is concerned that a fundamental goal of the new
National Security Space Strategy of ``providing improved U.S.
space capabilities'' will not be sufficiently met.

Global Hawk communications system re-architecture

The budget request included $423.5 million in PE 35220F for
development of the Global Hawk unmanned aerial system. The Air
Force plans to initiate the communications system re-
architecture (CSRA) in fiscal year 2012.
The committee has serious concerns about the original plans
for the CSRA, which consisted of two phases for the upgrade of
the beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) satellite communications
(SATCOM) subsystem that would not be common with the Navy's
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system. The Air Force
has maintained that the components of the Navy's BLOS SATCOM
solution would not meet Air Force requirements for data rates
and processing capacity margins.
There is strong evidence that the BAMS modem, power
amplifier, and radome components can with minor modifications
meet the Air Force data rate requirement and the Air Force
requirement for Ku-band instead of the Navy requirements for X-
band. The requirement that the Air Force has put forward for
the High Data Rate Airborne Terminal for reserve processing
capacity is not required for Global Hawk and for that matter
does not appear to be required for the airborne portion of any
future SATCOM terminal. The higher level of processing capacity
might be needed in the future for error correction on the
ground, where the processing of large volumes of collected data
would take place, but not on the aircraft side.
Using and modifying the BAMS BLOS SATCOM for the Global
Hawk CSRA is consistent with the Navy-Air Force agreement to
promote maximum commonality between the two programs; would
enable the Air Force to achieve its objective Global Hawk
capabilities much faster, and would save hundreds of millions
of dollars.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force
are almost finished with an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) on
this issue. It appears that the AoA will recommend collapsing
the two phases of the Global Hawk CSRA into one, and the use of
BAMS SATCOM terminal components to meet the Global Hawk
requirement. If the AoA outcome differs significantly from this
expectation, the committee will revisit this issue in
conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012.

High Performance Computing Modernization Program

In the fiscal year 2012 budget request, the Department of
Defense transferred the High Performance Computing
Modernization Program from the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering to the Army. While the Department
did not provide a good justification for this move, the
committee will allow the transfer. However, the committee is
concerned about the long-term viability of the program and
wants to ensure that the program is adequately resourced and
remains joint in planning and execution and that users' needs
are met across the services and defense agencies, as well as
ensuring that classified computing requirements are satisfied.
High performance computing is becoming increasingly critical as
modeling and simulation of systems or phenomenology with
complex multi-disciplinary scientific and technical approaches
is required. The committee will watch carefully the transfer
and execution of this program under the Army to see if this was
a beneficial action on behalf of the broader Departmental
research, development, test, and evaluation community.

Joint Trauma Analysis and Prevention of Injury in Combat Program

The committee has been a strong supporter of the Department
of Defense's research activities to better understand, prevent,
and treat blast injuries. In addition, the committee
appreciates the complex multi-disciplinary nature of this
research that spans the medical, engineering, physical
sciences, and operational communities and urges the Department
of Defense to continue to strengthen closer collaboration at
all levels between these communities. The Joint Trauma Analysis
and Prevention of Injury in Combat (JTAPIC) Program provides an
example of the close collaboration that is necessary for data
collection, analysis, and dissemination of information to
customers ranging from service materiel developers and testers
to Surgeons General to the communities responsible for
doctrine, and changes to tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The committee encourages the Department to continue to
support this activity that takes a systems approach to
mitigating the effects from combat threats. Furthermore, the
committee urges the Department to ensure that resources are
available to improve the quality and timeliness of forensic
data collection efforts on the battlefield that will ultimately
aid in advancements in protection of mounted and dismounted
soldiers.

Lease of Blue Devil Block 1 aircraft

The Air Force recently deployed the first Block of the Blue
Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
aircraft program to Afghanistan. Block 1 is based on
modifications and enhancements to the sensor package on the
Angel Fire ISR aircraft that were first employed in support of
Marine Corps operations in Iraq. The Air Force is
operatingthese aircraft under a 5-year lease that is due to expire in
September, 2013. As noted elsewhere in this report, so far, the Blue
Devil Block 1 system has performed very well in Afghanistan. These
successful operations are causing the Air Force to focus on the very
real possibility that theater commanders will want to sustain the Block
1 deployment past the lease expiration date.
Under the terms of section 2401 of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary of the Air Force cannot extend or renew the
lease under existing law without specific authorization. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and with the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, to
determine whether the Air Force will need to sustain Blue Devil
Block 1 capability past September, 2013, in order to meet the
operational requirements of forward deployed forces. If the
Secretary determines there is a need, he should promptly: (1)
develop a leasing plan, in accordance with section 2401 of
title 10, United States Code, for the Blue Devil program; or
(2) develop an acquisition program to provide that capability.

Medical Countermeasures Initiative

The budget request included $214.0 million in a variety of
defense-wide research and development budget lines for the
Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI). This initiative is
intended to advance significantly the development and
manufacturing of biodefense countermeasures, including vaccines
and therapeutics.
This initiative is a logical and valuable progression from
the earlier Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative,
supported by the Chemical and Biological Defense Program and
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in which the
Department explored the scientific advances, processes, and
technologies available to develop biodefense countermeasures
far more quickly, flexibly, and affordably than has been the
case in the past. These goals are driven by the increased risks
of biological threats, including genetically engineered
threats, potential terrorist threats, and naturally occurring
disease outbreaks like pandemic influenza.
The committee notes that this initiative is a coordinated
and collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated
national strategy and guidance documents, and involves close
cooperation between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Health and Human Services. The committee observes
that such close interagency coordination and collaboration is a
relatively new phenomenon, one encouraged by Congress over the
past decade. The committee commends the administration for
focusing on this issue and making interagency coordination a
high priority.
The MCMI program is intended to establish an advanced
development and manufacturing facility, in partnership--and on
a cost-shared basis--with industry and academia. The Department
will not own the facility, which will ensure this approach is
more cost-effective and efficient than would otherwise be the
case.
The committee observes that section 1601 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) required the Secretary of Defense to ``carry out a program
to accelerate the research, development and procurement of
biomedical countermeasures, including but not limited to
therapeutics and vaccines, for the protection of the Armed
Forces . . .''. The committee believes the MCMI program is an
appropriate and welcome effort to meet these important
objectives.

Medium-range vertical lift unmanned aerial systems

In unveiling the results of his efficiency initiative, the
Secretary of Defense announced that the Navy and Army would use
some of the efficiency savings to fund new medium range
vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) unmanned aerial systems
(UAS) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).
Roughly speaking, ``medium range'' translates to Predator-class
performance in terms of range and payload. This common
performance benchmark alone begs the question of commonality
between the Army and Navy, which led the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to mandate an Analysis of Alternatives
that would examine the degree of overlap between the services
in requirements and technical solutions.
This evaluation is taking place against a backdrop of (1)
concerns about the state of rotorcraft technology, performance,
and investment across the Defense Department, (2) growing
budget pressures that will limit the Department's ability to
invest in new development programs, and (3) the desires of the
Navy and Army for significant near-term VTOL UAS acquisitions
based on available systems and technology.
The Army aviation community's priorities appear to be on
the Joint Multi-Role aircraft and the armed, manned helicopter
reconnaissance mission. The Army Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence represents the Army community that has the chief
interest in a VTOL UAS, based on the positive experience with
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency-developed A160
Hummingbird in the wake of the cancelation of the Army Fire
Scout program.
The Army is offering little if any technology funding for
an altogether new medium-range VTOL UAS, and appears to be
seeking a solution for its requirement that is based on
existing platforms and technology.
The Navy is interested in a substantial investment in
technology and engineering development for a new medium-range
VTOL UAS for operations from ships. This need is connected to
the decision to retire the EP-3 and Special Projects Aircraft
fleets and replace them with a variety of sea-based systems.
However, the Navy's technology investment priorities appear to
lie in the areas of avionics, and platform handling and command
and control, rather than in rotorcraft platform technology.
Yet, the latter is precisely the area that the Defense
Department emphasized as most in need of investment and
innovation in the Future Vertical Lift study provided to
Congress in 2010. That report reinforced the widespread view
that the Department must not continue to invest in incremental
improvements to rotorcraft whose basic airframe designs are now
decades old and which inherently limit safety and performance.
The analogy that is often made is that while we are now working
on 5th-generation fixed-wing fighters, we are stuck on 2nd
generation rotorcraft.
Also, the Navy, like the Army, is unhappy with the
performance of the Fire Scout helicopter, in terms of basic
range and payload. The Special Forces have an immediate need
for a sea-based VTOL ISR and precision strike capability that
exceeds what Fire Scout can provide. The Navy would like to
solve its Fire Scout problem and meet this Special Forces need
by substituting a different, larger helicopter for the
Schweizer MQ-8B. However, this course is estimated to require
more than the 2 years normally allowed for Quick-Reaction
Capability acquisitions for urgent operational needs.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to
develop an integrated strategy for medium-range vertical
takeoff and landing (VTOL) unmanned aerial systems. This
strategy shall be integrated with the Department's strategy for
future vertical lift science and technology investment and
modernization to achieve substantial gains in rotorcraft
performance and safety across all categories of rotorcraft
platforms and missions. The strategy shall also take into
account the Navy's and Army's near-term VTOL UAS acquisition
plans to determine whether the funds required for these
initiatives would be better spent on the objective VTOL MRUAS.
The committee directs that this strategy be developed in time
to be reflected in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.

Nanotechnology research

The Department of Defense (DOD) is one of 25 federal
agencies that are part of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) that was launched in 2001. The goals of the
NNI are to: advance a world-class nanotechnology research and
development (R&D) program; foster the transfer of new
technologies into products for commercial and public benefit;
develop and sustain educational resources, a skilled workforce,
and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance
nanotechnology; and support responsible development of
nanotechnology. As a participant in the NNI, DOD leverages its
own and other federal investments, primarily in basic research,
to discover and exploit unique properties of materials at the
nanoscale to enable new applications enhancing future weapon
systems capabilities.
Given the broad applicability of nanotechnologies to
important areas such as power and energy, electronics and
sensors, and advanced materials and coatings, the committee
seeks to ensure that the DOD is engaging with as broad a
research community as possible to maximize its access to
innovative ideas and products. Hence, the committee directs the
Department to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act reviewing
its sources of nanotechnology research and engineering for
defense purposes. Furthermore, the briefing should address
whether these sources are adequate to ensure that the
Department has sufficient scientific and technical access
across the spectrumof nanotechnology R&D from emerging basic
research to applied manufacturing techniques for its purposes, and if
not, what steps are needed to address any deficiencies identified.

Navy manned reconnaissance

The budget request included no funds for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in PE 35207N for the
EP-3 and Special Projects Aircraft (SPA). The planned RDT&E
investment in these aircraft in the future years of the budget
is very modest--around $13.0 million annually. The Navy's
fiscal year 2012 budget request documentation also indicates
that the Navy is planning to consolidate EP-3 and SPA
squadrons, reduce the number of aircraft in each fleet, and
substantially reduce the number of personnel assigned to
support and operate these reconnaissance aircraft.
These decisions come immediately after Congress felt
compelled, in legislation, to prohibit the Navy from retiring
these aircraft, and to ensure that they are upgraded to keep
pace with the requirements of the combatant commands, until
such time as the Navy has deployed replacement capabilities
that, in the aggregate, meet or exceed the capabilities of the
EP-3 and SPA systems. An annual certification is required by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The committee is waiting for the first certification under
the law, and is aware of concerns that the reduced fleet size
and personnel reductions will in fact result in reduced support
for the combatant commands over the next decade--precisely what
the law was intended to prevent. The planned level of RDT&E
investment in these aircraft also raises doubts that they will
be kept current with new threats. The Navy has new plans for
what will eventually replace the EP-3 and SPA aircraft, but the
main components are many years away.
The committee reserves judgment on the Navy's requested
funding level and programmatic actions for fiscal year 2012
until it has received and reviewed the certification required
by the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). The committee notes that
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Resolution
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10) provided $49.0
million for research and development for the EP-3 and SPA
systems in addition to the original budget request. Coming late
in the fiscal year, these funds should help compensate for any
deficiencies in support that may be identified in the
forthcoming certification.

Navy open architecture

The Navy has been on a path to transition surface ship
systems to an open business model, commonly referred to as Open
Architecture (OA), for approximately 9 years. The goal of
employing OA systems is to bring to bear competition and
innovation to achieve improved performance and affordability
through use of modular designs, allowing public access to
design specifications, reusing software code, mandating common
interface standards, and achieving seamless interoperability
between system hardware and software applications. The budget
request includes funds in various accounts to install the next
version of the Aegis combat systems software and hardware in a
version called Advanced Capability Build 2012, or ACB 12. This
configuration will form a single OA computer program baseline
for use in all of the Navy's Aegis-equipped ships.
The Navy should be commended for the progress it has made
in the past 3 years toward achieving an open business model for
its ship combat systems.
The committee understands that, despite the Navy's
progress, there is at least one other step the Navy could take
that could foster greater contributions from a wide set of
sources.
The Navy currently maintains a repository that serves as a
software ``library'' that contains software provided by
industry for industry and government reuse. A process is in
place that allows companies and other government entities to
check out and verify software programs against new technology.
The committee understands that, while this is a great step
forward, the current process may be somewhat opaque to some.
The committee has heard complaints that: (1) the process is
often cumbersome; (2) validation of software programs deposited
by the government is very difficult; (3) software programs
deposited may be incomplete or missing essential components
that would enable successful running of the program.
The committee believes the Navy should consider
establishing a more formal mechanism for facilitating
interaction with industry, academia, and other government
entities interested in participating in the Navy's program.
Local government entities have been using a concept of
establishing so-called ``innovation centers'' to foster such
cooperation.
An innovation center approach would house Navy open
architecture systems in use by the fleet today and would
provide an environment to speed up new technology development
and testing without compromising the Navy's essential test and
evaluation facilities in use for other programs. A Navy-led
laboratory facility with state-of-the-art software and hardware
could create an atmosphere where third parties could test and
evolve their software/hardware in an environment that is not
only sanctioned by the government but mirrors the combat
systems operating environment on naval ships. Third parties,
particularly those without substantial corporate knowledge or
resources, could gain from the exposure to integrators who
would also be working in the facility. The committee believes
that this could lead to more rapid introduction of innovative
technology into the fleet.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
a report to the congressional defense committees on the
advisability of developing such an innovation center to support
the Navy's OA roadmap. The Secretary should provide this report
with submission of the fiscal year 2013 budget.

Paladin Integration Management

The budget request includes $120.1 million in PE 64854A for
the Paladin Integration Management (PIM) program. The M109A6
Paladin self-propelled howitzer is the 6th version of this
artillery weapon system originally designed in the 1950s and
first produced in the 1960s. Paladin is the primary artillery
system in the Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT), and the
Army's only self-propelled howitzer system. The new PIM
howitzer significantly upgrades the combat-proven M109A6
Paladin's reliability, maintainability, performance,
responsiveness, and lethality. PIM also takes advantage of
commonality, and therefore ownership cost savings, with the
family of Bradley fighting vehicles.
In the Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111-35)
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
the committee noted that the PIM program was the Army's only
howitzer modernization effort after cancelation of the Future
Combat Systems' Non-Line of Sight Cannon program. The Army
responded by making PIM a priority, revised the PIM acquisition
strategy and schedule, and requested above threshold
reprogramming authority to realign funds to meet PIM
shortfalls. In January 2011, Congress approved the
reprogramming of $76.3 million to support continued PIM
development, integration, and government developmental testing,
as well as to maintain the planned test schedule.
The committee understands that following earlier
programmatic challenges, the effort is now proceeding to plan,
with formal Army developmental tests underway. The prior year
funds approved by Congress for reprogramming to the PIM
program, plus funds requested by the Army for fiscal year 2012,
are all required to ensure the cost, performance, and schedule
stability of the PIM program. Accordingly, the committee
supports the full funding of the program as requested. The
committee supports the Army's position on PIM as a critical
modernization program, and directs the Secretary of the Army to
regularly inform the congressional defense committees on the
program's progress.

Surface ship torpedo defense

The Navy has been developing an anti-torpedo torpedo
defense system (ATTDS) within the surface ship torpedo defense
program. The ATTDS consist of a torpedo warning system (TWS)
and a countermeasures anti-torpedo (CAT). Last year, the Navy
was planning to field the ATTDS with the combined capability of
the TWS and the CAT, with an initial operating capability (IOC)
in fiscal year 2015, beginning with cruisers and destroyers.
Since last year, the Navy has bifurcated and delayed the
program and now intends to do the two subcomponents of the
ATTDS system separately. The Navy would achieve an IOC for the
TWS in fiscal year 2017 and for the CAT in fiscal year 2021.
The committee understands that the Navy is seeking to field
some prototype versions of the TWS and the CAT in 2015 on
different ships, but those prototypes would not have the
benefit of testing or a robust logistics support system. The
committee also understands that this delay is not due to
technical issues, but merely reflects a lower funding priority
for this program in fiscal year 2013 and beyond.
This lower funding priority and resultant delay in fielding
full capability is at odds with testimony the committee
receivedabout the importance to war fighting capability of
fielding a full ATTDS system as soon as possible.
The committee encourages the Navy to review this decision
and, if the combined ATTDS system is as important as the
testimony to the committee indicated it was, reallocate funds
to support the original IOC dates in its fiscal year 2013
budget request.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Operation and Maintenance Funding (sec. 301)
The committee recommends a provision that 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

Modification of energy performance goals (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2922(e) of title 10, United States Code, to establish a
clear and effective trajectory to meet the long-term goal
regarding the use of renewable energy to meet facility energy
needs for the Department of Defense.
The committee also recommends a provision that would
include direct use solar technology to the existing list of
energy efficient products in facilities, which the committee
believes will better assist the Department of Defense in
reducing utility costs. Currently, direct use solar technology
is being used on various military installations but is not
included as an energy efficient product.
Streamlined annual report on the Defense Environmental Programs (sec.
312)
The committee recommends a provision that would streamline
the reporting requirement on the Defense Department's
environmental programs. Currently, section 2706 of title 10,
United States Code, contains reporting requirements that form
the basis of the Defense Department's Annual Report to Congress
on the Defense Environmental Programs.
The committee believes that the level of detail required by
section 2706 is no longer warranted and that the report has
become costly and unduly burdensome. The annual report to
Congress on the defense environmental programs has grown to
over 1,000 pages and the Defense Department estimates that the
fiscal year 2010 report cost about $1.4 million to prepare. The
Defense Department's reporting has expanded beyond the
statutory requirement and the Department has added detail and
data, such as that found in Appendix C (Installation
Restoration Program and Military Munitions Response Program
Status Tables) and Appendix D (Environmental Restoration
Narratives), which were not envisioned by the requirements set
forth in section 2706. Certain information contained in the
annual report, however, continues to be of value to Congress in
the exercise of its oversight responsibility regarding the
Department's annual environmental programs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends modifications to the
reporting requirement which are designed to substantially
shorten and streamline the annual report so that the
information submitted to Congress reflects the evolution and
maturity of the defense environmental programs while still
providing targeted information that is important to a solid
understanding of the progress, funding requirements, and trends
in this major defense program.
Also, the committee recommends repealing the existing
reporting requirements contained in section 2706 of title 10,
United States Code. A provision to that effect is included in a
separate title of this bill.
Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated Penalties in
connection with Jackson Park Housing Complex, Washington (sec.
313)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer not more than $45,000.00
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Jackson Park Housing
Complex special account for the payment of a stipulated penalty
assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency on October 7,
2009, against the Jackson Park Housing Complex for the failure
of the Navy to submit a draft Final Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for the Jackson Park Housing Complex Operable
Unit in accordance with the requirements of the applicable
interagency agreement.
Requirements relating to Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry investigation of exposure to drinking water
containment at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (sec. 314)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds for the final adjudication of claims filed
regarding water contamination at Camp Lejeune. It would also
require the Secretary of the Navy to report to the
congressional defense committees when disputes arising between
the Navy and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) cannot be resolved within 60 days of the
dispute arising, and require the Navy to make every effort to
coordinate with ATSDR on matters to be released to the public.
Discharge of wastes at sea generated by ships of the armed forces (sec.
315)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, section 1902 of title 33,
United States Code, and set discharge standards for U.S. Navy
and U.S. Coast Guard vessels operating at sea.
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) implements
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
for Ships (MARPOL). The proposed amendment would codify Navy
practices and ensure that discharge standards in the open ocean
are consistent with the standards authorized through APPS for
environmentally-sensitive special areas, as designated by
MARPOL.
It is imperative that the Navy and Coast Guard continue to
look for ways to enhance their ability to manage solid waste at
sea and to limit discharges to the greatest extent feasible. To
this end, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
continue efforts to improve shipboard solid waste management,
to assess commercially-available equipment through programs
like the Technology Identification and Assessment Process, and
to consider new technologies to further reduce the discharge of
solid waste from ships and submarines. The committee urges the
Navy to provide information and assistance to the U.S. Coast
Guard on any such developments.

Subtitle C--Work Place and Depot Issues

Minimum capital investment for certain depots (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
investment funds included in the capital budget of a depot go
directly to modernize or improve efficiency of depot facilities
equipment, work environment, or processes in direct support of
depot operations. The provision clarifies that the capital
investment program does not include funds spent to repair,
maintain, or sustain existing facilities, infrastructure, or
equipment. The provision would also expand the definition of
covered depot by the capital investment program to include
ammunition plants.
Limitation on revising the definition of depot-level maintenance (sec.
322)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from making revisions to the
definition of depot-level maintenance unless the Secretary of
Defense submits a report prepared by the Defense Business Board
taking into consideration the total industrial capacity of
organic depots and private sector industry, and establishing
additional transparency and accountability in the development
of the core workload requirements, and in the allocation of
workload under the requirements in section 2466 of title 10,
United States Code.
Designation of military industrial facilities as centers of industrial
and technical excellence (sec. 323)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2474(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the inclusion of all military industrial facilities
in the authority to designate Centers of Industrial and
Technical Excellence (CITE). The committee believes expanded
CITE designation authority will significantly improve the
Department of Defense's core competencies and allow military
industrialfacilities to more effectively and efficiently enter
into public private partnerships that better align with the core repair
and manufacturing functions than the majority of current public private
partnerships under the Arsenal Support Program Initiative.

Report on depot level maintenance and recapitalization of certain parts
and equipment (sec. 324)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Director of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), in consultation
with the military departments, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees, on the status of the DLA
Joint Logistics Operations Center's drawdown, retrograde, and
reset program for the equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the status of the overall supply chain management of depot
level activities.

Subtitle D--Reports

Study on Air Force test and training range infrastructure (sec. 331)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a study on the ability of
the major air test and training range infrastructure to support
the full spectrum of Air Force operations. The Secretary shall
incorporate the results of the study into a master plan for
requirements and proposed investments to meet Air Force
training and test needs through 2025.

Study on training range infrastructure for special operations forces
(sec. 332)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Commander of the United States Special Operations Command to
conduct a study on the ability of existing training ranges used
by special operations forces to support the full spectrum of
missions and operations. The committee notes that the study
will be conducted in consultation with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the secretaries of
the military departments.
The Commander of United States Special Operations Command
testified in March 2011:

``The shortage of readily available, local ranges
currently hampers special operations forces' ability to
meet deployment training timelines and causes our
operators to `travel to train,' further increasing
their already excessive time away from home.''

Guidance to establish non-tactical wheeled vehicle and equipment
service life extension programs to achieve cost savings (sec.
333)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a survey of the quantity and
condition of non-tactical wheeled vehicles and base-level
commercial equipment in the fleet of the military departments
and report to Congress on the advisability of establishing
service life extension programs for such classes of vehicles.

Modified deadline for annual report on budget shortfalls for
implementation of operational energy strategy (sec. 334)

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense, that would amend the date on which the
budget certification is delivered to Congress from the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy
Plans and Programs. The current submission deadline is 10 days
after the President's budget request arrives and this provision
would change the deadline to March 31 each year, which is
consistent with other Department of Defense entities that have
budget certification authority, such as the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Extension of authority for Army industrial facilities to enter into
cooperative agreements with non-Army entities (sec. 341)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4544 of title 10, United States Code, to significantly
increase the number of cooperative arrangements that may be
entered into with non-Army entities. The provision would also
extend the expiration date of such authority from 2014 to 2025.

Working-capital fund accounting (sec. 342)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2208(k) of title 10, United States Code, to align the
two separate dollar thresholds for procurement of capital
assets. The committee notes that the Department of Defense
currently has to track and depreciate items that are bought
outside the capital asset program, resulting in two sets of
financial records for accounting and budgeting purposes. The
committee believes these efforts to be duplicative and
impractical.

Commercial sale of small arms ammunition and small arms ammunition
components in excess of military requirements, and fired
cartridge cases (sec. 343)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 346 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to clarify that
the only cartridge cases subject to the provision are intact
expended small arms cartridge cases and that the provision does
not apply outside the continental United States or override
established Department of Defense (DOD) explosives safety or
trade security controls.
The Department would be permitted to melt down and recycle
intact fired cartridge cases covered by the provision only if
they are in excess of commercial demands. DOD would be
responsible for assessing commercial demands for the purpose of
implementing this requirement; the committee understands that
the Department may choose to conduct market surveys or studies
to assess commercial demands for this purpose.

Authority to accept contributions of funds to study options for
mitigating adverse effects of proposed obstructions on military
installations (sec. 344)

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense, that would make a technical amendment to
section 358(g) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to
clarify that contributions received under that provision from
developers remain available until expended. The purpose of such
voluntary contributions is to offset the cost of measures
undertaken by the Secretary of Defense to mitigate adverse
impacts on military operations, readiness, and the cost of
studying options for impact mitigation for projects that may
pose an obstruction to military installations.

Utility disruptions to military installations (sec. 345)

The committee recommends a provision that directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop guidance for commanders of
military installations inside the United States on planning
measures to minimize the effects in the event of a disruption
of services by a utility that sells natural gas, water, or
electric energy to a military installation in the United
States.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense needs to develop appropriate action plans for military
installations in the event of unforeseen circumstances. The
committee also directs the Government Accountability Office to
review the Department's actions no later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

Budget Items

Army funding decrease for unjustified growth

The budget request included $34.7 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for Other
Service Support. The committee is concerned that the Army could
not provide detailed justification for funding growth within
two subactivity group accounts, Joint Department of Defense
Support and Public Affairs Strategic Communications, contained
in the Other Service Support within the fiscal year 2012 budget
request.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million in OMA, in Other Service Support for unjustified
program growth in Joint Department of Defense Support and a
decrease of $5.0 million in OMA, in Other Service Support for
unjustified program growth in Public Affairs Strategic
Communications.

Reduction in funding for contract services

The budget request included $70.5 billion in base budget
operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for contract services.
Overall, the Department's Fiscal Year 2009 Inventory
ofContracts for Services indicates that the Department is now spending
more than $150.0 billion a year for contract services in its base
budget--more than double the $72.0 billion obligated by the Department
for contract services in fiscal year 2000. The Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics testified in
September 2010:

``I just tell you, the low-hanging fruit really is
[in contract services]. There's a lot of money. There
has been a very, very high rate of growth over the last
decade, in services. They have grown faster than
everything else. . . . So, there's a lot we can do.

* * * * * * *

``I think great savings can be had there, across the
Services' spend. It's essential that we look there,
because that's half the money.''

The proposed fiscal year 2012 base budget O&M funding level
represents a growth of $7.5 billion over fiscal year 2010 base
budget O&M funding levels for contract services. While a
substantial share of this growth is attributable to the
transfer of equipment maintenance funding from overseas
contingency operations to the base budget, O&M funding for
contract services other than equipment maintenance has grown by
$1.1 billion since fiscal year 2010. At a time when the
Department is seeking efficiencies in every area of its
operations, a continued increase in funding for contract
services--above funding levels already bloated by a decade of
unconstrained growth--cannot be justified.
Accordingly, the committee recommends that amounts
available for contract services in the base budget O&M accounts
be reduced by $1.1 billion, to return such funding to the
fiscal year 2010 level (adjusted for net transfers of functions
previously funded with amounts available for overseas
contingency operations), with the reduction distributed as
follows:
O&M, Navy Active: -$122.8 million
O&M, Army Active: -$121.7 million
O&M, Air Force Active: -$144.2 million
O&M, Defense-Wide: -$694.8 million
The committee expects the Department to achieve these
savings by: (1) fully implementing the management structure
required by section 2330 of title 10, United States Code, and
the processes for identifying, reviewing, and validating
requirements pursuant to section 863 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383); (2) terminating or narrowing the scope of
contracts and task orders to eliminate the purchase of lower
priority services; (3) negotiating lower labor rates and
overhead rates in contracts and task orders; (4) eliminating
contracts and task orders for the performance of inherently
governmental functions and reducing the scope of contracts and
task orders for functions closely related to inherently
governmental functions; and (5) implementing the improved
purchasing practices directed in the ``Better Buying Power''
initiative developed by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee notes
that the Air Force, which has been more aggressive than the
other military departments in implementing the management
structure required by section 2330, conducted a disciplined
review of $5.6 billion of service contracts over the last year
and identified $1.4 billion of expected savings over the next 8
years. The committee expects the Army and the Navy to develop
management structures and review processes similar to those
adopted by the Air Force, and to be equally aggressive in
identifying and pursuing potential savings.

Reduction in funding for Department of Defense business systems

The budget request included $4.6 billion to maintain
current services for more than 1,500 business systems across
the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD's maze of hundreds of
overlapping and ill-coordinated business systems is not only
expensive to maintain, it has also impeded the Department's
progress toward an effective business systems architecture that
can produce accurate and timely information to support
management decisions. The reluctance of many DOD officials to
adapt to new business processes and systems has forced the
Department to develop costly interfaces and work-arounds to
link outdated and unnecessary systems into the new
architecture.
At a time when the federal budget is under increasing
strain and no area of federal funding can be off limits for
cuts, the Department cannot afford to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars to maintain obsolete business systems that
are no longer needed. For this reason, the committee recommends
a cut of $230.0 million, or 5 percent, distributed to the
Department's operation and maintenance (O&M) and working
capital fund (WCF) accounts for the operation and maintenance
of existing business systems as follows:
O&M, Air Force: -$26.2 million
O&M, Army: -$46.0 million
O&M, Navy: -$52.9 million
O&M, Marine Corps: -$5.7 million
O&M, Defense-Wide: -$27.6 million
WCF, Air Force: -$9.5 million
WCF, Army: -$9.6 million
WCF, Defense-Wide: -$52.6 million
The committee expects the Department to achieve these
savings by: (1) aggressively implementing the new approval
requirement for the operation and maintenance of existing
business systems, contained in section 1002 of the bill; and
(2) eliminating funding to maintain business systems that are
obsolete, no longer needed, or not a part of the objective
business systems architecture of the Department.

Management efficiencies in the military intelligence program

The budget request included a classified amount in base
budget operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for the
military intelligence program. In his August 9, 2010, speech on
the Department of Defense (DOD) efficiencies initiatives, the
Secretary of Defense stated:

``[S]ince September 11th, the U.S. government has
seen a proliferation of new intelligence organizations
and operations. . . . [I]n the defense arena, large and
well-staffed intelligence structures now exist in the
services, the defense agencies, the combatant commands,
and in the war theaters. . . . [W]e should not flinch
from eliminating unnecessary redundancy and directing
more resources to places where they are needed . . . .
We must also take further steps to end needless
duplication within the department's intelligence
community.''

On this basis, the Secretary directed that ``a zero-based
review of the department's intelligence missions,
organizations, relationships, and contracts.''
The zero-based review directed by the Secretary resulted in
a relatively narrow proposal to consolidate certain functions,
which is projected to result in $41.0 million in savings in the
Defense Intelligence Agency in fiscal year 2012. Any other
consolidations or reductions were deferred for possible
consideration in the fiscal year 2013 budget cycle. The
committee has been informed that the so-called ``zero-based
review'' did not even consider the feasibility of flattening
management structures or reducing manpower within intelligence
agencies, or the elimination or streamlining lower priority
functions within such agencies.
At a March 29, 2011, hearing of the Subcommittee on
Readiness and Management Support, the DOD Comptroller testified
that:

``Secretary Gates has said he was disappointed in the
review. . . . [W]e tried, and I don't think we've
gotten as far as we'd hoped. And I think it deserves
some continued effort. And I think if Secretary Gates
were here, he'd probably state it even more
forcefully.''

At a time when the Department is seeking efficiencies in
every area of its operations, a more serious review of the
Department's intelligence missions, organizations,
relationships, and contracts is required, consistent with the
objectives announced by the Secretary in his August 9, speech.
Accordingly, the committee recommends that amounts available
for the military intelligence program in the base budget O&M
accounts be reduced by a percentage commensurate with the
overall reductions achieved by the Secretary's efficiencies
initiatives in other areas, with the reduction distributed as
follows:
O&M, Navy Active: -$11.3 million
O&M, Army Active: -$29.9 million
O&M, Air Force Active: -$46.6 million
O&M, Defense-Wide: -$41.3 million
The committee expects the Department to achieve these
savings by: (1) accelerating the consideration of streamlining
initiatives currently contemplated for the fiscal year 2013
budget; (2) reviewing and flattening management structures and
reducing manpower requirements (including both government
personnel and contractor personnel) where feasible; and (3)
eliminating or streamlining lower priority functions.

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances

The budget request included $34.7 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $36.2 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $30.9 billion
forOperation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
The committee notes that the sustained challenges
associated with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have
created a difficult fiscal management situation, especially for
the Army and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense
continues to under-execute its Operation and Maintenance
appropriations. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
informed the committee that the average annual Operation and
Maintenance unobligated balances for fiscal years 2006-2010
were $1.1 billion for the Army, $247.6 million for the Navy,
$287.3 million for the Air Force, $86.7 million for the Marine
Corps, and $239.8 million for Defense-wide. These continued
excessive unobligated balances are not consistent with sound
stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
The committee concludes that with better financial
management, it should be possible to reduce the OMN, OMAF, and
OMDW accounts by 50 percent of the average unobligated balance
identified by the GAO without adverse effect. In light of the
fiscal management challenges faced by the Army and Marine Corps
as they bear the brunt of sustained ground combat operations in
Afghanistan, the committee concludes that a lower reduction of
25 percent of the average unobligated balance identified by the
GAO is appropriate in the case of the OMA and OMMC accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $275.0
million to OMA, a decrease of $21.6 million to OMMC, a decrease
of $123.8 million to OMN, a decrease of $143.7 million to OMAF,
and a decrease of $119.9 million to OMDW.

Reduction in non-dual status technician limitation

The amount authorized to be appropriated for Army National
Guard Operation and Maintenance includes the following change
from the budget request. The provision underlying this change
in funding is discussed in greater detail in title IV of this
committee report.

[Change in millions of dollars]

Reduction in non-dual status technician limitation...... -20.0

Operation and maintenance, Air Force administration and other
servicewide activities reduction

The budget request included $36.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.8 billion was for
Administration and Other Servicewide Activities.
The committee is concerned that the Air Force executed new
spending from their efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal year
2012 budget request and unlike the other military departments,
allotted more than half of its savings to increases in OMAF.
The committee recommends a decrease of $165.0 million in
OMAF for administration and a decrease of $104.0 million in
OMAF for other servicewide activities based on unjustified
growth.

Funding decrease for unexecuted museum

The budget request included $36.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.0 billion was for
Other Servicewide Activities. The committee has learned that
the Air Force budgeted $14.0 million in anticipation of
receiving a space shuttle for a museum, which did not occur.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.0
million in OMAF, in Other Servicewide Activities.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

The budget request included $682.8 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Of this amount, the request included
$500.0 million for the Global Train and Equip program to build
the capacity of foreign military forces to meet emerging
security threats. The requested amount for the Global Train and
Equip program would be $150.0 million in excess of the
program's currently authorized level for fiscal year 2012 of
$350.0 million under section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119
Stat. 3456), as most recently amended by section 1207 of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383).
As it has previously stated, the committee continues to
believe that the authority for the Global Train and Equip
program is primarily intended to address emerging needs to
build the capacity of foreign military forces, particularly
developing or other countries that otherwise would be unable to
build such capacity on their own, to conduct counterterrorism
operations. This authority is also intended to build the
capacity of foreign military forces to conduct stability
operations and special operations. The committee reiterates
that the section 1206 authority is not intended to duplicate or
substitute for other foreign military assistance authorities,
nor to sustain previous section 1206 programs over multiple
years.
In justifying its budget request for the Global Train and
Equip program, the Department emphasized the terrorism threat
emanating from the Arabian Peninsula. The committee has for
some time been deeply concerned about the growing threats to
U.S. interests and the Homeland emanating from Yemen and
Somalia. To address these specific threats, the committee would
provide two tailored train and equip authorities in separate
sections of title XII of this Act. The first would provide up
to $75.0 million to build the capacity of the Yemen Ministry of
Interior counter terrorism forces. The committee's concerns
regarding the uncertain political situation in Yemen are
addressed in another section of this report, and the committee
will continue to monitor developments closely. The second
provision would provide up to $75.0 million to build the
capacity of countries in East Africa that share a border with
Somalia and those nations participating in the African Union
Mission in Somalia.
The budget request also included $2.3 million for the
DSCA'S Security Cooperation Assessment Office (SCAO). The SCAO
is a new initiative by DSCA to gather, analyze, and assess the
impact of the Department's security cooperation programs and
initiatives. The committee believes such an assessment of
DSCA's programs is necessary and in a different section of this
report directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
conduct such an audit of DSCA's programs and develop
recommendations on how, if necessary, to improve DSCA's current
model.
Therefore the committee recommends a decrease of $152.3
million to OMDW for DSCA, consisting of a decrease of $150.0
million to the Global Train and Equip program and a decrease of
$2.3 million to the SCAO.

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request

The budget request included $81.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA), of which $33.0 million was for grant funding
to purchase items related to the relocation of Marines to Guam.
The committee has requested a reevaluation of the
relocation of Marines to Guam and is concerned that the funds
requested for OEA are therefore ahead of need. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a decrease of $33.0 million in OMDW for
the OEA.

Department of Defense Education Activity Operations and Maintenance
funding

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

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students. 25.0
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities........ 5.0
Total............................................... 30.0

Reimbursement for expenses deferred to fund foreign operations

The budget request included $170.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) for the Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee recommends an increase of $406.6 million in
O&M to the total amount provided to the DOD in section 4301 of
this bill to be used by the Secretary of Defense to reimburse
expenses deferred to fund foreign operations.

Items of Special Interest

Army energy security implementation strategy

The committee supports the Army's development of its Energy
Security Implementation Strategy which includes: reduced energy
consumption, increased energy efficiency across platforms and
facilities, increased use of new renewable and alternative
energy, assured access to sufficient energy supplies, and
reduced adverse impacts on the environment. However, the
committee notes that the Army needs to develop quantitative
targets and timelines for these goals such as have been
established by the other Services such as the Navy and Air
Force.
Furthermore, given the vulnerabilities of our extended
logistics supply lines in current global conflicts--as well as
possible future engagements, the committee urges the Army to
increase the pace and focus of its initiatives to develop,
test, field, and maintain operationally-effective and cost-
effective alternative fuels for its transportation systems that
are capable of increasing the Department of Defense's energy
independence and enhancing its capacity to displace petroleum-
based fuels for military applications on a continuing basis.

Civil Reserve Air Fleet transportation of military personnel, equipment
and supplies

The Commander, United States Transportation Command
(TRANSCOM), informed the committee that he was concerned about
the potential effects of a proposed rule by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in the Code of Federal
Regulations relating to issues of crew rest requirements for
non-scheduled airlines. This matter causes him concern because
he believes that an FAA rule in this area could negatively
affect Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) participants who carry
out many TRANSCOM missions supporting the military services.
The Commander of TRANSCOM pointed out that many military
support flights are short-notice, on-demand missions in
response to emergent requirements of developing situations,
such as the recent examples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Japan,
and Bahrain demonstrate. He expressed concern that the proposed
rule could add enormous administrative burdens to CRAF
participants, greatly reducing delivery velocity of personnel,
equipment, and supplies to the point of need, and constraining
the flexibility he needs to support of national security
requirements, without adding any real value in terms of safety.
The committee directs the Commander of TRANSCOM to provide
a report to the appropriate committees of Congress assessing:
(1) the potential effects of the proposed rulemaking; (2) why
TRANSCOM believes that application of a proposed rule to CRAF
participants would add little, if any, value in terms of
safety; (3) what steps TRANSCOM has taken to bring these
concerns to the attention of the FAA; (4) what response
TRANSCOM has received from the FAA regarding TRANSCOM's
concerns; and (5) what steps are available to TRANSCOM and
other government agencies who rely on CRAF support to mitigate
the effects of a potential FAA rule making.
In this section, the committee means to the term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' to include: (1) the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and (2) the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

Department of Defense decisions on in-sourcing of functions currently
performed by contractors

Section 2463 of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Department to implement procedures to ensure that consideration
is given to in-sourcing functions currently performed by
contractors, with a special focus on functions closely
associated with inherently governmental functions. Section 323
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) prohibits the Secretary
from establishing arbitrary goals or quotas for in-sourcing and
requires that any in-sourcing decision that is made on the
basis of costs use the costing methodology outlined in
Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-007, entitled ``Estimating
and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower
and Contactor Support.''
In April 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced a plan to
replace up to 30,000 contractor employees with civil servants
over a 5-year period. This in-sourcing initiative was designed
to achieve two objectives: (1) to reduce the Department's
reliance on contractors to perform critical functions, such as
the management of the acquisition system; and (2) to save money
by replacing contractors with less expensive civil servants.
The committee is aware of instances in which the military
departments appear to have moved forward with quota-driven in-
sourcing efforts arising out of this plan without clearly
demonstrated cost savings or other benefits to the Department.
In August 2010, the Secretary stated that he was not
satisfied with the savings achieved from the in-sourcing
initiative and announced a 3-year freeze on the size of the
Department's civilian workforce. Further, he determined that,
with some exceptions ``for critical areas such as the
acquisition workforce,'' no more full-time civilian positions
would be created to replace contractor employees after fiscal
year 2010.
The committee believes that the Department's hiring efforts
should focus on the acquisition workforce and other critical
capabilities needed by the Department. At a time when the
Department desperately needs to rebuild its in-house
capabilities in critical mission areas, the effort and expense
required to hire new civilian employees to replace contractor
employees should not be wasted on the conversion of routine
commercial functions that can readily be performed by
contractors at less expense. To the extent that the Department
chooses to continue other in-sourcing efforts initiated prior
to the Secretary's moratorium, or to initiate new cost-based
in-sourcing efforts, the committee expects such in-sourcing
efforts to be conducted in full compliance with the
requirements of section 323 and the costing methodology
required by DTM 09-007.

Department of Defense efficiencies initiative and critical workforce
capabilities

On May 8, 2010, the Secretary of Defense gave a speech at
the Eisenhower Library, in which he announced his intention of
reforming the business operations of the Pentagon in an effort
to root out duplication, waste, and excess spending. The
Secretary stated:

``The Defense Department must take a hard look at
every aspect of how it is organized, staffed, and
operated--indeed, every aspect of how it does business.
In each instance we must ask: First, is this respectful
of the American taxpayer at a time of economic and
fiscal duress? And second, is this activity or
arrangement the best use of limited dollars, given the
pressing needs to take care of our people, win the wars
we are in, and invest in the capabilities necessary to
deal with the most likely and lethal future threats?''

On August 9, 2010, the Secretary announced a number of
specific efficiencies measures that the Department would adopt,
including, among others, a 3-year freeze on civilian personnel
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the defense
agencies (later expanded to cover the military departments as
well) and a suspension of in-sourcing measures under which the
Department would replace contractors with government employees.
The committee supports the Secretary's objectives of
reducing ``duplication, overhead, and excess in the defense
enterprise'' and instilling ``a culture of savings and
restraint'' across the Department of Defense.
At the same time, however, the committee is cognizant of
the need to ensure that personnel ceilings and in-sourcing
restrictions included in the Secretary's efficiencies
initiatives do not undermine ongoing efforts to ensure that the
Department of Defense (DOD) has the capability it needs to
oversee the hundreds of billions of dollars it spends every
year on the acquisition of products and services, and to
perform other critical government functions.
DOD acquisition programs cost billions of dollars more than
they should--in significant part, because our acquisition
workforce was dramatically cut in the 1990s and no longer has
the capacity to perform its essential functions. Section 852 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181) established an Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund to help the Department of Defense address this
problem.
Over the last year, the Secretary of Defense has stated
that the Department must continue to rebuild its acquisition
workforce, even as it seeks efficiencies in other areas. When
he first announced his plans for a civilian workforce freeze
and a suspension of in-sourcing efforts on August 9, 2010, the
Secretary stated his intent to make an exception for ``critical
areas such as the acquisition workforce.'' The Deputy Secretary
of Defense reinforced this point at a September 2010, Senate
Committee on Armed Services hearing: ``The effort to seek
efficiencies in our civilian staff will not undercut the
ongoing process of adding contracting officers, system
engineers, and weapons testers in our acquisition system.''
The committee notes that the acquisition workforce includes
not only contracting officers and auditors, but also cost
estimators, systems engineers, developmental testers, and the
entire range of experts that DOD needs to ensure that it
acquires the right products at the best possible price, without
wasting taxpayer money. Moreover, there are other critical
capabilities--such as financial management and business systems
expertise--that the Department continues to need to ensure that
taxpayer money is spent wisely. In some cases, in-sourcing may
be the most effective tool to build needed in-house capability
to perform these critical functions.
The committee directs the Department to: (1) continue to
use the Acquisition Workforce Development Fund for its
statutory purpose of rebuilding the acquisition workforce; and
(2) ensurethat staffing levels for the acquisition workforce
and other critical functions are based on human capital planning and
other reasoned assessments designed to ensure that the Department has
the capabilities it needs, not on arbitrary ceilings or prohibitions
applied across the Department in an effort to achieve short-term
savings.

Department of Defense Inspector General report on Qarmat Ali

In 2003, U.S. service members, including members of the
National Guard, serving in Iraq were exposed to sodium
dichromate, a hazardous and carcinogenic chemical, at the
Qarmat Ali Water Injection Facility. Since then several members
of Congress have requested information regarding this issue. In
a letter to the Secretary of Defense, dated September 15, 2009,
this committee requested an evaluation of the adequacy and
timeliness of the Department's efforts to identify and contact
soldiers who were or may have been exposed to sodium dichromate
to determine if those soldiers were experiencing medical
problems related to the exposure and to ensure that they have
access to appropriate care. In that letter the committee also
asked the Secretary to identify any additional actions that may
be necessary and specify whether any require authorization or
funding from Congress. On September 17, 2010, the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense responded on
behalf of the Secretary and provided a report entitled,
``Exposure to Sodium Dichromate at Qarmat Ali in 2003: Part 1--
Evaluation of Efforts to Identify, Contact and Provide Access
to Care for Personnel.'' The response also explained that a
``second part of the review, which is based on a request
originating from seven of your colleagues on the United States
Senate Democratic Policy Committee to review the Army and
contractor actions taken at the Qarmat Ali facility in 2003''
was under way and that a draft report was expected to be issued
by the end of 2010. To date, this second report has not been
received.
The committee believes it is important to have a full
accounting of any environmental assessments performed by the
contractor prior to service members entering the site; an
assessment of the health risks associated with exposure to
hazardous chemicals at Qarmat Ali prior to site encapsulation;
and a better understanding of the site assessment by the
Defense Health Board.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to ensure that the second part of the review is completed
expeditiously and submitted to the congressional defense
committees within 60 days.

Energy metering and other energy efficiency technologies

The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to
maximize the use of emerging sustainable technologies, where
fiscally prudent, for electrical systems, including advanced
metering for electrical networks, distributed energy generation
systems, and high efficiency transformers that have the ability
to greatly reduce federal energy consumption.
As such, the committee is concerned that the DOD is not
effectively analyzing data gathered by installation energy
meters on its military installations. The committee remains
encouraged by the DOD's decision to make significant
investments with regard to installing energy meters to become
more energy efficient. However, the committee is concerned that
the lack of effective tracking measures and analytics leaves
the DOD unable to clearly determine reduced costs from energy
metering.
Accordingly, the committee directs the DOD to take
appropriate steps to analyze data gathered by energy meters in
an effective and efficient manner in accordance with section
8253 of title 42, United States Code.

Military commuter centers

Force structure changes, base realignment and closure,
community growth and off-base housing projects have resulted in
increased traffic congestion on local transportation systems
and on military installations. While military and civilian
personnel have the authority to take pro-active actions, many
bases and facilities inhabited by Department of Defense (DOD)
personnel lack a central office or designated official
responsible for providing individuals with the information and
resources to carpool, vanpool, or utilize mass transit.
Utilization of commuter options would decrease local traffic
congestion and decrease energy consumption, thereby working
towards energy efficiency goals of the military services.
The committee therefore encourages the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, in
conjunction with the Director of the Office of Economic
Adjustment, to take appropriate steps to promote the
utilization of carpools, van pools and mass transit options at
military installations and facilities with a substantial DOD
civilian or military presence and workforce. Such steps should
include, in appropriate cases, the designation of a central
office or designated official responsible for providing
information and resources needed to encourage the use of such
transportation options.

Net-Zero energy usage on military installations

The committee notes that on October 5, 2009, the President
signed Executive Order (EO) 13514, which set sustainability
goals for federal agencies to make improvements in their
environmental, energy, and economic performance. The EO
implemented high performance sustainable federal building
design, construction, operation and management, maintenance,
and deconstruction goals by ensuring that all new federal
buildings that enter the planning process are designed to
achieve zero-net-energy by 2030.
The committee notes that the EO defined a ``zero-net-energy
building'' as ``a building that is designed, constructed, and
operated to require a greatly reduced quantity of energy to
operate, meet the balance of energy needs from sources of
energy that do not produce greenhouse gases, and therefore
result in no net emissions of greenhouse gases and be
economically viable.''
In response to the EO, the Department of Defense (DOD)
announced in early 2011 a series of initiatives, including a
collaborative task force with the Department of Energy to study
Net Zero Energy Installation (NZEI) pilot sites for each
service. The Task Force NZEI defined a net zero facility as ``a
military installation that produces as much energy on or near
the installation, as it consumes in its buildings and
facilities (maximizing the use of renewable energy
resources).'' The intent of the study is to create a repeatable
template for installations to assess their potential for energy
conservation, renewable energy production, and improved energy
security.
The committee also notes that in April 2011, the Department
of the Army established goals that, as part of their overall
effort to conserve natural resources, net zero installations
will consume only as much energy or water as they produce and
eliminate solid waste to landfills. The Army identified six net
zero pilot installations in each of the energy, water, and
waste categories and two integrated installations striving
towards net zero by 2020.
The committee understands that the Department plans to
achieve these goals through a series of initiatives including
the use of energy savings performance contracts, utility
partnerships, utility energy savings contracts, privatization,
and the use of DOD appropriations. The committee supports these
goals and expects the Department to work to achieve them in a
cost-effective manner without undermining the operational
effectiveness of DOD facilities. The committee also notes that
the goal of 2020 is ambitious and requires the concerted effort
of key decision makers in the Department guided by some sort of
plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to submit to the congressional defense committees a
proposed investment plan not later that February 1, 2012, for
implementation of the Department of the Army's Net Zero pilot
programs. This plan shall include:
(1) A description of the Army's goals under all three
categories of the Net Zero pilot program, including
energy, water, and waste; and
(2) A plan for the funding and other resources
programmed to carry out the plan, and the timeline for
funding.

Program management of weapon systems in the sustain-
ment phase

The committee understands that the Air Force is considering
locating program management personnel for weapon systems in the
sustainment phase at Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command,
or another central location rather than at the Air Logistics
Centers where they are currently located. This appears to be
intended as a cost-saving measure designed to allow for a
reduction of billets across Air Force Materiel Command. The
committe is aware of concerns that the proposed relocation
could undermine a close working relationship between program
managers and depot maintainers that has been beneficial to the
Air Force.
For these reasons, the Committee directs the Air Force to
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than October
1, 2011, that includes the following: (1) an explanation of and
rationale for the Air Force's proposal for locating program
management personnel for weapon systems in the sustainment
phaseat Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command, or another
central location; (2) an assessment of the benefits to the government
from the proposed change, including any reduction in billets and the
expected savings that would result; and (3) an assessment of the cost
or risk to the government from the proposed change, including any
synergies and efficiencies that might be lost by separating these two
functions.

Protection of resources at Fort Huachuca, Arizona

The committee notes that a recent decision by the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona vacated a
Biological Opinion (BO) carried out in 2007 between the United
States Army and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), section
1536 of title 16, United States Code, to address the impacts of
the Army's proposed ongoing and future operations at Fort
Huachuca on the critical habitats of the Huachuca water umbel
and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. These endangered
species' habitats along the San Pedro River in Southern Arizona
may be affected indirectly by the Fort's pumping of groundwater
from the regional aquifer--the Sierra Vista sub-watershed--and
capture of San Pedro River discharge. As a result of the
court's ruling, the FWS must reinitiate and complete formal
consultation with the Army with respect to the impacts of the
Fort's ongoing and future military operations.
The committee notes that Fort Huachuca is home of the U.S.
Army Intelligence Center and the U.S. Army Network Enterprise
Technology Command/9th Army Signal Command. Libby Army Airfield
is located on post along with the Black Tower Unmanned Aerial
System training complex and associated air strips. These serve
as test and training sites for unmanned aerial systems from all
Services and other federal agencies. Fort Huachuca is a
critical national asset, primarily due to the capability
maintained in a series of electronic range complexes and the
associated first order survey test sites that offer an ideal,
quiet, electromagnetic open-air testing environment
unparalleled in the country for the U.S. military, other
federal agencies, and foreign partners. The Fort's topography,
climate, air space, and training ranges make it uniquely
capable to carry out critical operations, training, and testing
missions pertaining to command, control, and communications,
and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
The committee is concerned that, despite substantial
efforts and resources by the Department of the Army and Fort
Huachuca to reduce the impact of groundwater pumping over the
last 10 years, the court ruling may have a detrimental impact
on the ability of the Fort to balance collaboration with FWS on
the preservation of endangered species with the critical need
to meet current and future national security requirements. The
committee notes that a similar concern persists around the
country at other installations as military leaders manage the
need for adequate military training with requirements to comply
with protections contained in various acts for natural
resources and endangered species. The committee has supported
efforts by the Department of Defense to address these concerns
by implementing collaborative plans between federal agencies.
The committee expects that the direction from the court for FWS
and the Army to reinitiate and complete formal consultations
will result in an outcome that protects the Huachuca Water
Umbel and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, while also
preserving current missions and operations, as well as the
prerogative for future missions, at Fort Huachuca.
The committee notes that the court cited reliance by FWS on
mitigation measures ``that are not reasonably specific, nor
reasonably certain to occur.'' In particular, the court ruling
raised a concern that the FWS must ensure that the proposed
implementation measures in the BO refer to ``specific and
binding plans'' with a ``clear, definite commitment of
resources for future improvements'' subject to ``deadlines or
otherwise-enforceable obligations to implement measures in a
way that satisfies the jeopardy.'' The committee notes that the
Secretary of the Army, within certain constraints, has the
ability to provide that plan to FWS.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide to this committee no later than December 31, 2011, a
plan of specific projects or initiatives with a funding
strategy for future improvements, and the deadlines for those
improvements at Fort Huachuca and other similar facilities,
that will be required to satisfy commitments, consistent with
regional plans included in the BO for the preservation of the
Huachuca Water Umbel and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and
their critical habitats.

Readiness support for Navy unfunded requirements

The committee remains concerned that as a result of almost
a decade of combat operations and high operations tempo, a 1-
year backlog of deferred ship and aircraft depot maintenance
remain unexecuted by the Navy. The committee notes that a
failure to address this backlog for active and reserve ships
and aircraft will continue to jeopardize and erode materiel
readiness, further reduce the service life of the fleet,
increase long-term sustainment costs, and further increase
strategic risk for the Nation.
Despite this backlog, the Navy continues to underfund
critical readiness accounts. As a result, the unfunded
requirements list prepared by the Chief of Naval Operations
included $367.0 million in funding for ship depot maintenance,
$73.0 million in funding for aircraft spare parts, $27.0
million in funding for aircraft logistics, and $317.0 million
in funding for aircraft spare parts.
In the current budget environment, the committee does not
believe that it would be responsible to add funding to address
these requirements without an offset identified by the Navy.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of
Naval Operations to identify necessary funding through
reprogramming requests and to fully fund ship and aircraft
depot maintenance requirements in the budget requests for
fiscal year 2013 and future years.

Required action relating to water contamination at Camp Lejeune

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) is the federal entity congressionally mandated under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) to perform
epidemiological and other human health studies on National
Priority List Superfund sites. ATSDR is the lead federal health
entity studying the effects of water contamination at Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
In 2009, the National Academies of Sciences released a
literature review entitled, ``Contaminated Water Supplies at
Camp Lejeune--Assessing Potential Health Effects,'' which was
mandated by section 318 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120
Stat. 2143) for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive
review and evaluation of the available scientific and medical
evidence regarding associations between prenatal, child, and
adult exposure to drinking water contaminated with
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene at Camp Lejeune. In
that review, the National Academies of Sciences did not conduct
a health risk assessment of trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, benzene, and vinyl chloride.
The committee recognizes the importance of ensuring the
dissemination of accurate information regarding the
contaminants that were present in Camp Lejeune's water supply
and associated adverse health effects to ensure the information
does not mislead or confuse the public or dissuade potentially
affected persons from participating in planned scientific
research studies involving the contamination. In this regard,
the committee is concerned about characterizations of the 2009
National Academies of Sciences literature review in the public
domain, including letters sent by the Department of the Navy on
January 25, 2011, to Camp Lejeune Water Contamination
Registrants. The discovery of records and dissemination of
accurate information pertaining to the contamination of Camp
Lejeune drinking water systems should not depend on specific
requests from Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Registrants, but
rather on a shared goal of ensuring the scientific accuracy of
the studies conducted pursuant to the Annual Plan of Work of
the ATSDR and the responsibility of the Secretary of the Navy
to provide relevant information.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to:
(1) issue a revised corrected letter to Camp Lejeune
Water Contamination Registrants that clarifies that the
2009 National Academies of Sciences literature review
did not conduct a risk assessment of benzene and vinyl
chloride, and ensure that all official correspondence
sent to the public and all information present on
Department of the Navy and United States Marine Corps
websites and other public domains references the
correction to provide the public with accurate
information about possible human health effects of
exposure to toxic water;
(2) finalize the communications agreement between the
Department of the Navy and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry regarding the procedure
for the public release of information pursuant to
section 7.5 of the Department of the Navy--Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Memorandum of
Understanding;
(3) retract and remove the United States Marine Corps
July 2010 booklet entitled, ``Camp Lejeune Historic
Drinking Water: Questions and Answers'' from the United
States Marine Corps website and other public domains;
and
(4) replace the United States Marine Corps July 2010
publication of the above referenced booklet with a
revised booklet that--
(A) is coordinated with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry prior to its
release,
(B) acknowledges the significance of
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
benzene, and vinyl chloride contaminants that
were present in Camp Lejeune's water supply,
and
(C) addresses and reflects the concerns that
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry has expressed in formal written
correspondence to the Department of the Navy;
and
(5) certify in writing to the Committees on Armed
Services for the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than August 15, 2011, that
the actions contained in subparagraphs (1) through (4)
above have been completed.

Requirement for Department of Defense input regarding the Logistics
Management Institute's depot study

The committee is concerned that a lack of Department of
Defense (DOD) input regarding the findings and recommendations
of the Logistics Management Institute's (LMI) study does not
provide Congress with a comprehensive view prior to enacting
legislation that could have unintended consequences. While no
statute can anticipate every potential requirement or
situation, the committee believes that the inherent flexibility
of the existing statutes (10 United States Code 2460 and 10
United States Code 2464) permit the defense community to
conform to the intent of the law while simultaneously adapting
to evolving depot maintenance and sustainment requirements.
Section 322 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
required the Secretary of Defense to contract for a study on
the capability and efficiency of the depots of the DOD to
provide the logistics capabilities and capacity necessary for
national defense. Section 322 also tasked the Government
Accountability Office to evaluate the findings and
recommendations of the LMIstudy and required the DOD and
military services to comment, but DOD's official response did not
specifically address any findings or recommendations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics and the secretaries of the military
services to provide a report to Congress no later than March 1,
2012, which at a minimum, will include the DOD's and the
military services' views on the LMI study's findings and
recommendations, specify any statutory and policy changes
needed to implement the recommendations, identify actions and
timelines for accomplishing ongoing and planned actions to
implement the recommendations, and estimate the various costs
and benefits associated with implementing the recommendations.

Security surveillance at forward operating bases

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
consider the full spectrum of surveillance and protection
capabilities for use at forward operating bases (FOB). Given
the dispersed nature of FOBs, which often face austere
environments, the committee encourages the Department to
explore additional measures, as appropriate, to ensure
effective security and surveillance protection capabilities are
available to our forces deployed to FOBs.

Updated requirement for ammunition plant and arsenal plans

Ammunition plants and arsenals are of critical importance
to the defense industrial base, serving as the sole producer of
critical components and materials that are absolutely essential
to the mission of the Department of the Army and the Nation's
national security. As such, the committee continues to believe
that establishing a long-range investment strategy for each
plant and using that plan to develop budgets and guide funding
decisions is the best way to ensure that scarce resources are
focused on the highest priorities identified by the managers
and leaders at each plant.
In July of 2010, after visiting Lake City Army Ammunition
Plant (LCAAP) in Missouri, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army,
directed that the Army place a greater emphasis on quality work
environment (QWE) improvements at Army ammunition plants and
arsenals. At the same time, the Vice Chief directed the Army to
reprogram $80.4 million to address significant QWE shortcomings
at LCAAP. The committee supports the Vice Chief's initiative to
place greater emphasis on QWE at LCAAP and other ammunition
plants and arsenals, but believes that all such improvements
should be planned and prioritized along with other investments
in long-range investment master plans for such facilities.
The committee further notes that other Department of
Defense industrial operations such as depots have developed
comprehensive long-range modernization plans that benefit from
a minimum level of recapitalization funding each year. These
long-range plans are essential to ensuring that department
industrial operations can meet current and future mission
requirements with effective, efficient and modern facilities
and equipment, while also providing a safe work environment for
plant and arsenal employees. The committee notes that in
response to a request in the Senate report accompanying section
3001 (Senate Report 110-335) of the Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009, the Department of the Army has provided
annually a report on facilities and construction planning at
Army ammunition plants and arsenals that details priorities for
the current budget year.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to continue
this report for the next 3 years but to include in the report a
comprehensive long-range plan for each ammunition plant and
arsenal that establishes a prioritized investment strategy for
each year in the future-years defense program accompanying the
budget request for that year to correct unsafe, hazardous, or
environmentally harmful working conditions, to upgrade
deteriorated facilities to an adequate condition, to modernize
equipment and manufacturing processes to industry standards,
and to incorporate investments in new technology that will
improve efficiencies in production. The committee also notes
that not all requirements of the report have been submitted to
the committee as requested. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary to submit an investment master plan for each
ammunition plant and arsenal no later than May 1, 2012.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2012, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2012
authorization request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................................... 569,400 562,000 562,000
Navy........................................................... 328,700 325,700 325,700
Marine Corps................................................... 202,100 202,100 202,100
Air Force...................................................... 332,200 332,800 332,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The committee remains concerned about the proper size of
the active forces as we reduce our forces in Iraq this year and
in Afghanistan over the coming years. The committee supports
the Army's plan to reduce by the end of fiscal year 2013 its
Temporary End Strength Increase (TESI), the 22,000 additional
soldiers requested by the President and approved by Congress in
2009. TESI has allowed the Army to overcome the effects of its
large non-deployable population and to end its use of the stop
loss authority. The committee also supports the Army and Marine
Corps plans to reduce permanent end strength in a responsible
and considered manner through fiscal year 2017, but would urge
the Department to continually update plans and projections to
stand ready to accelerate the planned reductions if conditions
warrant.
While the committee supports in principle the reduction of
permanent end strength in the ground forces, and an
acceleration of that reduction if possible, we remain concerned
in the near term about insufficient dwell time. As Secretary
McHugh and General Casey testified recently before the
committee, ``soldiers require at least 2 to 3 years to fully
recover, both mentally and physically, from the rigors of a 1
year combat deployment.'' As of March of this year, active
component dwell time stood at 1 to 1.6, far short of the goal
of 1 year to 2 or 3. Additionally, the committee believes
future reductions in force, while necessary, must be
accomplished in a responsible manner, taking into account the
wartime service and contribution of service members,
particularly those with over 15 years of service. The nation
owes it to our service members and their families, especially
after enduring the challenges of 10 years of war, to carefully
balance many factors in deciding how to draw down responsibly
and fairly.
The committee supports the administration's request and
recommends active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2012 for
the Army of 562,000, the Navy of 325,700, the Marine Corps of
202,100, and the Air Force of 332,800.

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2012, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2012
authorization request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................... 358,200 358,200 358,200
The Army Reserve............................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000
The Navy Reserve............................................... 65,500 66,200 66,200
The Marine Corps Reserve....................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600
The Air National Guard of the United States.................... 106,700 106,700 106,700
The Air Force Reserve.......................................... 71,200 71,400 71,400
The Coast Guard Reserve........................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2012, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2012
authorization request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................... 32,060 32,060 32,060
The Army Reserve............................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261
The Navy Reserve............................................... 10,688 10,688 10,688
The Marine Corps Reserve....................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261
The Air National Guard of the United States.................... 14,584 14,584 14,584
The Air Force Reserve.......................................... 2,992 2,992 2,992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
end strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal
year 2012, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2012
authorization request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............................................... 8,395 8,395 8,395
The Army National Guard of the United States................... 27,210 27,210 27,210
The Air Force Reserve.......................................... 10,720 10,720 10,720
The Air National Guard of the United States.................... 22,394 22,394 22,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal year 2012 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians
(sec. 414)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2012,
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2012
authorization request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................... 1,600 1,600 1,600
The Air National Guard of the United States.................... 350 350 350
The Army Reserve............................................... 595 595 595
The Air Force Reserve.......................................... 90 90 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The committee recommends maintaining Army National Guard
non-dual status technician end strength at 1,600, consistent
with prior years. The committee notes that under a Presidential
waiver of end strength limitations, the Army National Guard
currently employs over 3,000 non-dual status technicians, many
of whom serve at State headquarters rather than supporting
operational units. Further, in section 513 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383), Congress provided temporary hiring authority for
non-dual status technicians necessary to replace deployed dual
status technicians. This provision should alleviate short-term
shortages caused by deploying technicians. The committee
considers the end strength limitations of this section
sufficient to meet permanent peacetime requirements. The
committee urges the Department to meet any additional long-term
civilian personnel needs through existing civilian personnel
hiring processes, rather than through the non-dual status
technician program.

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support (sec. 415)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2012, as
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2012
authorization request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States................... 17,000 17,000 17,000
The Army Reserve............................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000
The Navy Reserve............................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200
The Marine Corps Reserve....................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000
The Air National Guard of the United States.................... 16,000 16,000 16,000
The Air Force Reserve.......................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funds to be appropriated for military personnel accounts of the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012.

Budget Item

Military personnel funding changes

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

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Reduction of Army referral bonus........................ -25.0
Hostile fire pay proration.............................. -30.0
Reduction of unobligated military personnel balances.... -325.6
Total............................................... -380.6

The committee recommends allowing the authority for the
health professions referral bonus and the Army referral bonus
to expire. The administration's budget request did not include
funding for the health professions referral bonus, and given
the favorable recruiting environment and the Army's plan to
reduce end strength beginning this year, the committee
recommends reducing the Military Personnel budget by the
$25,000,000 budgeted for the Army referral bonus.
The committee recommends a provision contained elsewhere in
this Act that would require the Department to prorate hostile
fire/imminent danger pay by the day. Accordingly, the committee
recommends reducing the budget for hostile fire/imminent danger
pay by $30,000,000.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimate indicates
that the services continue to under execute their Military
Personnel accounts each year. The committee recommends reducing
the Military Personnel accounts by a total of $325,620,000,
which reflects the average potential impact identified by GAO
based on historical rates of unobligated balances.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally

Increase in authorized strengths for Marine Corps officers on active
duty (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 523(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to increase
the grade strength limitations for active-duty Marine Corps
officers in the grade of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel
to enable the Marine Corps to shape its force to meet current
and future manpower requirements.
Voluntary retirement incentive (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 36 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
voluntary retirement incentive payment of up to 12 times an
officer's monthly basic pay to certain officers with between 20
and 29 years of active-duty service. This authority, which was
requested by the Department of Defense, would expire not later
than December 31, 2018, and would be used to reduce end
strength in a responsible manner during the planned force
drawdown.
National Defense University outplacement waiver (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 663 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense, in an individual case, to assign a
graduate of the National Defense University who is not
designated as a joint qualified officer to a joint assignment
other than a joint duty assignment. The provision would also
exclude from the requirement to be assigned to a joint duty
assignment after graduation those joint qualified officers and
other officers who graduate from a school within the National
Defense University following pursuit of a program on an other-
than-in-residence basis.
Modification of definition of ``joint duty assignment'' to include all
instructor assignments for joint training and education (sec.
504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 668(b)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to change
the definition of joint duty assignment to include instructor
positions that provide significant experience in joint matters.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Authority for order to active duty of members of the Selected Reserve
and certain members of the Individual Ready Reserve for
preplanned missions (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 1209 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
secretary of a military department to order units, and certain
members of the Selected Reserve or the Individual Ready
Reserve, without the consent of the members concerned, to
active duty for not more than 365 consecutive days for
preplanned missions. The service secretaries would be
authorized to exercise this authority only if the manpower and
associated costs of the active duty and a description of the
mission are included in the budget materials covering the
fiscal year or years in which the units or members are
anticipated to be ordered to active duty. No more than 60,000
reserve component members may be on active duty under this
authority at any one time.
The committee believes that implementation of this
provision by the services is consistent with the goal of
enhancing the operational reserve. This new authority is not
designed for use for emergent operational or humanitarian
missions, but rather to enhance the use of reserve component
units that organize, train, and plan to support operational
mission requirements to the same standards as active component
units under service force generation plans in a cyclic,
periodic, and predictable manner. Other provisions of law,
including sections 12302 and 12304 of title 10, United States
Code, provide authority to order members of the reserve
component to active duty for emergent operational or
humanitarian missions.
The committee expects the services to comply with
Department of Defense policies regarding dwell time when
selecting units and individuals for involuntary order to active
duty under this authority, and to continue to rely on
volunteers to the maximum extent feasible.

Modification of eligibility for consideration for promotion for certain
reserve officers employed as military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 512)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
reserve officers employed as military technicians (dual status)
who have been retained beyond their mandatory removal date for
years of service under either section 10216(f) or 14702(a)(2)
of title 10, United States Code, are not eligible for
consideration for promotion by a mandatory promotion board
convened under section 14101(a) of title 10, United States
Code.

Modification of time in which preseparation counseling must be provided
to reserve component members being demobilized (sec. 513)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1142(a)(3)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize commencement of preseparation counseling for
demobilizing members of a reserve component less than 90 days
before the projected date of discharge or release from active
duty when operational requirements make it unfeasible to do so
at an earlier date.

Report on termination of military technician as a distinct personnel
management category (sec. 514)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an independent study of the
feasibility and advisability of terminating the military
technician program as a personnel management category and to
report to the congressional defense committees on this study,
including any recommendations for statutory or administrative
change, no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.

Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Repeal of mandatory high-deployment allowance (sec. 521)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
authority and requirement to pay the high-deployment allowance
under section 436 of title 37, United States Code.

Prohibition on denial of reenlistment of members for unsuitability
based on the same medical condition for which they were
determined to be fit for duty (sec. 522)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1214a of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the
denial of reenlistment of a service member who has been
determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to be fit for
duty based on a subsequent administrative determination that
the member is unsuitable for deployment or worldwide assignment
based on the same medical condition that was considered by the
PEB.
The committee is concerned about misunderstanding of the
intent of section 1214a of title 10, United States Code, as
reflected in service policies or practices that would deny
reenlistment to otherwise eligible service members who have
been determined to be fit for duty by a PEB, but unsuitable for
continued service based on the same medical condition
considered by the PEB. The committee expects the secretaries
concerned to ensure that service members' potentially
disqualifying medical conditions are evaluated within the
Disability Evaluation System and that such members are not
processed for administrative separation or denied reenlistment
on the basis of non-worldwide assignability or unsuitability
based on the same medical condition for which they have been
found to be fit for duty by a PEB.
The committee also encourages service secretaries to place
members on the temporary disability retired list in appropriate
cases where it is yet to be determined whether the member's
disability is permanent and stable. These members should not be
retained on active duty for protracted periods to determine
whether their condition will stabilize.

Expansion of regular enlisted members covered by early discharge
authority (sec. 523)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1171 of title 10, United States Code, to expand from 3
months to 1 year the period prior to the expiration of an
enlistment term during which a service member may be discharged
without loss of benefits. The member would not be entitled to
pay and allowances for the period not served. This authority,
which was requested by the Department of Defense, would be used
to reduce end strength in a responsible manner during the
planned force drawdown.

Extension of voluntary separation pay and benefits (sec. 524)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1175a of title 10, United States Code, to extend until
December 31, 2018, the authority to provide voluntary
separation pay and benefits to eligible members of the armed
forces who are voluntarily separated from active duty. This
authority, which was requested by the Department of Defense,
would be used to reduce end strength in a responsible manner
during the planned force drawdown.

Employment skills training for members of the armed forces on active
duty who are transitioning to civilian life (sec. 525)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1143 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to carry out one or more programs to
provide certain service members with job training and
employment skills training to help prepare the members for
employment in the civilian sector.

Policy on military recruitment and enlistment of graduates of secondary
schools (sec. 526)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
service secretaries to treat a graduate who receives a diploma
from a secondary school that is legally operating or otherwise
completes a program of secondary education in compliance with
the laws of the State in which the graduate resides, in the
same manner as a graduate of a secondary school as defined by
section 9101(38) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(38)) for purposes of recruitment and
enlistment in the armed forces.

Subtitle D--Education and Training

Enhancement of authorities on joint professional military education
(sec. 541)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2151 and 2154 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize graduates of the National Defense Intelligence
College to receive credit for completion of joint professional
military education Phase I. The provision would also eliminate
the requirement that the curriculum for Phase II instruction at
the Joint Forces Staff College be taught only in residence.
This would effectively authorize adjunct faculty of the Armed
Forces Staff College to teach the joint professional military
educationPhase II course of instruction at locations other than
the Joint Forces Staff College primary campus in Norfolk, Virginia.

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs
(sec. 542)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code,
to eliminate the requirement that officers serve in the grade
of O-1 throughout their medical education. The provision would
authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and students
participating in the armed forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Programs (HPSP), while on
active duty, to serve in pay grade O-1, or in pay grade O-2 if
they meet specified promotion criteria prescribed by the
service secretary. The provision would also amend section 2004a
of title 10, United States Code, to provide that an officer
detailed as a student at a medical school would serve on active
duty in the same grade with the same entitlement to pay as
specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United States Code.
The committee believes that requiring medical students who
are commissioned officers to remain in the rank of ensign or
second lieutenant throughout their medical educations
undermines the goal set forth in section 2114(a) of title 10,
United States Code, of producing medical officers who are
motivated and dedicated to a career in the uniformed services.
The service secretaries, in consultation with the Surgeons
General and the President of USUHS, should establish criteria
for promotion of medical students to the rank of lieutenant
(junior grade) and first lieutenant and assign greater
leadership responsibilities to those officers who earn
promotions while assigned to USUHS or the HPSP. Recent
experience at USUHS and Walter Reed Army Medical Center has
amply demonstrated the importance of identifying medical
students and officers in training who lack the potential for
successful military service not only as physicians, but as
military officers, and initiating corrective action in response
to substandard performance. The committee believes that this
40-year-old policy of denying promotion to medical students
serves no professional purpose and that extending the
opportunity for advancement, which is an essential part of
officer training at service academies and virtually every other
officer development program, should be implemented.

Reserve component mental health student stipend (sec. 543)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the secretaries of the military departments to pay a stipend to
qualified individuals who agree to be appointed an officer in a
reserve component, and who are pursuing or will pursue a course
of study leading to a degree in clinical psychology or social
work in exchange for a service commitment of 1 year for every 6
months or portion thereof of stipend received.

Enrollment of certain seriously wounded, ill, or injured former or
retired enlisted members of the armed forces in associate
degree programs of the Community College of the Air Force in
order to complete degree program (sec. 544)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 9315 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to allow continued participation in
associate degree programs of the Community College of the Air
Force (CCAF) by former or retired enlisted service members who
had commenced but not completed a program of higher education
at the CCAF at the time of their separation from active duty,
and who have been categorized as seriously wounded, ill, or
injured, by their service secretary.

Consolidation of military department authority to issue arms, tentage,
and equipment to educational institutions not maintaining units
of Junior ROTC (sec. 545)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate in
one section of law the existing authority contained in three
separate sections of law for military departments to issue
arms, tentage, and equipment to educational institutions not
maintaining units of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps.
The provision would require the educational institution to
offer a course in military training prescribed by that
secretary and have a student body of at least 100 physically
fit students over 14 years of age.

Temporary authority to wave maximum age limitation on admission to the
military service academies (sec. 546)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to waive the maximum age for admission
of enlisted members of the armed forces to the United States
Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, or the
United States Air Force Academy. Each Secretary could waive the
age limit for up to five enlisted members per academic year for
members who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for
admission to that academy, and who were prevented from being
admitted before reaching the maximum age as a result of service
on active duty in a theater of operations for Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation New Dawn.
This authority would expire on September 30, 2016.

Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally

Reform of offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other sexual
misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec.
551)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 920 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 120 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to separate
Article 120, UCMJ, into three separate articles of the UCMJ:
Article 120, UCMJ, would apply to the offenses of rape and
sexual assault of any person; Article 120b, UCMJ, would apply
to sexual offenses against children; and Article 120c, UCMJ,
would apply to other non-consensual sexual misconduct offenses.
Article 120a, UCMJ, which applies to the offense of stalking,
would not be changed. The provision would also repeal section
125 of title 10, United States Code (Article 125 of the UCMJ),
the offense of sodomy. All offenses previously punishable as
forcible sodomy under this statute would be punishable under
the proposed changes to Article 120, UCMJ.
The changes in law included in this provision were
recommended by the Joint Services Committee on Military Justice
and the Secretary of Defense to address deficiencies in
existing law that have been identified by military courts and
which were addressed in the report of the Defense Task Force on
Sexual Assault in the Military of December 2009.

Authority to compel production of documentary evidence (sec. 552)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 847 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
subpoenas duces tecum to compel production of documents and
other tangible evidence for an investigation, including an
investigation pursuant to article 32(b) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 832(b)), consistent with other
federal criminal court practice.

Procedures for judicial review of certain military personnel decisions
(sec. 553)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1034 and 1552, title 10, United States Code, to
require that final decisions denying any requested correction
of a personnel record provide a concise written statement of
the factual and legal basis for the decision and a statement of
the procedure and time for obtaining judicial review of the
decision. The provision would also require that a decision of a
military corrections board include a thorough advisory opinion
if it involves a historically significant military event or the
corrective action would include a promotion decision regarding
a general or flag officer that would require Senate
confirmation.
The provision would also amend chapter 79 of title 10,
United States Code, to add a new section 1560 that would set
forth the procedural conditions under which judicial review of
decisions based on correction board actions would take place,
including a requirement that an individual request correction
of the record under section 1552 of title 10, United States
Code, before judicial review can be made. The provision largely
reflects case law and would authorize individuals to seek
judicial review of final decisions issued pursuant to sections
1034 and 1552 of title 10, United States Code, within 3 years
of the date the decision is received by the individual.

Department of Defense support for programs on pro bono legal
representation for members of the armed forces (sec. 554)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide support to one or more
public or private programs designed to facilitate
representation by attorneys who provide pro bono legal
assistance to service members who are in need of such
representation.

Subtitle F--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (sec.
561)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1611(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to
require that the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office be appointed from among general or flag
officers of the armed forces or employees of the Department of
Defense in a comparable Senior Executive Service position.

Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim
Advocates (sec. 562)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance, not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, to implement the
appropriate recommendations of the Report of the Defense Task
Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services relating to
the number, assignment, and credentials of Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates.

Access of sexual assault victims to legal assistance and services of
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim
Advocates (sec. 563)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service secretaries to prescribe regulations on the provision
of legal assistance to victims of sexual assault and would
amend chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
victims of sexual assault to be provided with legal assistance
and the services of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. It would also require that
victims of sexual assault be informed of the availability of
these options for help as soon as the victim seeks assistance
from certain officials. The provision would also authorize a
victim of a sexual assault to confidentially disclose the
details of the assault to a military legal assistance counsel,
a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, a Sexual Assault Victim
Advocate, certain healthcare personnel, or a chaplain without
initiating an official investigation of the allegations, the
option currently referred to as restricted reporting.

Requirement for privilege in cases arising under Uniform Code of
Military Justice against disclosure of communications between
sexual assault victims and Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators, Sexual Assault Victim Advocates, and certain
other persons (sec. 564)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to establish in the Manual for Courts-Martial, not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, an
evidentiary privilege against the disclosure of certain
communications by victims of sexual assault with Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators, Sexual Assault Victim Advocates, and
such other persons as the President specifies.

Expedited consideration and decision-making on requests for permanent
change of station or unit transfer of victims of sexual assault
(sec. 565)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
service secretaries to provide guidance on expedited
consideration and decision-making on requests by victims of
sexual assaults for a permanent change of station or unit
transfer.

Department of Defense policy and procedures on retention and access to
evidence and records relating to sexual assaults involving
members of the armed forces (sec. 566)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, to develop a comprehensive policy for the
Department of Defense on the retention of and access to
evidence and records relating to sexual assaults involving
service members. The comprehensive policy would include
policies and procedures (including systems of records)
necessary to ensure preservation of records and evidence to
ensure that service members and former service members who were
victims of sexual assault during military service are able to
substantiate claims for veterans benefits, to support criminal
or civil prosecutions, and for other purposes relating to the
documentation of the incidence of sexual assaults.

Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to
local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of
dependent children of military members and civilian employees
of the Department of Defense.

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with
severe disabilities.

Three-year extension and enhancement of authorities on transition of
military dependent students among local educational agencies
(sec. 573)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
paragraph (2)(B) of section 574(d) of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) to modify the authority for the Secretary of Defense to
expand its reach to local educational agencies serving military
dependent students living in the United States who do not
attend Department of Defense Education Activity Schools. The
provision would also extend this authority until September 30,
2016.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
utilizing this authority over the past few years to directly
address the complex needs of military dependent children in
local educational agencies in order to lessen the impact of
transition between schools and of deployment.

Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness

Modification of membership of Department of Defense Military Family
Readiness Council (sec. 576)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (b) of section 1781a of title 10, United States
Code, to modify membership on the Department of Defense
Military Family Readiness Council.

Subtitle I--Other Matters

Cold War Service Medal (sec. 581)

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

Enhancement and improvement of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
(sec. 582)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
enhancements to the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program to
improve processes for determining best practices for
information dispersal and outreach services, as well as to
improve collaboration with state programs.

Report on process for expedited determination of disability of members
of the armed forces with certain disabling conditions (sec.
583)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress not later
than September 1, 2012, on the feasibility and advisability of
a process to expedite the determination of disability for
service members with certain disabling diseases or conditions,
including an evaluation of programs for expedited
determinations of disability used by other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government.

Report on the achievement of diversity goals for the leadership of the
armed forces (sec. 584)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the achievement of diversity goals for the leadership of the
armed forces.

Specification of period in which application for voter registration or
absentee ballot from an overseas voter is valid (sec. 585)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 104 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-3) to clarify that the prohibition
on refusal by States to accept or process valid applications
for voter registration and absentee ballots on the grounds of
early submission applies to overseas voters in the same manner
that it applies to uniformed service voters.

Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General review of oversight of military academies and their
preparatory schools

The Comptroller General of the United States issued two
reports in September, 2003, regarding oversight of the service
academies and their preparatory schools. In GAO-03-1000,
September 2003, the Comptroller General recommended enhancement
of performance goals and measures to improve oversight of the
operations and performance of the service academies. In GAO-03-
1017, the Comptroller General recommended that the Secretary of
Defense, in concert with the services and the service
academies, align the preparatory schools' mission statements
with Department of Defense guidance and the academies'
expectations; establish quantified performance goals and
measures for the schools; and enhance the existing oversight
framework for assessing the schools' performance. The committee
notes that Department of Defense Directive 1322.22, August 24,
1994, has not been updated to reflect implementation of these
recommendations.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a
follow-up review of Department of Defense oversight and
admissions policies and procedures at the service academies and
their preparatory schools. This review should include an
assessment of the degree to which the recommendations of the
Comptroller General contained in the 2003 reports have been
implemented. The Comptroller General shall report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than February 29, 2012, on the results
of this review.

Department of the Air Force Total Force Initiative

The committee recognizes the Department of the Air Force
actively pursues integration of the Reserve component into the
Total Force. Through the Department's Total Force Integration
initiative, associate units are comprised of both active duty
and reserve component personnel and equipment. The integrated
relationship between the active and reserve component is
intended to maximize capability and manpower creating an
efficient, cost-effective, and ready unit able to fulfill
steady-state and contingency requirements.
The reserve component is an indispensible partner for the
active duty in associate units. In addition to fulfilling
traditional roles and responsibilities, the reserve component
of an associate unit works closely with the active duty airmen
to meet unit mission requirements. In several units, the active
and reserve component units are fully integrated in each
function. To resource reserve component requirements, Military
Personnel Appropriations (MPA) man-days must be requested,
resourced, and allocated.
The committee is aware there has not been a formal process
in place for validating, resourcing, and allocating MPA man-
days for reserve component associate units. Due to the lack of
a formal process, unnecessary hardships have been encountered
by many associate units and personnel, including unpredictable
deployment schedules and the inability of reserve component
units to consistently integrate with their active duty
counterparts. These management challenges undermine Total Force
Integration and should be addressed.
The committee notes the Department has recently identified
a process for validating, resourcing, and allocating future
reserve component associate unit requirements. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to implement a formal
process for validating, resourcing, and allocating MPA man-days
for reserve component requirements of integrated units within
the annual budget process. The Secretary shall provide a report
to the congressional defense committees regarding
implementation of this process no later than October 1, 2011.
The report shall include: (1) the methodology for identifying
and validating steady-state and contingency requirements; (2)
an analysis of how the validated requirements will be
incorporated in future budget requests; and (3) how the process
will allow for more predictable and reliable allocation of MPA
man-days to the associate units.

Development of a single Department of the Navy military justice case
processing and tracking system

In the Senate report accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rept. 111-
201) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011, the committee directed the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense (DODIG) to review the post-trial
processes for court-martial record preparation and appellate
review within the Department of the Navy. The committee also
expressed its view that intervention is needed by the
Department of the Navy's civilian and military leaders to
resolve the long-standing problem of inability to track records
of courts-martial conducted in the Navy and Marine Corps from
trial through final appellate review.
The committee applauds the commitment by the Secretary of
the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, reflected in the Secretary's report of
February 15, 2011, to implement a key recommendation of the
DODIG by developing and implementing a single Navy and Marine
Corps military justice case processing and tracking system that
will achieve system-wide visibility over the entire court-
martial process.
The committee directs that the Department complete
development and implementation of this system no later than
July 1, 2013, and directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
reports to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives on the progress of the Department in
achieving this objective. The reports shall include, at a
minimum, discussion of estimated cost and future operating
costs, system capability, designation of responsibilities for
tracking of court-martial records of trial and convening
authority actions from the date of trial through final
appellate review, and estimated date of implementation of the
system within the Navy and Marine Corps. Reports shall be
submitted no later than July 1, 2012, and February 1, 2013,
unless implementation is achieved sooner.

Ensuring knowledge of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act

The committee recognizes and is grateful for the vital
support that civilian employers have provided in enabling
Reservists and National Guardsmen to serve in defense of our
Nation. A key organization in this regard is the National
Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)
and its approximately 4,500 volunteers who act as liaisons
between the Department of Defense and private sector employers,
providing informational briefings, mediation, and recognition
of employers whose policies support and encourage participation
in the National Guard and Reserve. The ESGR is also
instrumental in increasing employer awareness of laws
applicable to reservists particularly the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) (Public Law
103-353). The committee believes that the Department should
ensure that Reservists and Guardsmen are informed of their
protections under USERRA and that they should be periodically
surveyed with the goal of determining whether violations of
USERRA are occurring and being reported, and whether trends can
be identified that may require a remedial legislative response.

Impact of operational tempo on special operations forces

The committee notes that since the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, the number of deployed U.S. Special
Operations Forces (SOF) has quadrupled. While the budget and
personnel assigned to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
has also increased during that time, the global demand for SOF
continues to outstrip the available supply of such forces
leading to frequent deployments and short dwell times.
The Commander of USSOCOM testified earlier this year that
``the force is beginning to fray around the edges. The fabric
is strong, the weave is tight, it's not unraveling. But it's
showing signs of wear.'' With regard to short dwell times faced
by SOF, the Commander stated, ``for some elements of our force,
time at home with their families has become the abnormal
condition. They have to adjust to being home rather than adjust
to being away.''
The committee recognizes the continued sacrifice of SOF
personnel and their families and applauds the efforts of
USSOCOM to identify and proactively address the consequences of
difficult and repeated deployments. Specifically, the committee
strongly supports the creation of a ``Pressure on the Force
Task Force'' by the Commander of USSOCOM to study the impact of
high operational tempo on SOF personnel and their families and
provide recommendations to the Command on mitigating current
and future problems. The committee looks forward to learning
more about the results of the Task Force's study and
recommendations, especially as they apply to family readiness,
suicide prevention, and retention.
The committee also notes the success of the USSOCOM Care
Coalition in providing support and advocacy for wounded, ill,
or injured SOF personnel and their families. The Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff has called the USSOCOM Care Coalition
the ``gold standard'' of such efforts within the military.
Accordingly, the committee encourages each of the military
departments to identify and, where appropriate, adopt ``best
practices'' of the USSOCOM Care Coalition where possible
throughout their wounded warrior and family support programs.

Independent Review Panel to Study the Judge Advocate Requirements of
the Department of the Navy

The committee appreciates the support by the Department of
the Navy and the work of the members and staff who contributed
to the ``Independent Review Panel to Study the Judge Advocate
Requirements of the Department of the Navy'', that was directed
by section 506 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
2010 (Public Law 111-84). This Panel's February 22, 2011,
report, in conjunction with the report of the Inspector General
of the Department of Defense (Evaluation of Post-Trial Reviews
of Courts-Martial within the Department of the Navy) of
December 10, 2010, provides a valuable reference for the
Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to address deficiencies in the
organizational structure regarding the role and
responsibilities of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and
the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps
and the requirements for and assignment of active-duty Navy and
Marine Corps judge advocates.
The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy
faces intense budgetary pressures and the prospect of reduced
active-duty end strength in future years. The demand for legal
expertise in such areas as operational law, military justice,
rule of law training as part of counterinsurgency operations,
military commissions, legal assistance to Sailors, Marines, and
their families, is not projected to decline, however, and the
committee is concerned about the level of legal risk that
service leaders have tolerated and may accept in the future.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a
report no later than September 1, 2011, evaluating the report
of the Independent Panel and addressing the recommendations of
the Panel.

Military Adaptive Sports Program

In 2010, the United States Army Warrior Transition Command
developed adaptive sports programs for wounded, ill, and
injured soldiers in partnership with private organizations
including the U.S. Olympic Committee Paralympic Military
Program and members of the Paralympic Network. This program
culminated in May 2010, with the Warrior Games at which 100
soldiers and 87 athletes from each of the other military
services and military veterans participated. Paralympics
military program participation rates in Wounded Warrior Units
have increased from 31 percent to 54 percent in the past 2
years. Adaptive sports clearly have become a critical
component, along with traumatic brain injury and post traumatic
stress disorder awareness and treatment and suicide awareness
and prevention, of the total rehabilitation effort for wounded,
ill, and injured service members and veterans.
The committee believes that adaptive sports programs
provide vital rehabilitation and support to active-duty members
and veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee
urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to coordinate Wounded Warrior care policies with the
Director of Paralympics of the Veterans' Administration to
ensure that programs, including national and regional
competitions, avoidduplication, remain robust, and achieve
maximum benefit.

Preventing foreclosures of service members' mortgages

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
expand its efforts aimed at preventing foreclosures of service
members' home mortgages. The focus of the Department's efforts
should be on educating service members about their legal rights
under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) (Public Law
108-189) and other Federal and State-sponsored programs aimed
at helping individuals avoid losing their homes or suffering
severe financial setbacks as a result of military service or a
change of station move.
The Department should continue its emphasis on developing
financial responsibility in its service members through
education and information about where to find timely, expert
advice when needed. Members of the reserve components, in
particular, should periodically be made aware of the
protections available to them under the SCRA, including their
right to initiate litigation when appropriate to avoid
foreclosure.
The Department should continue to take proactive measures
to inform mortgage lenders about their obligations under the
SCRA, the penalties for violations of the SCRA, and the means
available to them to verify whether a borrower is currently
serving in the armed forces. The committee endorses the
Department's initiative to make a website available and easily
accessible to mortgage servicers through which they can verify
whether a delinquent borrower is currently serving on active
duty prior to initiation of foreclosure proceedings.

Reports on late processing of reports of promotion selection boards and
federal recognition boards

In the Senate report accompanying S. 2060 (S. Rept. 105-
189) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999, the committee expressed concern about the length of time
required to process reports of promotion selection boards. The
committee directed the secretaries of the military departments
to advise the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives when processing of a report of a
promotion board exceeded 100 days from the date the report is
signed by the board members until the date the report of the
selection board is approved by the President or by the official
to whom that authority has been delegated. The committee
required that these ``100 day'' reports include an explanation
for the delay, an assessment of when the board report will be
approved, and an accounting for the processing time in each
office through which the board report has passed, and required
a follow-up report every 30 days after the 100th day.
The committee believes that this reporting requirement has
improved oversight at each level of the review process and that
it continues to serve an important purpose in ensuring timely
action on reports of selection boards. The committee concludes
that it is necessary to continue the current reporting
requirement for promotion selection boards and to extend this
reporting requirement to reports of federal recognition boards
for National Guard officers that require Senate confirmation
that are not approved within 100 days from the date the board
report is signed by the board members. The committee directs
the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force to commence reporting
on federal recognition boards no later than August 1, 2011.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in
Department of Defense Education Activity Schools

The committee notes the initiative by Department of Defense
Education Activity (DODEA) officials to improve the performance
of students in the areas of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics, known collectively as the ``STEM'' subjects.
Specifically, in the fall 2011 semester, DODEA will launch a
program providing innovative STEM-oriented classes to 12
schools across the globe. The committee understands that DODEA
plans to expand the STEM initiative to other schools and grades
if the current effort proves successful. The committee commends
DODEA for this effort, and requests the Director of DODEA, in
coordination with the Director of the DOD STEM Development
Office, to provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services staff
with a briefing by September 1, 2012, on the performance of
this initiative and an assessment of options to expand
opportunities for STEM education to additional schools and
grades, consistent with the DOD STEM Education and Outreach
Strategic Plan.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay
authorities (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the following bonuses and special
pays related to the reserve forces: 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 for reserve
component members experiencing extended and frequent
mobilization for active duty service.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay the following bonus and special pays related to health care
professionals: the nurse officer candidate accession bonus,
education loan repayment for certain health professionals who
serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses
for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses,
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for
Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short
wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers,
the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the accession bonus
for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties,
the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in
critically short wartime specialties, and bonus and incentive
pay for officers in the health professions.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay the following bonus and special pays related to nuclear
officers: special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending
period of active service, the nuclear career accession bonus,
the nuclear career annual incentive bonus, and special bonus
and incentive pay for nuclear officers.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay the following consolidated special pays and bonuses: the
general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus
authority for officers, special aviation incentive pay and
bonus for officers, hazardous duty pay, assignment or special
duty pay, the skill incentive or proficiency bonus, and
retention incentives for members qualified in critical military
skills or assigned to high priority units.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay the following other bonuses and special pays: the aviation
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus,
the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the
incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational
specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for
transfer between armed forces, and the accession bonus for
officer candidates.
Finally, the provision would amend section 403 of title 37,
United States Code, to reauthorize for a period of 1 year
previously expired authority to pay additional basic allowance
for housing in areas impacted by a major disaster or at
installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel.
Modification of qualifying period for payment of hostile fire and
imminent danger special pay and hazardous duty special pay
(sec. 612)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 310 and 351 of title 37, United States Code, to
require that hostile fire and imminent danger pay be prorated
according to the number of days spent in a qualifying area,
rather than on a monthly basis regardless of the number of such
days.

Subtitle B--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and Transportation
Authorities

Consolidation and reform of travel and transportation authorities of
the uniformed services (sec. 621)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
chapter 8 to title 37, United States Code, to consolidate and
reform the existing statutory authorities related to travel and
transportation allowances for members of the uniformed
services, their dependents, other family members, and
authorized travelers of the Department of Defense. The
provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct
pilot programs aimed atrealizing cost savings in the
administration of the defense travel program. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense and the other administering
secretaries to establish programs of compliance to ensure the integrity
of the defense travel system, minimize fraud and waste, and ensure that
benefits do not exceed actual expenses of travel or reasonable
allowances based on commercial travel rates. Finally, the provision
would require that all travel claims be processed electronically within
5 years of the date of enactment of this Act.
The committee recognizes that the current statutory
framework authorizing travel and transportation benefits for
the uniformed services has grown over the past 60 years, and
while it has served the Department and service members well,
the piecemeal accumulation of travel authorities has in part
led to a byzantine and overly cumbersome regulatory
environment. The committee believes that the Department should
implement travel policy that is simple, clear, and efficient,
and which provides for strict oversight of travel claims, to
include electronic travel claim processing, consistent with
past reports of the Government Accountability Office.

Transition provisions (sec. 622)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of
Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Commerce, to
develop a transition plan with respect to the consolidation and
reform of travel and transportation authorities found elsewhere
in this Act. The plan would achieve this transition within a
period not to exceed 10 years.

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

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

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

Limitation on availability of certain funds pending report on provision
of special compensation for members of the uniformed services
with injury or illness requiring assistance in everyday living
(sec. 632)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
obligation and expenditure of travel funds of the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness until
the Under Secretary provides to the congressional defense
committees a report detailing the Department's implementation
of the caregiver compensation authority in section 439 of title
37, United States Code, the qualifying criteria for payments
thereunder, an assessment of the training needs of caregivers,
the types of training provided or to be provided, and whether
existing Department of Defense (DOD) programs are adequate to
meet those needs.
Congress enacted the caregiver compensation authority in
section 603 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010
(Public Law 111-84) at the request of the Department. The
authority was amended in section 634 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) to establish the rate of the monthly stipend as the amount
of the caregiver stipend under the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) program of comprehensive assistance for family
caregivers authorized in section 1720g of title 38, United
States Code. The committee believes that DOD and VA caregiver
programs should be seamless in their treatment of service
members who transition to VA care.
The committee also notes that caregivers could benefit from
the enhanced caregiver training under the VA program. A report
from the Army Family Action Plan Conference in February 2011
identified this need. The committee urges the Department of
Defense to work in collaboration with the VA to develop and
provide adequate and effective training and other support to
caregivers of active-duty service members who are transitioning
into the VA system.

Repeal of sense of Congress on age and service requirements for retired
pay for non-regular service (sec. 633)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 635 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).

Item of Special Interest

Basic allowance for housing for areas with housing shortages

The committee understands housing shortages exist at some
military installations experiencing growth from force basing
initiatives such as base realignment and closure, Grow the
Force, Army Modularity, and Global Defense Posture and
Realignment. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report (GAO-11-462) stated that such housing deficits exist at
19 of 26 growth installations in the United States, ranging
from 1 percent of estimated demand at Fort Polk, Louisiana, to
more than 20 percent of estimated demand at Cannon Air Force
Base, New Mexico. These deficits can cause service members
difficulties in obtaining adequate and affordable housing for
themselves and their families.
It is Department of Defense (DOD) policy to rely on the
private sector as the primary source of housing for military
personnel eligible to draw the Basic Allowance for Housing
(BAH). However, as the GAO report indicates, the Department can
improve the process it uses to set BAH rates, especially in
those areas experiencing housing deficits, to help service
members and their families obtain housing. GAO made several
recommendations to DOD on ways to improve this process, and the
committee is encouraged that DOD agreed to implement those
recommendations. We urge DOD to do so expeditiously to ensure
that installation officials and service members have the
necessary information to make educated housing decisions, and
to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the process overall,
especially where available housing used to determine BAH rates
is not fully representative of market costs for adequate
housing.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

Annual cost-of-living adjustment in enrollment fees in TRICARE Prime
(sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1097a of title 10, United States Code, to limit any
annual increase in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees to an amount
equal to the percentage by which retiree pay is increased,
beginning on October 1, 2012.
During the course of markup discussions, committee members
considered limiting any increase in Prime enrollment fees to
the National Health Expenditures per capita rate, as requested
by the Administration. Ultimately the committee decided to
limit any increase in fees beginning in fiscal year 2013 to
retiree cost of living adjustment rates. The committee notes,
however, that it plans to review options for enrollment fee
adjustments to include the possibility of a phased approach in
the future, as early as fiscal year 2014.
Maintenance of the adequacy of provider networks under the TRICARE
program (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1079b(a) of title 10, United States Code, to exclude
TRICARE institutional, professional, and pharmacy networks from
being considered subcontractors for purposes of Federal
Acquisition Regulation or any other law, in order to maintain
adequate TRICARE provider networks.
Transition enrollment of Uniformed Services Family Health Plan
Medicare-eligible retirees to TRICARE for Life (sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 724(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) to require that those who
enroll in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan (USFHP)
after September 30, 2011, transition to TRICARE for Life once
they become Medicare-eligible due to age. This provision would
have no impact on current USFHP enrollees.
Modification of authorities on surveys on continued viability of
TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would
amendsection 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to extend the length of time the
Department of Defense is required to report on access to health care
under TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra from 2011 until 2015, and to
modify the frequency of reports required to be conducted by the
Comptroller General from twice per year to once every 2 years.

Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits

Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for command-sponsored
dependents of members assigned to remote locations outside the
continental United States (sec. 711)

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

Transitional health benefits for certain members with extension of
active duty following active duty in support of a contingency
operation (sec. 712)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1145(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that, in the case of a reserve component member who is called
to active duty in support of a contingency operation who then,
without a break in service, is extended on active duty for any
purpose, the 180-day period of Transition Assistance Management
Program medical eligibility begins when the member is separated
from active duty at the end of the extended active duty.

Codification and improvement of procedures for mental health
evaluations for members of the armed forces (sec. 713)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe and maintain regulations
relating to commanding officer and supervisor referrals of
members of the armed forces for mental health evaluations. The
regulations would seek to eliminate any stigma associated with
seeking and receiving mental health services and would clarify
the appropriate action to be taken by commanders and
supervisory personnel who, in good faith, believe that a
subordinate may require a mental health evaluation. The
regulations would also prohibit the use of a referral of a
service member for a mental health evaluation as a reprisal
against a whistleblower.
The committee believes that section 546 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for 1993 (Public Law 102-484), which
was aimed at preventing use of mental health evaluations as
reprisals against whistleblowers, requires revision to address
the current mental health issues and increased suicide rates in
the armed forces. This provision would replace that section of
law, retaining the prohibition of such unlawful retaliation.
The policy recommended by this provision would recognize the
role of commanders and supervisors in ensuring the well-being
of assigned personnel.
The committee recommends that the Secretary include in the
regulations the remedies available to a service member who
believes that he or she was improperly referred for a mental
evaluation.

Subtitle C--Health Care Administration

Expansion of state licensure exceptions for certain mental health-care
professionals (sec. 721)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1094(d) of title 10, United States Code, to expand
state licensure exceptions for certain behavioral health
professionals to allow licensed providers to provide authorized
services to military members and their families in any State,
the District of Columbia, or a Commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.

Clarification on confidentiality of medical quality assurance records
(sec. 722)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1102(j) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that medical quality assurance records are limited to records
of any peer review activity by or for the Department of Defense
to assess the quality of medical care.

Items of Special Interest

Colorectal cancer screening for Department of Defense beneficiaries

The committee notes that, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, colorectal cancer is the second
leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States,
with nearly 150,000 new cases diagnosed each year and about 90
percent of people whose colorectal cancer is found early and
treated survive 5 years later. Screening can find pre-cancerous
growths so that they can be removed early and save lives.
Unfortunately, screening compliance remains low. Screening
techniques recommended by the American Cancer Society beginning
at age 50, include tests that find polyps and cancer, such as:
flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years; colonoscopy every 10
years; double-contrast barium enema every 5 years; and computed
topographic (CT) colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 5
years.
New screening techniques such as CT colonography or virtual
colonoscopy are provided by several Department of Defense
facilities. TRICARE's colon cancer screening benefit follows
the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.
Increased participation in colorectal cancer screening can
have a positive impact on the overall health and welfare of
Department of Defense beneficiaries. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to continue a robust and active preventive
services program to increase awareness and participation in all
available cancer screening services.

Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic
Brain Injury

The committee views with concern the findings of a report
by the Government Accountability Office issued in February 2011
(GAO-11-219, ``Management Weaknesses at Defense Centers of
Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury
Require Attention''), which identified weaknesses in areas that
inhibit achievement of the purposes established by Congress for
the centers to lead Department efforts in the prevention,
diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of
traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder. In a
report to Congress in April 2011 (``Department of Defense
Report to Congress on Department of Defense Medical Centers of
Excellence''), medical leaders identified a need for
improvement in the oversight and support of all Department
medical centers of excellence, and outlined a process for
``single service support'' of medical centers of excellence,
consolidating resource management support, establishing an
oversight board, and clarifying core missions of the centers.
The committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Health Affairs) to continue to make improvements in the
management, mission, and programs of the Defense Centers of
Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury
to include evaluating organizational changes that could improve
the Centers' leadership and strategic direction.
Recent innovative publications, such as the ``Co-occurring
Conditions Toolkit: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and
Psychological Health'' and a new mobile application of the mild
traumatic brain injury pocket guide, demonstrate the value that
the centers can provide to all health care providers who need
access to clinical guidelines for concussion and psychological
health care.

Exploration of care management options under TRICARE for Life and
Uniformed Services Family Health Plan

The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has a commitment to ensure quality health care and improved
health outcomes to all beneficiaries in return for a career of
military service to the Nation. The committee believes that DOD
should strive for greater continuity of care for Medicare
eligible beneficiaries who have access to comprehensive medical
benefits through TRICARE for Life (TFL) but often lack
coordinated and integrated health care management. Innovative
care management strategies which seek to improve quality and
utilization of care can improve health outcomes and reduce
unneeded utilization of health care services.
The committee believes that after more than 15 years of
experience with the TRICARE program, including quality managed
care and preventive services provided by its partners in the
Uniformed Services Family Health Plan (USFHP), DOD and the
USFHP are uniquely positioned to partner with the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to demonstrate the benefits
of continued care management and improved health outcomes for
DOD beneficiaries after they become eligible for Medicare. The
committee is supportive of efforts by DOD and its health care
contractors to develop creative approaches to achieve
utilization improvements, cost savings, and health care outcome
improvements for TFL beneficiaries while continuing to serve
patients under Medicare, TFL, and the USFHP. The committee
believes these efforts can be informed by the USFHP model of
care as well as other patient centered care models.
To support such creative and innovative approaches to
achieve improved health care outcomes, the committee directs
DOD and the USFHP, after consultation with CMS, to develop and
evaluate alternatives that would permit Medicare eligible
beneficiaries to receive integrated and coordinated care,
including preventive services.
The committee further directs that no later than February
1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the Department's progress in developing and
evaluating care management options under TFL and the USFHP. The
report shall describe the health care options considered and
evaluated, including options that would provide for an adequate
population base to sustain the USFHP, such as the feasibility
and advisability of lifting restrictions on enrollment of
beneficiaries under the age of 65.

Research on musculoskeletal injuries

According to the Department of Defense, nearly three-
fourths of all combat and non-combat related wounds suffered by
service members in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring
Freedom, and Operation New Dawn are related to musculoskeletal
injuries. A 2010 study published by the Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research found that musculoskeletal conditions are
the most common reason for discharge among all services.
Rehabilitation from such injuries is often long and difficult.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $11.0 million
for research on musculoskeletal injuries. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to conduct clinical
evaluation studies to enable more rapid and widespread
deployment of advanced treatments for service members with
these injuries.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS

Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Waiver of requirements relating to new milestone approval for certain
major defense acquisition programs experiencing critical cost
growth due to change in quantity purchased (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
waiver of certain requirements applicable to programs that
experience critical Nunn-McCurdy breaches as a result of steep
growth in unit costs, in cases where such cost growth is
attributable entirely (or almost entirely) to changes in the
number of units to be purchased. The provision recommended by
the committee includes strict standards to ensure that all
Nunn-McCurdy requirements remain applicable in any case where
poor program management or performance contributes to the
increase in unit costs.
Modification of certain requirements of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 204(c) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
(WSARA) of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), as requested by the
Department of Defense (DOD). This repeal would eliminate a
requirement for DOD to retroactively certify programs initiated
prior to the enactment of WSARA as being in compliance with
WSARA standards. In addition, the provision recommended by the
committee would eliminate the requirement to continually review
and revalidate WSARA waivers in cases where no value would be
added by this process.
Assessment, management, and control of operating and support costs for
major weapon systems (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance on actions to be taken
to assess, manage, and control Department of Defense (DOD)
costs for the operation and support (O&S) of major weapon
systems. The required steps would include efforts to improve
DOD processes for estimating O&S costs, collection and
retention of data on O&S costs, and use of such data to inform
system design and maintenance decisions. The Department would
also be required to conduct independent logistics assessments
prior to key decision points in the acquisition process and to
use those assessments to identify and address factors that
drive up O&S costs.
O&S costs are estimated to make up as much as 70 percent of
the total life cycle cost of DOD's major weapon systems. In
November 2009, the DOD Weapon System Acquisition Reform Product
Support Assessment concluded that inadequate visibility of O&S
costs ``has been a long-standing barrier to effectively
assessing, managing, and validating the benefits or
shortcomings of product support strategies.'' In July 2010, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that without
such visibility, ``DOD officials do not have important
information necessary for analyzing the rate of O&S cost growth
for major weapon systems, identifying cost drivers, and
developing plans for managing and controlling these costs.''
The provision recommended by the committee would address these
problems by requiring the implementation of key recommendations
of the DOD Product Support Assessment, the GAO report, and a
separate review completed by the DOD Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation in June 2010.
Clarification of responsibility for cost analyses and targets for
contract negotiation purposes (sec. 804)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics is responsible for policies and guidance on cost
analyses and targets to be used in contract negotiations.

Modification of requirements for guidance on management of
manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition programs (sec.
805)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 812 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to provide the
Department with additional flexibility in developing
manufacturing readiness standards for major defense acquisition
programs. Under the provision recommended by the committee, the
Department of Defense would be authorized to tailor
manufacturing readiness levels and other manufacturing
readiness standards to address the unique characteristics of
specific industry sectors or weapon system portfolios.

Management of developmental test and evaluation for major defense
acquisition programs (sec. 806)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that each major defense acquisition program of the Department
of Defense be supported by a chief developmental tester and a
lead developmental test and evaluation organization, and that
the chief developmental tester for each such program be a
government employee.

Assessment of risk associated with development of major weapon systems
to be procured under cooperative projects with friendly foreign
countries (sec. 807)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a risk assessment to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in advance of any cooperative agreement with an
allied nation that is expected to result in the award of a
Department of Defense (DOD) contract for the engineering and
manufacturing development of a major weapon system. The risk
assessment would include an assessment of design, technical,
manufacturing, and integration risks associated with the
development and acquisition of the weapon system; any
termination liability to which the United States would be
committed by contract or by the cooperative agreement itself;
the trade-off between program risk and potential termination
liability; and a listing of any DOD acquisition requirements
that are expected to be waived or modified in connection with
the program. For the purpose of this provision, the term
``engineering and manufacturing development'' is intended to
encompass the acquisition effort initiated by Milestone B of
Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02, or any comparable
effort under a modified or successor regulation.
The committee is deeply disappointed by the current status
of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). After the
investment of more than $1.5 billion of taxpayer money, DOD
concluded earlier this year that the program remains a high
risk for both cost and schedule, and the additional funding
that would be needed to meet U.S. standards for fielding the
system is unaffordable. However, the Department declined to
terminate the program, because the Memorandum of Understanding
on which the program is based commits the United States to
continued funding up to an agreed upon cost ceiling even if it
withdraws from the program. As a result, DOD has requested an
additional $406.6 million in funding in fiscal year 2012 for
the continued development of a system that it has no intention
of fielding (although system components will be available for
DOD to purchase).
The committee expects that the risk assessment required by
this provision will lead to more informed decisions about
cooperative agreements and help avoid mistakes of this kind in
the future.

Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management

Inclusion of data on contractor performance in past performance
databases for source selection decisions (sec. 821)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to develop a strategy for ensuring that timely,
accurate, and complete information on contractor performance is
included in past performance databases used for making source
selection decisions.
The provision would also require the Under Secretary to
revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation to provide for agency evaluations of contractor
performance to be included immediately in past performance
databases, rather than waiting for contractor comment,
rebuttal, and challenge, as provided in the existing
regulations. The same approach to contractor comments was
adopted in section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
which established the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity
Information System.
A January 2011, memorandum from the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy highlighted the ``need to improve
the quantity and quality of information available [in past
performance databases] so that source selection officials have
greater confidence in the reliability and relevance of the
information there.'' The memorandum reported that the
Department of Defense (DOD) submitted past performance
evaluations on only about half of eligible contract awards.
Those assessments that DOD did submit adequately addressed
quality and schedule issues only about half the time, and
adequately addressed cost control issues only 20 percent of the
time.
The February 2011, Interim Report of the Commission on
Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan found that agency
failure to record contractor performance assessments in
official databases in a timely manner increases the risk of
agencies' awarding contracts to habitual poor performers. The
report states:

``Federal past-performance policy provides for a
lengthy comment, rebuttal, and review process, in which
government officials and contractors record their
database input sequentially. To avoid the delays these
policies and procedures can create, government
officials sometimes make an unduly generous
assessment--or no assessment at all--of the true
quality of contractors' performance.''

Implementation of recommendations of Defense Science Board task force
on service contracting (sec. 822)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to develop a plan for implementing the
recommendations of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force
on Improvements to Service Contracting, which was established
pursuant to the directive of section 802 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84).
Over the last 10 years, the committee has initiated
numerous legislative initiatives directed at addressing
shortcomings in the acquisition of contract services by the
Department of Defense (DOD). These provisions include:
Section 821 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398), which required DOD to establish a preference for the use
of performance-based service contracts, establish centers for
excellence in service contracting, and improve the training
provided to personnel engaged in contracting for services.
Section 2330 of title 10, United States Code
(enacted by section 801 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) and amended by
section 812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163)), which requires DOD to
establish a management structure for the procurement of
contract services.
Section 2330a of title 10, United States Code
(enacted by section 801 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and amended by section 807 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 109-181)), which requires DOD to develop and review a
comprehensive inventory of contract services.
Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (codified as section 235 of title 10,
United States Code, by section 803 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which requires DOD to
specify annual amounts requested for contract services in
budget justification documents submitted to Congress.
Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which requires DOD to conduct
regular, independent management reviews of contracts for
services.
Section 863 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383),
which requires DOD to establish a process for identifying,
assessing, reviewing, and validating requirements for the
acquisition of contract services.
As noted by the DSB task force, DOD has made significant
efforts to implement these requirements. For example, each of
the military departments has appointed a senior executive to
oversee the management of contract services and the Director of
Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy has begun
toimplement independent management reviews of contracts for services.
The progress made by the Air Force Program Executive Officer for
Services has been particularly impressive.
Despite these efforts, however, the DSB task force reported
major deficiencies in DOD's management, organization, and
processes for the acquisition of contract services. For
example, the task force found:

``Across the Department, there is little visibility
into, and guidance for who, what, and how the DOD buys
services. As a result, there is overwhelming pressure
to simply execute operations and maintenance funds to
the maximum amount allotted with little regard for the
efficiencies that could be realized through a more
centralized approach. . . .
``Across the acquisition workforce, rote compliance
is rewarded and therefore, creativity is stifled. . . .
``The task force also observed an overall lack of
appropriate training, education, and experience for all
people involved. . . .
``Fundamentally, the entire defense workforce lacks
knowledge and experience in services contracting,
auditing, and oversight.''

In the current budget environment, the committee concludes
that DOD must take significant additional steps to improve the
management and oversight of its acquisition of contract
services.

Temporary limitation on aggregate annual amount available for contract
services (sec. 823)

The committee recommends a provision that would cap
Department of Defense (DOD) spending for contract services in
fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (not including spending from the
Overseas Contingency Operations Account) at the level of the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2010. In addition,
the provision would require the Department to: (1) establish a
negotiation objective of capping contractor labor rates and
overhead rates at fiscal year 2010 levels; (2) obtain high-
level approval for any contract or task order in excess of
$10.0 million at an annual cost exceeding fiscal year 2010
levels; (3) eliminate any contractor positions identified as
being responsible for the performance of inherently
governmental functions; and (4) reduce funding for staff
augmentation contracts and contracts for functions closely
associated with inherently governmental functions by 10 percent
a year; and (5) use the management structure required by
section 2330 of title 10, United States Code, to provide
oversight and ensure compliance with the requirements of the
provision.
The efficiencies initiatives announced by the Secretary of
Defense on August 9, 2010, included a 3-year, 10 percent per
year reduction in support contractors performing ``staff
augmentation services'' and a 3-year freeze on DOD civilian
personnel. The committee notes that ``staff augmentation
services'' has a subjective definition, and this category of
contractors is not tracked in any of the Department's business
systems. Moreover, many comparable functions are performed both
by civilian employees of the Department and pursuant to
contracts for services. Expected savings from the reduction in
staff augmentation services and the civilian workforce freeze
could easily be lost if other categories of services contracts
are permitted to grow without limitation so that spending can
shift to these contracts.
Over the last decade, DOD spending for contract services
has more than doubled, from $72.0 billion in fiscal year 2000
to more than $150.0 billion (not including spending for
overseas contingency operations), while the size of the
Department's civilian employee workforce has remained
essentially unchanged. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics testified in September
2010:

* * * * * * *

``I think great savings can be had there, across the
Services' spend. It's essential that we look there,
because that's half the money.''

The committee notes that the Air Force has conducted a
disciplined review of $5.6 billion of service contracts over
the last year and identified $1.4 billion of expected savings
over the next 8 years. The Air Force has informed the committee
that an expanded review can be expected to result in
substantial additional savings. In the view of the committee,
the other military departments and defense agencies should be
expected to conduct similar reviews, and to achieve similar
savings.
The committee concludes that an across-the-board freeze on
DOD spending for contract services comparable to the freeze
that the Secretary of Defense has imposed on the civilian
workforce is warranted to ensure that the Department maintains
an appropriate balance between its civilian and contractor
workforces and achieves expected savings from planned
reductions to both workforces.

Annual report on single-award task and delivery order contracts (sec.
824)

The committee recommends a provision that would streamline
reporting requirements for single-award task and delivery order
contracts pursuant to section 817 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
314). The provision recommended by the committee would require
a single annual report on single-award contracts awarded on the
basis of exceptional circumstances, rather than a separate
report on each single-award contract awarded during the year.

Incorporation of corrosion prevention and control into requirements
applicable to development and acquisition of weapon systems
(sec. 825)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to: (1) identify and disseminate
recommendations from a recent corrosion study conducted by the
DOD Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight; (2) develop a
plan for increased consideration of corrosion issues in the
acquisition of major weapon systems; (3) consider specific
steps to improve corrosion control in the F-22 Raptor and F-35
Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft programs; (4)
consider corrosion issues in any certification of a major
defense acquisition program under section 2366a or 2366b of
title 10, United State Code; and (5) provide appropriate
consideration to corrosion in the operational testing of major
weapon systems. The provision would require the Director of the
Office of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to consider corrosion,
environmental severity, and duration in the adequacy of test
and evaluation plans. In addition, the DOT&E annual report
would be required to include an assessment of the adequacy of
each major defense acquisition program in considering material
degradation.
The affordability and suitability of a weapon system is
greatly affected by the material degradation characteristics of
the system over its entire useful service life. The recently
released, congressionally-mandated report by the Director of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight, entitled ``Corrosion Evaluation
of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter,'' identified several areas in the design, development,
and testing processes of these weapon systems where corrosion
and material degradation were not appropriately addressed. This
resulted in serious corrosion issues on the F-22 that went
undiscovered until well into production and fielding, and
caused significant consequences in both cost and readiness.
These problems could and should have been avoided. The
evaluation also pointed out some systemic problems with how
corrosion and material degradation are considered in the
acquisition of new systems.
Section 2228 of title 10, United States Code, established
the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. The Director of
the Office is required to: (1) oversee and coordinate DOD
efforts to prevent and mitigate corrosion; (2) develop and
recommend policy guidance on the prevention and mitigation of
corrosion; (3) determine the adequacy of DOD funding levels for
the prevention and mitigation of corrosion; (4) monitor and
oversee DOD corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts; (5)
work with the Defense Acquisition University to develop
corrosion training; and (6) work with other elements of the
Department to ensure the implementation of requirements and
criteria for the testing and certification of new corrosion-
prevention technologies and to establish a coordinated research
and development program for the prevention and mitigation of
corrosion.
The provision recommended by the committee would build on
these authorities to ensure that full consideration is given to
corrosion prevention and mitigation at every stage of the
acquisition process for major weapon systems. The provision
would require the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) to fully
consider corrosion issues at the time of any certification of a
major defense acquisition program prior to Milestone A and
Milestone B. The committee expects the MDA to duly consider
corrosion and material degradation in connection with Milestone
B, in connection with his certifications that--
the program is affordable when considering
the ability of the DOD to accomplish the program's
mission using alternative systems;
the program is affordable when considering
the per unit cost and the total acquisition cost;
reasonable cost and schedule estimates have
been developed to execute the product development and
production plan under the program;
the program demonstrates a high likelihood
of accomplishing its intended mission;
the DOD has completed an analysis of
alternatives with respect to the program;
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has
accomplished its duties with respect to the program
pursuant to section 181(b), title 10, United States
Code, including an analysis of the operational
requirements for the program; and
the technology in the program has been
demonstrated in a relevant environment.
Once fielded, military systems frequently operate in
corrosive environments. Therefore, to help ensure corrosion and
material degradation do not become limiting factors during the
useful service life of a weapon system, corrosion issues should
be fully considered in both the design and testing of new
systems.

Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs (sec. 826)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from carrying out any program that
creates a price evaluation adjustment for specified categories
of businesses, unless consistent with constitutional
requirements established by the federal courts.

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

Treatment for technical data purposes of independent research and
development and bid and proposal costs (sec. 841)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
treatment of independent research and development (IR&D) and
bid and proposal (B&P) costs for the purposes of section 2320
of title 10, United States Code, governing rights in technical
data. The provision recommended by the committee would ensure
government-purpose rights (the right to use the data to ensure
competition for future government purchases) in technical data
for an item or process that is developed through the
expenditure of IR&D and B&P costs in the case of: (1) an item
or process for which the contractor contributed less than 10
percent of the cost of development; or (2) an item or process
that is integrated into a major system and either: (a) cannot
be segregated from the system as a whole; or (b) was developed
predominantly at government expense.

Extension to all management employees of applicability of the senior
executive benchmark compensation amount for purposes of
allowable cost limitations under government contracts (sec.
842)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2324 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
existing cap on allowable costs for defense contractor
executive compensation to apply to all contractor management
employees. Under current law, the cap applies only to the five
most highly-compensated management employees in each segment of
the company. The committee concludes that the extension of the
provision is justified to ensure that the Department is not
required to reimburse defense contractors for unreasonable or
excessive compensation paid to company executives.

Covered contracts for purposes of requirements on contractor business
systems (sec. 843)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 893 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to clarify which
defense contracts are covered contracts for the purpose of the
authority to withhold payments under section 893.

Compliance with defense procurement requirements for purposes of
internal controls of non-defense agencies for procurements on
behalf of the Department of Defense (sec. 844)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
standards that a non-defense agency would have to meet to be
suitable for interagency contracting by the Department of
Defense. The provision recommended by the committee would
require a non-defense agency to certify that the agency is
compliant with: (1) the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
other laws and regulations that apply to the procurement of
property and services by federal agencies; and (2) laws and
regulations that apply to procurements of property and services
made by the Department of Defense through other federal
agencies.

Prohibition on collection of political information (sec. 845)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from requiring a contractor to submit
political information as a part of a solicitation or at any
other point during the performance of a contract. The provision
includes exceptions for: (1) the enforcement of regulatory and
law enforcement requirements; and (2) audit activities
necessary to administer requirements relative to unallowable
costs.

Waiver of ``Buy American'' requirement for procurement of components
otherwise producible overseas with specialty metal not produced
in the United States (sec. 846)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2533b of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement for the United
States manufacturer of a weapon system component to use
specialty metals melted or produced inside the United States if
the Secretary determines that, in the absence of the waiver,
the component would be produced overseas, using foreign
specialty metals.

Comptroller General of the United States reports on noncompetitive and
one-offer contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (sec.
847)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General to review and evaluate noncompetitive
contracts and one-offer contracts awarded by the Department of
Defense (DOD) in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014.
The committee notes that one of the major objectives of the
``Better Buying Power'' initiative announced by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logisticsis to promote improved competition for DOD contracts. The
initiative includes a number of measures designed to decrease the
number of one-offer contracts awarded by the Department. The reviews
conducted by the Comptroller General pursuant to this provision should
help DOD and Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of these steps and
to determine whether additional steps are needed.

Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting

Prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United States Central
Command Theater of Operations (sec. 861)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the head of a contracting activity to void a contract or
restrict the award of future contracts to a contractor who has
been determined by the Commander of United States Central
Command to be actively opposing U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The
provision would also authorize the termination for default of a
contractor who fails to exercise due diligence to ensure that
none of the funds under a contract are awarded to persons who
are actively opposing U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
As a result of the establishment of Task Force 2010 and
Task Force Spotlight last year, U.S. forces in Afghanistan have
begun to fuse intelligence and contracting efforts to establish
better oversight over contracting and subcontracting in
Afghanistan. This improved oversight has revealed instances in
which some contractors or subcontractors are working directly
or indirectly with insurgents and powerbrokers who are actively
working against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The Department of Defense has informed the committee that
time-consuming legal procedures could be required under current
law before such contracts could be terminated. As a result,
U.S. taxpayer money could continue to flow to persons
supporting enemy forces for weeks or even months after the
problem has been identified. On March 15, 2011, the Commander,
United States Forces Afghanistan, testified that legislation
addressing this issue would ``be very helpful to us'' and ``the
sooner the better.''
The committee concludes that contracts with the enemy have
the potential to seriously undermine U.S. national security
objectives in the Central Command Theater of Operations and
should be considered to be void as against public policy.

Additional access to contractor and subcontractor records in the United
States Central Command Theater of Operations (sec. 862)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to examine any records of a contractor
or subcontractor in the Central Command (CENTCOM) Theater of
Operations to the extent necessary to ensure that funds
available under the contract or subcontract: (1) are not
subject to extortion or corruption; and (2) are not provided
directly or indirectly to persons or entities that are actively
opposing U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has informed the committee
that extortion and corruption in the U.S. supply chain
continues to hamper the achievement of national security
objectives in Afghanistan. CENTCOM efforts to uncover linkages
between DOD contractors and corruption and criminal networks in
Afghanistan have been undermined by limitations on the
Department's authority to examine contractor records under
fixed price contracts, contracts for commercial items, and
contracts awarded through sealed bid procedures. The committee
concludes that audit access to such contracts is needed, in
limited circumstances and subject to appropriate controls, to
address this problem.

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund to rapidly meet urgent operational
needs (sec. 863)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (JUON Fund) to enable the
Department of Defense to rapidly respond to urgent needs
identified on the battlefield. The provision recommended by the
committee would require that all expenditures from the JUON
Fund be made: (1) on the basis of merit-based selection
procedures; and (2) for capabilities that are determined to be
suitable for rapid fielding in accordance with the criteria in
section 804(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).

Inclusion of associated support services in rapid acquisition and
deployment procedures for supplies (sec. 864)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to authorize the use
of rapid acquisition authority for support services required in
connection with the deployment of urgently needed supplies.

Reach-back contracting authority for Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation New Dawn (sec. 865)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to designate a single contracting activity inside the
United States to act as the lead contracting activity in
support of contracts to be performed in-theater for Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation New Dawn. The increased micro-
purchase threshold and simplified acquisition threshold
applicable to in-theater purchases would apply to contracts
executed by the reach-back contracting authority for
performance in theater.

Inclusion of contractor support requirements in Department of Defense
planning documents (sec. 866)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Military
Strategy, and other key military planning documents address the
expected roles and responsibilities of contractors in military
operations and associated risks.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Extension of availability of funds in the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund (sec. 881)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide
uniformity in the availability of funds in the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, as requested by the
Department of Defense.

Modification of delegation of authority to make determinations on entry
into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with NATO
and other friendly organizations and countries (sec. 882)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the delegation of authority to approve certain Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements to both the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L)
and the Principal Deputy Under Secretary for AT&L. Current law
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to delegate authority to
only one Department of Defense official.

Rate of payment for airlift services under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet
program (sec. 883)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that contracts establishing rates for services provided by air
carriers who are participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF) program are not subject to the Truth in Negotiations Act
(TINA), section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, or the
Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), section 1502 of title 41,
United States Code. The Department of Defense has informed the
committee that under longstanding practice, CRAF air carriers
submit cost data in accordance with the Department of
Transportation's Uniform System of Accounts and Reports
(section 241 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations). The
Department states that subjecting these contracts to TINA and
CAS would disrupt this proven methodology and require air
carriers to comply with two separate sets of accounting
standards.

Clarification of Department of Defense authority to purchase right-hand
drive passenger sedan vehicles and adjustment of threshold for
inflation (sec. 884)

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that
the Department of Defense can continue to acquire right-hand
drive vehicles for use as needed overseas.

Extension and expansion of small business programs of the Department of
Defense (sec. 885)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through September 30, 2018, the Department of Defense Small
Business Innovative Research program, Small Business Technology
Transfer program, and Small Business Commercialization Pilot
Program. The committee notes that these programs have
successfully invested in innovative research and technologies
that have contributed significantly to the expansion of the
defense industrial base and the development of new military
systems and capabilities.

Three-year extension of test program for negotiation of comprehensive
small business subcontracting plans (sec. 886)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
3 years the authority for Department of Defense contractors to
negotiate comprehensive small business subcontracting plans in
accordance with section 834 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law
101-189).

Five-year extension of Department of Defense mentor-protege program
(sec. 887)

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

Report on alternatives for the procurement of fire-resistant and fire-
retardant fiber and materials for the production of military
products (sec. 888)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on fire resistant
and fire-retardant fibers and materials for the production of
military products.

Items of Special Interest

Competition in contracts for services

One of the major objectives of the ``Better Buying Power''
initiative announced by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is to ensure that the
Department maximizes the use of competition in the acquisition
of products and services. As the Under Secretary explained in a
September 14, 2010, memorandum for acquisition professionals:

``Real competition is the single most powerful tool
available to the Department to drive productivity. . .
. Competition is not always available, but evidence
suggests that the government is not availing itself of
all possible competitive situations.''

The committee is particularly concerned that the Department
may not be availing itself of competition to the extent that it
should in the award of contracts for services. The committee is
aware of cases in which requirements for services contracts
have been written in a manner that appears to favor award to
the incumbent contractor, or in which the Department has failed
to provide sufficient time for sources other than the incumbent
to provide realistic competition for follow-on contracts.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to report to the Armed Services
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no
later than March 15, 2012, on the extent of competition in
Department of Defense contracts and task orders for services.
The GAO report should address, at a minimum: (1) trends in
competition rates for contract services; (2) the relative level
of competition for contract services, compared to the rate of
competition in contracts and delivery orders for products; (3)
reasons for non-competitive contracts and task orders for
services; and (4) steps that the Department of Defense could
take to increase competition in contracts and task orders for
services.

Cost-consciousness in contingency contracting

The February 2011, Interim Report of the Commission on
Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC Report) found
that after almost 10 years of military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, federal agencies still do not treat contingency
contracting as a core function. The CWC report states,

``The Commission has repeatedly observed that senior
officials in the contingency acquisition process--those
with decision-making and acquisition-related
responsibilities--do not consider costs as a
significant factor in their pre-award planning or post-
award performance-management decisions. Officials'
failure to consider the costs of requirements results
in loss of resources that could be more efficiently and
effectively used. Agency heads have not held senior
officials accountable for these consequences.
``For many senior officials, contractors appear to be
a `free' source of labor with no direct impact on their
budgets. Funded out of what they perceive to be
unconstrained overseas contingency-operation budgets,
many senior officials pay scant attention to
articulating specific support requirements, negotiating
contract terms, and managing contractor performance. A
general officer who briefed the Commission during its
visit to Kuwait in February 2010 said that if there is
no budget restriction and all contract-support
requirements are met, then commanders have no incentive
to consider costs.''

The CWC Report also recommended that the Department of
Defense and other federal agencies: (1) designate senior
officials with responsibility for cost consciousness on major
contracts; and (2) evaluate senior officials based on their
performance in the area of contractor management and oversight
and acquisition cost control. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
on the steps, if any, that the Department plans to take to
implement these recommendations.

Implementation of competition requirement in section 811 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, no later than March 1, 2012, and March 1,
2013, on the implementation of section 811 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84). The Secretary's report should provide, at a minimum, an
assessment of the following: (1) the number of sole-source
contracts in excess of $20.0 million that have been awarded to
each category of 8(a) participant, including Alaskan Native
Corporations, during the preceding year; (2) the dollar-amounts
associated with such contracts; (3) the justifications cited
for the award of such sole-source contracts; (4) a description
of the goods or services that were or are to be provided under
such contracts; (5) the percentage of work on such contracts
that was subcontracted by the awardee or performed by entities
other than the awardee; and (6) any measures taken by the
Department of Defense or the Small Business Administration to
ensure that such contracts are not abused.

Market research on potential sources of athletic footwear for members
of the armed forces

On March 30, 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD)
submitted an interim response to the requirement of the
Committee Print Number 10 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383),
regarding DOD's change in policy on athletic footwear for
members of the Armed Forces. Under the new policy, DOD provides
members an increased clothing allowance in order to purchase
footwear, rather than purchasing it on their behalf. The
interim report indicates that the new policy ``provides new
recruits the ability to buy commercially available running
shoes of their choice, in consideration of the uniqueness of
their individual physiology, running style, and individual
comfort and fit requirements'' and ``ensures that recruits are
able to select and wear the type and size athletic shoe that
provides the greatest comfort and reduces lower extremity
injuries.''
The report states that ``A single model of athletic shoes
which meets all of these requirements, at the selected price
point, from a US supplier has not been identified.'' However,
DOD does not appear to have conducted any market research or
other systematic review to support this conclusion.
Accordingly, the committee directs DOD to conduct market
research, as provided in Part 10 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) and Part 210 of the DOD Supplement to the FAR,
to assess the variety and pricing of domestically-produced
athletic footwear that could be made available to meet DOD
needs. The market research should include a survey of all major
athletic footwear manufacturers and an assessment of the extent
to which the supply of such athletic footwear could be
increased if a domestic non-availability determination were
made, as it has been in the past, for certain materials
incorporated into such footwear. The committee directs the
Secretary to provide an updated report on the need for the new
policy, in light of the data provided by such market research,
by no later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.

Preference for uniforms, organizational clothing, and personal
equipment that contain recycled materials

Executive Order 13514, dated October 5, 2009, requires
federal agencies to ensure that 95 percent of new contract
actions are energy efficient, water efficient, biobased,
environmentally preferable, non-ozone depleting, contain
recycled content, or are non-toxic or less toxic alternatives,
where such products and services meet agency performance
requirements. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
implements this requirement with provisions mandating that
federal agencies implement cost-effective contracting
preference programs, including affirmative procurement programs
for products containing recovered materials and biobased
products.
The committee is aware that military garment manufacturers
and others in the private sector have initiated efforts to
collect fabric scraps generated in the manufacturing process,
combine them with post-consumer plastic water bottles, and
generate recycled yarn for usage in a wide variety of materials
and products. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act on: (1) the extent to which
such recycled products can meet Department of Defense (DOD)
needs for uniforms, organizational clothing, and personal
equipment; and (2) the feasibility and advisability of either
developing a DOD-specific product specification for such items
or working with the Environmental Protection Agency or the
United States Department of Agriculture to designate such items
as environmentally preferred products, as provided in section
23.404 of the FAR.

Procedures for suspension and debarment

The February 2011, Interim Report of the Commission on
Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC Report) found
that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies have
failed to use the suspension and debarment process effectively
in a contingency environment. The CWC Report states:

``[A]gencies sometimes do not pursue suspensions or
debarments in a contingency environment, preferring
instead to enter into administrative agreements with
the problematic contractor. When agencies fail to take
action to bar contractors from participation in the
federal market despite chronic misconduct, criminal
behavior, or repeated poor performance, taxpayer
dollars can be wasted and mission objective
compromised--while the contractor is left with no
incentive to improve.
``Agency officials cite the complexity of suspension
and debarment procedures as a reason for not using the
tools as often as they could. For example, in some
circumstances regulations provide contractors proposed
for suspension or debarment with the opportunity to
request a hearing before the agency taking the action.
The Commission found that it is extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to locate and present witnesses and
necessary documentary evidence in support of a fact-
based suspension or debarment in a contingency
environment. This difficulty places a heightened burden
on the agency when contractors seek to dispute
particular facts by appearing in person.''

The Commission recommended addressing this problem by
exempting agencies from the requirement to provide contractors
with the opportunity for a hearing prior to a suspension or
debarment action, and authorizing agencies to make such
decisions based on the documentary record alone, in the case of
contracts performed predominantly overseas in support of
contingency operations. The committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act on the feasibility and
advisability of implementing this recommendation.

Prompt payment discounts and interest on late payments

The committee is aware of concerns that the Department of
Defense (DOD) has failed to take full advantage of prompt
payment discounts offered by contractors and sometimes incurs
interest penalties when it fails to pay contractors within the
period of time required by the Prompt Payment Act (chapter 39
of title 31, United States Code). In an era of tight budgets,
DOD cannot afford to forego available savings or pay
unnecessary interest because of a failure to make timely
payments.
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to review this issue and report its findings and
recommendations to the committee by no later than March 30,
2012. The GAO review should include an assessment, for a sample
of contracts, of the percentage and amount of available prompt
payment discounts that DOD failed to recoup, the percentage and
amount of interest charged to DOD for late payments, the causes
of any shortcomings in DOD payment processes, and steps that
DOD could take to address such shortcomings.

Reliability and maintainability of weapon systems

In May 2008, the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on
Developmental Test and Evaluation reported that high
suitability failure rates in operational test and evaluation
were caused by ``the lack of a disciplined systems engineering
process, including a robust reliability growth program, during
system development.'' The DSB task force concluded that the
single most important step necessary to correct these failure
rates is to ensure that ``programs are formulated to execute a
viable systems engineering strategy from the beginning,
including a robust [reliability, availability, and
maintainability] program, which includes reliability growth, as
an integral part of design and development.'' These issues were
addressed by the developmental testing and systems engineering
requirements in section 102 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23).
In June 30, 2010, in a memorandum entitled ``State of
Reliability'', the Director of Operational Testing and
Evaluation (DOT&E), indicated that weapon system reliability
continues to be a major problem for Department of Defense (DOD)
acquisitions. According to the DOT&E's 2009 annual report, only
66 percent of the programs monitored by DOT&E met their
reliability requirements, only 44 percent have a reliability
plan, and only 45 percent are tracking reliability. In March
2011, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued a directive-type
memorandum (DTM) effectuating the DOT&E's recommendations. In
particular, the DTM requires the use of reliability plans and
metrics in connection with key investment decision points, and
institutionalizes new procedures for analysis, planning,
tracking, and reporting of reliability issues.
The committee expects all major systems in development--in
particular, the Joint Strike Fighter Program, which is now
predicted to have a life cycle cost in excess of $1.0
trillion--to comply with the requirements of the DTM and
directs the Department to modify DOD Instruction 5000.02 and
other applicable guidance to ensure that the changes made by
the DTM are fully institutionalized and implemented and that
intended policy objectives are met.

Streamlining procedures for contract close-out

At the end of fiscal year 2010, the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) reported a backlog of more than $400.0 billion on
incurred cost audits that the Department of Defense (DOD) must
conduct before it can close out cost-type contracts. DCAA has
informed the committee that incurred cost audits are expensive
and time-consuming to conduct. Moreover, long delays may make
it more difficult to find the documentation necessary to
conduct incurred cost audits and delay the recovery of any
unjustified payments on behalf of the taxpayers.
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to review DCAA's criteria and procedures for conducting
incurred cost audits and make recommendations as to steps that
DCAA could take to reduce the backlog and close out contracts
faster, while protecting taxpayers against unjustified or
excessive payments. The GAO review should consider, at a
minimum, the feasibility and advisability of: (1) restoring the
authority of the head of an agency to close out a contract that
is administratively complete, was entered into 10 or more years
ago, and has an unreconciled balance of less than $100,000; (2)
authorizing the contracting officer, in consultation with DCAA,
to waive the requirement for an incurred cost audit in the case
of a low risk, low-cost contract; and (3) authorizing the
contracting officer to waive final payment in a case where the
contractor has gone out of business and cannot be reached.
The committee notes that a final rule on contract close-
out, published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2011,
includes language that is intended ``to increase the use of
quick-close-out procedures.'' The GAO review should assess the
efficacy of the new rule in expediting contract closeout in
appropriate cases.

Test and evaluation of major defense acquisition programs

On June 3, 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Department of
Defense Director of Operational Test and Evaluation issued a
joint memorandum addressing assertions made by some program
managers that the Department's approach to testing ``drives
undue requirements, excessive cost, and added schedule into
programs.'' The joint memorandum, based on two separate
assessments of this issue, ``found no significant evidence that
the testing community typically drives unplanned requirements,
cost or schedule into programs.'' According to the joint
memorandum, none of the programs reviewed ``was delayed solely
by problems in testing and in no case was a testing problem a
principal cause of delay.''
Rather, delays in programs that have been attributed to
overly rigid testing requirements were more likely caused by
poorly-defined requirements and acquisition strategies that are
poorly aligned with test plans. The joint memorandum calls for
addressing these problems as follows:
``[W]e need the requirements process to produce
well-defined, and therefore testable, requirements. Our results
indicate the requirements process needs to be more agile and
responsive to change as knowledge increases. From the outset,
requirements development must be informed by technical
feasibility and rigorous trade-off analysis. Defining
requirements in ways that are clear and testable, including in
a well-defined and comprehensive operational mission
environment, should be achieved as early as possible.
Operators, developers, program analysts, and testers should all
participate in the development of requirements so that they are
defined in ways that provide meaningful increments of
operational capability, enable efficient program execution, and
are testable.''
``A central element of all our acquisition
strategies should be an executable plan to use developmental
and operational testing together as a means to achieve and
demonstrate success. Programs often lack the budgetary and
contract flexibility necessary to accommodate discovery and
respond to problems discovered during program execution. The
acquisition and test communities must work together to assure
that this does not occur.''
The committee endorses the findings of the joint memorandum
and urges the military departments to fully implement the
recommended actions.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

Qualifications for appointments to the position of Deputy Secretary of
Defense (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 132 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
the Deputy Secretary of Defense be appointed from among persons
most highly qualified for the position by reason of background
and experience, including but not limited to management
experience.
Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) made the Deputy Secretary
of Defense the Chief Management Officer of the Department of
Defense. At the same time, the committee recognizes that the
Deputy Secretary continues to serve as the alter ego of the
Secretary, who is responsible in that capacity for the full
range of functions of the Department of Defense. For this
reason, the committee views management background and
experience as an important factor, but not an exclusive factor,
that should be considered by the President in the selection of
a Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Designation of Department of Defense senior official with principal
responsibility for airship programs (sec. 902)
The Committee recommends a provision that would establish a
focal point in the Department of Defense for airship programs.
The Senate report accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rept. 111-201)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,
directed the Department of Defense to provide the congressional
defense committees with a report that reviews the status and
future of plans for the wide variety of air vehicles classified
as aerostats, airships, and rigid aeroshell variable buoyancy
vehicles that the Department is pursuing. The intent of this
language was to ensure that the Department was coordinating and
overseeing, as appropriate, the large number of these
programs--including enabling cross-fertilization of
technologies across the programs. Unfortunately, the report
provided to the congressional defense committees was extremely
disappointing. One of the Department's key airship programs,
the Integrated Sensor Is Structure program being pursued by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Air Force was
not even mentioned.
Furthermore, there was very little discussion of the
technical challenges and how the Department was pursuing
solutions to them. The committee is concerned if this report is
reflective of the level of technical and programmatic oversight
that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering is providing for this emerging field.
Hence, the committee directs the Department to designate a
senior official who will be responsible for the coordination
and oversight of the various airship-related programs across
the Department to ensure that unnecessary duplication of
efforts is avoided and that a technical ``community of
interest'' is established to ensure cross-fertilization of
technologies across the programs as appropriate. Furthermore,
the committee directs the Department to submit a report within
180 days after the enactment of this Act to the congressional
defense committees that fulfills the original language cited
above and includes all airship programs the Department is
currently developing.
Memoranda of agreement on synchronization of enabling capabilities of
general purpose forces with the requirements of special
operations forces (sec. 903)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the services, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to
produce formal Memoranda of Agreement establishing the
procedures by which the availability of the enabling
capabilities of the general purpose forces (GPF) will be
synchronized with the training and deployment cycle of special
operations forces (SOF).
The Commander of USSOCOM has described the ``non-
availability'' of enabling capabilities as USSOCOM's ``most
vexing issue in the operational environment.'' As the Commander
of USSOCOM testified earlier this year, ``SOF units must
include a limited amount of these enabling forces to ensure
rapid response to emerging requirements, but we were designed
and intended to rely on the services to meet most of our combat
support and combat service support requirements.''
The committee supports recent efforts, including those
mandated by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, to build
additional enabling capabilities within SOF and the GPF which
can serve in direct support of SOF, especially in the areas of
rotary-wing airlift, explosives ordinance disposal, and
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
A recent report required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84)indicated that adequately enabling SOF in the future will require
improvements to ``the process by which SOF gains access to enabler
support, and by synchronizing efforts with the Services.'' The report
also stated ``Currently, SOF units divert scarce organic resources to
satisfy enabler requirements and accomplish the assigned mission. In
future operating environments, the effects of enabler shortfalls will
be further exacerbated unless USSOCOM and the Services can better
forecast the need for support, codify support through formal
agreements, and eventually get SOF units and their GPF counterparts
training together throughout the deployment cycle.''
The committee notes that USSOCOM and the services, most
notably the Army, have begun discussions with regard to the
need to better align GPF enabling capabilities with SOF
requirements. However, the committee believes that ongoing and
planned reductions of GPF in Iraq and Afghanistan create
additional urgency for reaching agreement on procedures for
ensuring adequate GPF enabling support to deployed SOF.

Enhancement of administration of the United States Air Force Institute
of Technology (sec. 904)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 901 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the
positions of the Commandant, and Provost and Academic Dean of
the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and prescribe
certain pre-requisite qualifications for appointment as the
Commandant. The Commandant would either be an active-duty Air
Force officer not below the grade of colonel, a member of the
Senior Executive Service, or a civilian individual, including
an Air Force officer who retired in a grade not below brigadier
general, selected by the Secretary of the Air Force.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force, as
part of the selection process for the Commandant, to require
key additional qualifications and attributes. For example, the
Commandant should hold an advanced academic degree in a field
of study relevant to the mission and function of the AFIT.
Additionally, he or she should have a comprehensive
understanding of the Department of the Air Force, the
Department of Defense, and joint and combined operations;
possess leadership experience at the senior level in a large
and diverse organization; and have demonstrated the ability to
foster and encourage a program of research in order to sustain
academic excellence. The committee trusts the Secretary and the
uniformed leaders of the Air Force to select only the highest
qualified candidates for this important position.

Defense laboratory matters (sec. 905)

This provision contains four sections.
The committee recommends a provision to make permanent the
direct hiring authority of scientists and engineers with
advanced degrees that was authorized in section 1108 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417). With the Department of
Defense's current scientific and technical workforce aging,
coupled with the highly competitive nature of hiring scientists
and engineers outside of the Department, this authority has
proven to be extremely valuable.
The committee recommends a provision to make permanent the
mechanism to provide funds for defense laboratories for
research and development of technologies for military missions,
authorized by section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The mechanism allows
defense laboratory directors to use up to 3 percent of all
funds available to the laboratory to conduct research, fund
transition programs, develop the workforce, or revitalize and
recapitalize infrastructure. This authority is already proving
to be a powerful tool for lab directors and the expiration date
should be removed to empower them with the ability to use this
authority in a more strategic and effective manner.
The committee recommends a provision to make permanent the
authorities of section 2805(d) of title 10, United States Code,
that allows defense laboratories to carry out unspecified minor
construction of projects up to certain limits. This authority
has been useful for the revitalization and recapitalization of
the aging infrastructure of the defense laboratories and helps
to alleviate the situation where their needs typically are
ranked of lower priority compared to other military
construction requirements.
Lastly, the committee recommends a provision to direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the military
construction needs of the defense laboratories for their
revitalization and recapitalization. The defense laboratories
are national assets and many of them, with infrastructure
constructed more than a half a century ago, are facing
challenges in the conduct of their missions due to aging
infrastructure.

Assessment of Department of Defense access to non-United States
citizens with scientific and technical expertise vital to the
national security interests (sec. 906)

The committee is aware of a large number of recent studies
that have highlighted the fact that the majority of recipients
of advanced degrees from U.S. universities in scientific and
technical areas are non-U.S. citizens. There is concern that
the Department of Defense (DOD) is not able to access this
growing cadre of technical expertise due to citizenship and
security clearance reasons. The Department of Defense's
scientific and technical workforce is aging but it appears that
it is not taking a comprehensive long-term strategy over the
next decade to address vacancies when many of the current
workforce will retire.
To address shortfalls in critical skills in other areas,
the DOD has instituted a pilot program, called the Military
Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI), to access
certain health care professionals and individuals with specific
language/cultural backgrounds.
The committee recommends a provision for the DOD to conduct
a study to explore the use of MAVNI or other potential
mechanisms to be able to employ non-U.S. citizens with specific
critical scientific and technical skills--either within the
Department as uniformed personnel, but more importantly
civilians, as well as within the broader defense industrial
base. The committee requests a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the results of this study to explore such potential
mechanisms.

Subtitle B--Space Activities

Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 911)

The committee recommends a provision that would facilitate
cooperation between the private sector and the Department of
Defense (DOD) in using DOD space transportation infrastructure.
The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
maximize the use of the space transportation infrastructure by
the private sector, and maximize the effectiveness
andefficiency of DOD's use of the infrastructure, reduce costs, and
encourage commercial space activities through the use of contracts or
other cooperative agreements. The DOD would be authorized to enter into
such contracts or agreements with private sector entities to provide or
receive specific space launch and reentry range support and services.
Before entering into any such contracts or agreements the Secretary
would have to determine that such contract or agreement is in the best
interest of the government, would not interfere with DOD requirements
and would not compete with commercial space entities, unless the
competition is in the national security interest of the United States.
Pursuant to a contract or agreement, which must be managed
in accordance with DOD procurement regulations, the Secretary
of Defense could accept funds, services, or equipment to enable
participation in joint space transportation infrastructure
improvements with the private sector. The provision would also
establish an account in the Treasury of the United States into
which the Secretary would deposit any funds received. In
addition, the Secretary would submit to the congressional
defense committees an annual report describing how any funds,
equipment, or services were used during the preceding fiscal
year.
The committee notes that in many instances there are
opportunities for DOD to partner with commercial space entities
to jointly fund or undertake improvements that each entity
would use. There are also instances where the private sector
desires to undertake an improvement at a DOD facility to enable
it to use the facility, but that could also be used by DOD.
Finally, there are circumstances where a site-wide improvement
is needed but it would be more efficient to use a single
contract, which is jointly funded, to carry out a common
improvement on DOD land and land leased by the private sector.
The committee notes that use of these agreements or
contracts would have to be mutually agreed upon between DOD and
the commercial space entity and would have to specifically
describe the activity to be accomplished. Further the committee
notes that this provision would not direct the Secretary to
utilize such agreements or contracts to support space
transportation infrastructure improvements, but would simply
authorize these voluntary agreements.

Authority to designate increments or blocks of space vehicles as major
subprograms subject to acquisition reporting requirements (sec.
912)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2430a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to designate blocks or
increments of two or more space vehicles as a major subprogram
for the purposes of acquisition reporting.
This authority will allow the Department of Defense to
manage the acquisition of space satellites in a more cost
effective fashion.

Review to identify interference with national security Global
Positioning System receivers by commercial communications
services (sec. 913)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to review and assess the ability of the
national security Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to
receive the signals of the GPS satellites without interruption
or interference and determine if commercial communications
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful
interference with national security GPS receivers. In the event
that the review determines that commercial communications
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful
interference with national security GPS receivers, the
Secretary would be required to notify promptly the
congressional defense committees. The provision would direct
the Secretary to conduct such review every 90 days for 2 years
or until the Secretary determines there is no widespread or
harmful interference with national security GPS receivers by
commercial communications services, whichever is earlier.
The provision would also set forth a sense of Congress that
the reliable provision and receipt of GPS signals is critical
to the economy, public health and safety, and the national
security of the United States.
The committee is concerned about the possibility of
commercial communications services interfering with the ability
of national security GPS receivers to receive the GPS signal.
The GPS satellites provide global precision navigation and
timing (PNT) services to civilian and military users to provide
precise, common, location, and time reference to an unlimited
number of people in all weather, day and night--free of charge.
According to the National Executive Committee for Space-Based
Positioning, Navigation and Timing, the U.S. Government entity
established to advise and coordinate federal departments and
agencies on matters concerning GPS and related systems, ``GPS
remains critical to U.S. national security, and its
applications are integrated into virtually every facet of U.S.
military operations. U.S. and Allied military forces will
continue to rely on GPS military services for PNT services.''

Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters

Expansion of authority for exchanges of mapping, charting, and geodetic
data to include nongovernmental organizations and academic
institutions (sec. 921)

At the request of the Department of Defense, the committee
recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of
Defense to authorize the National Geospatial Intelligence
Agency to provide or exchange geospatial-related data,
supplies, and services, relating to regions outside of the
United States to nongovernmental organizations or academic
institutions engaged in geospatial-related research or
production, pursuant to an agreement.

Facilities for intelligence collection or special operations activities
abroad (sec. 922)

At the request of the Department of Defense, the committee
recommends a provision that would create a narrow exception to
the current requirement in section 2682 of title 10, United
States Code, that the Secretary of Defense ensures that
jurisdiction over, and maintenance and repair of real property
facilities used by an activity or agency of the Department of
Defense other than a military department be exercised by or
through a military department. The exception proposed in this
provision would be available only for real property facilities
acquired as part, or in support, of Department of Defense
intelligence or special operations activities abroad, where
security is paramount.

Ozone Widget Framework (sec. 923)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to
publish and maintain on the Internet the Application
Programming Interface (API) specifications, a developer's
toolkit, source code, and such other information on, and
resources for, the Ozone Widget Framework (OWF) that are
necessary to permit individuals and companies to develop,
integrate, and test analysis tools and applications. The
provision also would require the DISA Director to encourage and
foster the use, support, development, and enhancement of the
Ozone Widget Framework itself by commercial industry.
The Army, the National Security Agency (NSA), and other
elements of the intelligence community, have developed a
framework, called the Ozone Widget Framework, for the purpose
of hosting tools or applications, called ``widgets,'' for the
retrieval, analysis, and presentation or visualization of data.
The framework is designed to be non-proprietary, and to enable
anyone with access to the APIs to build widgets that can be
integrated into and controlled by the framework. The framework
can also be used to integrate widgets with one another to
enable the assembly of complex work flows. The basic idea is
similar to the burgeoning commercial development of
applications for integration into the new mobile communications
and computing devices. The Army and other organizations are
banking on the success of the OWF and widget development to
solve major search, query, and correlation requirements.
Over the last year, the committee asked repeatedly whether
the information necessary to write widgets to the framework was
published on the Internet to enable the widest possible
contribution to this promising intelligence analysis tool
development model. The committee received varied answers, but
consistently was told that the APIs were ``accessible on the
Internet.'' Further investigation revealed, however, that the
APIs and other material on the OWF are posted on an
unclassified DISA website which can be accessed only by those
with a government sponsor or contract. This means that the
business of designing widgets remains closed. In other words,
the Defense Department (DOD) has imitated an innovative
commercial approach to technology development but has left out
the essential component. The commercial sector opens up the
development process to the widest possible participation and
competition, whereas the DOD approach is limiting them.
The Army in particular is in a race against time in this
mission area. The previous J-2 for the International
SecurityAssistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan explicitly
requested in mid-2010, through a Joint Urgent Operational Need
Statement, that the Army immediately procure a mature commercial
analytical and visualization capability for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The Army rejected this request, arguing that it could field a
comparable government-developed capability in roughly the same
timeframe. A major part of this Army-proposed solution was to be the
Ozone Widget Framework. A year later, it is clear that the OWF and the
development of widgets considerably lags the expectations that the Army
created. The committee believes that opening up the widget development
process to the broad information technology industry could speed up the
satisfaction of urgent operational needs.

Plan for incorporation of enterprise query and correlation capability
into the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (sec. 924)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) to
incorporate an advanced enterprise-wide distributed query and
correlation capability into the Defense Intelligence
Information Enterprise (DI2E), to conduct a pilot demonstration
of such a capability, and to rationalize the multiple ongoing
and planned deployments of large-scale query and correlation
systems that operate on centralized data stores.
The Christmas bombing attempt of Northwest Airlines flight
253 showed that the ``connect-the-dots'' problem first exposed
by the terrorist bombings of 9/11 remains unsolved. As the
President said on January 5, 2010, ``The U.S. government had
sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and
potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our
intelligence community failed to connect those dots.'' The
intelligence community has largely overcome the impediments to
sharing finished intelligence reporting, and has made
significant strides in interagency cooperation, but substantial
barriers remain to sharing access to the truly immense amount
of raw or unevaluated data that is collected and stored across
agencies and departments. The connect-the-dots challenge
impacts not only the government's overall counterterrorism
mission; military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan face the same
problems in trying to discover and correlate the fragments of
intelligence buried in mountains of collected information that
are key to identifying and prosecuting insurgent forces.
The large and numerous databases that all organizations,
agencies, and departments maintain are for the most part still
``stovepiped''--not accessible to personnel outside of that
organization or agency. Moreover, these disparate databases
typically were designed for specific purposes, with unique
structures and methods of accessing and querying that make
federated queries impractical or unfruitful.
As discussed below, across the Department of Defense and
the government as a whole, there are many initiatives to
construct advanced search/query capabilities to operate
effectively and efficiently on extremely large data sets. In
almost all cases, however, the systems are designed to operate
on a single, consolidated database that is itself specially
designed for scale and speed. Almost invariably, these
initiatives have at best succeeded in consolidating only the
data owned by the sponsoring organization of agency, or that of
certain close partners. The result is a proliferation of
advanced query systems that are operating in isolation on
islands of stovepiped data sources. In other words, data
consolidation usually stops at organizational boundaries, and
those boundaries also then define the limits of our ability to
connect dots through existing advanced data query and
correlation systems.
Almost every department and agency involved in intelligence
and homeland security has built or is building one or more
high-performance systems for advanced search/query/correlation.
For example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National
Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)-managed Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF),
the FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), U.S. Special
Operations Command, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Army, and USDI all
have built or are building their own advanced search/query/
correlation systems to ``connect-the-dots'' within the data
sources that they control. All of these systems are using the
same or similar technology and techniques to extract entities
from structured and unstructured data, to resolve those
entities, discover connections between them and their
attributes, and enable analysts to extract relevant information
without flooding them with data. In some instances, the same
companies are providing the same basic software to multiple
government customers.
While each of these systems has some impressive performance
characteristics, all of them are seriously limited in terms of
data sources. Simply put, they cannot solve the
counterterrorism connect-the-dots problem, or the more general
requirement for enterprise search capabilities, because they do
not have access to all or even a majority of the available
dots. NSA does not have access to CIA data, CIA does not have
access to NSA data, and so on, endlessly. They can or will be
able to connect the dots within their own organization or
agency perhaps, but not across the Defense Department, the
Intelligence Community, or the government as a whole.
Moreover, as noted above, most of these systems are
designed in such a way that the data sources that feed them
must be consolidated into one. This makes extension of any one
of these systems to a large part or the whole of government
unachievable, at least as of now. It is not necessarily that
these systems cannot be scaled up to ingest and manipulate the
huge volume of data held across the government's security and
law enforcement agencies. The real problem is that agencies and
departments, and sub-organizations within them, are not willing
to hand over or lose control of their data stores. These data
stores are vital to them for all of their specific--and
specialized--missions, and are optimized to support them.
There is, however, a practical, near-term way ahead. There
is an existing, operational advanced search/query system that
is designed to operate on a distributed basis, without
consolidating all the data it would operate on into one huge
data store. This system leaves all databases where they reside,
undisturbed, allowing them to continue to serve the specialized
missions and functions that led to their creation in the first
place. This system is operational in two different agencies/
departments, and clearly can be scaled up to handle arbitrarily
large numbers of separate data stores and data volume using
commodity hardware. It does not provide all the capabilities
that a centralized data model can support, but it does enable
users to rapidly receive integrated and prioritized answers to
sophisticated queries across many databases as though those
databases were combined into one.
This system is operating inside the FBI, where it is called
the Information Data Warehouse (IDW). IDW is operating across
50-plus databases spread across the FBI, processing over one
billion records, in support of 12,000-plus Joint Terrorist Task
Force (JTTF) analysts, as well as other consumers within the
FBI.
The same system was adopted by DHS Customs and Border
Protection, where it is called the Automated Targeting System
(ATS). It currently operates on more than 9 billion records;
when fully deployed, it would operate against 100 billion
records. CBP and the FBI would like to conduct a demonstration
that would link IDW and ATS, allowing JTTF counterterrorism
analysts to conduct queries across the FBI's and CBP's data
holdings, spanning multiple security levels.
This system, or one like it, could be deployed in the
Department of Defense (DOD) to satisfy multiple needs for
enterprise search and correlation capabilities. As noted
previously, military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan face the
same problem trying to identify targets in mountains of data as
National Counterterrorism Center analysts do discovering
terrorists threatening the Homeland. It is no surprise that CIA
and NSA are building large-scale search systems that are
functionally the same as what the Army's Intelligence and
Security Command is building to support our ground forces in
Afghanistan.
The USDI is overseeing an effort to build a service-
oriented DI2E that is intended to provide an ability to
discover, retrieve, integrate, evaluate, and present
information and intelligence products across the Defense
Department. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has
established a companion project called Intelligence Community
Core. The Defense Department's Office of the Chief Information
Officer is also conducting a related program called the Multi-
Agency Collaboration Environment (MACE). The MACE is operated
on a reimbursable basis for organizations, agencies, and
departments to share tools, applications, and data to build a
shared enterprise.
The USDI and the MACE program recognize the need for an
enterprise search capability within the DI2E, but lack the
funds to pursue this objective. This provision would require
the USDI to incorporate an advanced enterprise search
capability into the DI2E program, and to conduct a pilot
program or technology demonstration of such a capability as
part of the DI2E program. The committee recommends an
authorization of $20.0 million in PE 35159F for this purpose.
The committee urges DOD to consider the existing DHS and FBI
IDW/ATS system for this role, and to conduct a pilot or
demonstration program in cooperation with DHS and the FBI. The
committee directs that all funds in this program be allocated
in accordance with the requirements of section 4001, through a
competitive, merit-based process.
The committee notes that the DNI is funding a comprehensive
entity resolution service called Catalyst for the entire
intelligence community. Catalyst will use technology that is
common to the advanced query and correlation systems that have
been built by CIA, USDI, and the FBI, and others. DNI is now
working with USDI and the CIA on this project. The committee
urges the DI2E program to integrate with the Catalyst
capability, so that DOD users can access the Catalyst service.
Likewise, as mandated by this provision, the DI2E program
office should work with the other, heretofore stovepiped
advanced query systems operating or being built inside the
Department to make them commonly accessible and compatible with
the DI2E and the distributed enterprise query capability.

Subtitle D--Cybersecurity Matters

Strategy to acquire capabilities to detect previously unknown cyber
attacks (sec. 931)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a strategy to
acquire advanced threat discovery capabilities to complement
current cybersecurity systems that depend heavily on advance
knowledge of specific attacks.
Operational, deployed cybersecurity tools and systems
overwhelmingly require some specific a priori knowledge of the
signatures of threats or attacks in order to stop them. It is
necessary to know what an attack looks like in detail in order
to detect it and block it. This is the case all the way from
host-based security systems deployed on desktops up to the
network-level Einstein 3 intrusion detection and prevention
system built by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Discovery of attacks that have not been seen before--often
called zero-day exploits--is currently a laborious process that
takes far too long and provides unreliable results.
If one has the luxury of knowing attack signatures ahead of
time, it is relatively straightforward to parry the threat.
Computers can do it automatically, at ``Internet speeds'',
making a variety of imaginative ``active defense'' measures
possible, and minimizing analytic manpower requirements. If one
does not know the signatures ahead of time, however,
sophisticated exploits and attacks could remain hidden for
catastrophically long periods.
NSA until recently planned, for an extended period if not
the foreseeable future, to address the discovery requirement
through its intelligence-gathering and analysis activities. As
these activities are necessarily highly classified and complex,
the public, the commercial cybersecurity industry, and even
most government officials were not in a position to examine and
judge the adequacy or reliability of such activities. The
committee's firm conclusion is that, although NSA and other
elements of the intelligence community have developed very
impressive capabilities and have achieved remarkable results,
the security of the Department of Defense (DOD), the civilian
departments and agencies, and the Nation's critical
infrastructure cannot be reliably protected by these means
alone.
We simply cannot count on being able to determine the
signatures of advanced persistent threats before they are used
against our networks. It is essential for network defenders to
have their own means for independently discovering new attacks
by examining the behavior and impact of attackers and their
tools on the traffic flowing across the defended networks and
their endpoint targets. Whereas we have been operating almost
exclusively under a model where specialized intelligence
organizations ``fished'' for new threat signatures and then
programmed intrusion prevention devices, a new, complementary
model is needed where network defenders are equipped and
``taught to fish'' for themselves.
For cyber defense against advanced threats, the first model
would leave civil government and the privately-owned critical
infrastructure dependent on classified threat signatures that
only NSA and other intelligence agencies could hope to provide.
Besides being, in the end, insufficiently reliable, that model
requires that NSA play a dominant role in securing both
private-to-public communications and private-to-private
communications. The alternative model provides a complementary
opportunity for government organizations at the Federal, State,
and local levels, as well as the private sector, to help defend
themselves. By spreading discovery technologies and strategies
widely, and allowing for the sharing of discovered threats,
defenses would be far more robust.
The committee is not alone in this judgment. Recently, the
Under Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
for the National Protection and Programs Directorate testified
to the Senate that non-signatures-based defenses were essential
to complement systems like Einstein 3. Many senior officials
and cybersecurity experts inside and outside of the government
agree that technologies and procedures for robust and rapid
attack discovery are a critical but neglected element of the
Nation's cybersecurity architecture.
NSA belatedly recognizes this reality, and is incorporating
some advanced discovery capabilities in its collection and
monitoring systems and activities--capabilities that had been
developed within the Agency over a period of years without
achieving the status of a program of record. These capabilities
are now being exploited to support NSA's core missions and the
Department of Defense, but have not been offered to the rest of
the government. NSA has stated that it has not offered these
capabilities more broadly because no one asked them to do so.
This rationale is not persuasive, given NSA's pro-active stance
on cybersecurity in general. However, the committee doubts that
this government-developed, classified solution could be widely
used across the government or to defend critical
infrastructure. Fortunately, the private sector has developed
and is developing commercial discovery technologies and
capabilities that promise to be effective.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense, DHS,
and the rest of the government need to focus on cultivating
commercial industry to produce advanced cybersecurity
technologies and capabilities. It is potentially risky for the
government to remain so heavily dependent upon NSA. In the
cyber domain, NSA is a developer of GOTS [``government-off-the-
shelf''] capabilities using government scientists and
engineers. NSA thus has acted as the government's principal
development organization while at the same time serving
essentially as the government's chief cyber architect, planner,
and acquirer. The intelligence agencies alone can acquire
threat information through clandestine means, but the
commercial sector can build capabilities to discover and
counter those same threats through technical means. Competition
is inherently healthy, and the two approaches are complementary
and mutually reinforcing.
To its credit, the DOD Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA) has deployed at all of its gateways a robust commercial
capability for discovery of previously unknown threats. This
particular system works by copying all the traffic flowing into
a network (``full packet capture''), reconstructing the packets
into ``sessions'' that humans recognize (emails, documents,
etc.), creating extensive and in-depth metadata about that
traffic,storing it for an extended time period, and enabling
analysts to query that data with sophisticated tools to discover subtle
anomalies and abnormal behavior.
However, as the volume of traffic through DISA's gateways
has grown rapidly over the last several years, DISA has not
upgraded this discovery capability to keep pace, and
performance is not meeting U.S. Cyber Command's requirements.
This must be remedied. The cost of upgrading these deployments
is low--a few million dollars, according to DISA estimates.
The more serious and difficult impediment is a personnel
shortfall. The discovery capabilities and tools described in
this report are only as good as the analysts who are using
them. Discovering advanced cyber attacks requires a
sophisticated and well-trained analytic workforce. DISA
officials understand this, and acknowledge that the Agency and
U.S. Cyber Command lack adequate numbers of skilled analysts.
This must be remedied as well, as soon as practically possible.
One path to coping with this shortfall is to ``outsource''
the function. DOD has been conducting multiple cybersecurity
pilot programs at congressional direction, under the auspices
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Office of
the Chief Information Officer. One of these pilots is for
managed security services. The company executing this pilot
uses the discovery system--the equipment and software tools--
that DISA has deployed at gateway sites (along with a variety
of other commercial tools and capabilities). The company
provides experienced, skilled analysts to operate the system on
behalf of a sizeable DOD customer.
At the endpoint level, DOD is completing its 5-year,
department-wide deployment of the Host-Based Security System
(HBSS) and its management framework. HBSS is a successful and
necessary capability. DOD is to be congratulated as well for
requiring that the HBSS framework be designed in such a way
that specific, existing tools can be removed and replaced by
new, different, or upgraded tools, without regard to vendor, on
the basis of openly available Application Programming
Interfaces. Entirely new capabilities can be added to HBSS in
this manner.
The committee is aware that commercial companies have
developed HBSS-compatible capabilities both to stop previously
unknown malware from infecting a computer and to detect,
eliminate, and remediate attacks that have succeeded. These
commercial capabilities include robust ``whitelisting,'' the
detection and blocking of unauthorized applications and
infected versions of authorized applications; the continuous
monitoring of the state of the machine, its attributes, and
change history, including registry keys, memory tables, running
processes, security settings, event logs, application
inventory, operating system files, etc.; statistical
determination of normal conditions and evolutionary changes on
a network; and automated remediation of the effects on machine
settings and files without reimaging.
The committee believes that these commercial endpoint or
host-level discovery capabilities need to be evaluated in
realistic settings to determine performance, maturity,
scalability, overhead and manpower burdens, and cost. It is
also very important to determine how useful the data collected
by such agents at the host level can be when it is analyzed in
combination with data collected at the network layer.
One such host-based system is already deployed at a
combatant command, and at a Federally Funded Research and
Development Center, which could serve as demonstrations. Others
should be evaluated in the DOD cyber pilot program. The
Department should plan on incorporating such technologies into
the HBSS.
These technologies should also materially improve the
``transparency'' of the DOD network security situation, the
lack of which is consistently cited by the Commander of U.S.
Cyber Command as a serious deficiency.
As emphasized in the Senate report accompanying S. 3454 (S.
Rept. 111-201) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011, the major ISPs and telecommunications
companies also have extensive cybersecurity capabilities that
are based on observing behavior patterns rather than known
signatures. These companies own and operate the global
infrastructure over which attacks travel to their targets, and
can provide warning and threat blockage at large scales and
speeds.
The Defense Department is going to use these ISPs in a
cybersecurity pilot to demonstrate capabilities and procedures
to defend portions of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB).
Currently, DOD's plans for this DIB pilot call for the ISPs to
build their own capability to employ classified threat
signatures on their infrastructure. The committee's view is
that the DIB pilot also should enable the ISPs to contribute
their own non-signatures-based defense capabilities.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) are conducting a program to use the
ISPs as a foundation for the defense of the .gov domain and the
critical infrastructure, employing both signature- and non-
signature-based threat detection and defense capabilities. The
non-DOD federal networks for the most part have only vaguely
defined borders with a very large number of unregulated
Internet connections. DHS and OMB are using the ISPs to bundle
traffic to and from each department and agency to reduce the
attack surface and provide the equivalent of Trusted Internet
Connections. Through the Managed Trusted Internet Protocol
Services (MTIPS) program offered on the General Services
Administration Networx contract, agencies and departments
procure managed security services, which include some behavior-
based, forensic discovery capabilities. Much more could be done
through this program. The commercial discovery technologies
that the committee seeks to demonstrate and incorporate into
DOD network defenses could be applied to .gov networks through
MTIPS. Furthermore, the substantial capabilities of the ISPs
could be used to defend the DIB companies through the DIB
Pilot--a model that could be extended to the other critical
infrastructure sectors.
The committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million
in PE 64764K to establish the program mandated in this
provision, and to begin demonstrating, developing, testing, or
fielding advanced discovery capabilities. The committee directs
that all funds in this program be allocated in accordance with
the requirements of section 4001, through a competitive, merit-
based process.

Program in support of Department of Defense policy on sustaining and
expanding information sharing (sec. 932)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and carry out a program to
prevent future unauthorized releases of classified information
from Department of Defense (DOD) networks and databases. Such a
program is critical to sustaining momentum for greater sharing
of information, which is essential to improving analysis for
policymakers and military forces. The committee considers this
problem important enough to warrant a dedicated program with an
accountable program manager and focused oversight.
The provision describes a series of technical and
procedural options available for improving defenses against so-
called ``insider threats.'' Some of these solutions have
already been put into effect by the Secretary of Defense, some
others are pending, and still others are under consideration.
They range from inexpensive and easy to implement and manage,
to relatively expensive and complex solutions.
The committee's perception is that the Defense Department
is reluctant to take on the longer-term, more sophisticated and
more expensive solutions. The committee supports frugality, but
notes that the insider threat has many features in common with
the broader cybersecurity threat. This provision requires the
Department to consider that some potential insider threat
solutions will also improve defenses against attempts to
penetrate DOD networks and damage them or exfiltrate data
electronically.

Items of Special Interest

Determination of funding mechanisms for construction of test and
evaluation facilities

The committee understands that within the military
departments there is a lack of clarity concerning the
distinction between the construction of test and evaluation
facilities with military construction funds, and certain test
and evaluation equipment and instrumentation that can be
constructed with research, development, test, and evaluation
funds. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to issue clarifying guidance on the distinctions
between these facilities, equipment and instrumentation, and
the applicability of funding mechanisms. In addition, this
guidance should specifically address the classification of
rapidly reconfigurable test beds with simulated structures
whose geometries and materials are designed to test the
performance of military systems, especially in dense urban
environments.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

The committee notes that the cost of launching satellites
using the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program,
which consists of a family of Atlas V and Delta IV launch
vehicles has increased substantially. While there are many
reasons for the increased costs, including increased overhead
costs associated with the end of the Space Shuttle program,
andfewer launches than envisioned at the outset of the program, the Air
Force is committed to getting the launch costs down. To that end the
Air Force is looking at several initiatives.
The first is creation of a program executive office (PEO)
for launch, separate from the PEO for space. While the
committee is concerned that a new PEO for launch further
fragments an already fragmented approach to the management of
space, a temporary PEO for launch may be able to devote the
time needed to understand the true cost of the EELV and then
develop approaches to reduce the costs.
The second approach is to develop a more manageable
approach to buying space boosters so that the industrial base
is not subject to so much fluctuation in quantities. This
concept would include an annual commitment for a set number of
boosters that would then be assigned to individual satellite
launches as and when needed.
The third effort is to break down and to understand the
components of mission assurance costs. Mission assurance costs
are extra costs associated with ensuring that the launch
vehicle will perform as expected and deliver the satellite to
the proper orbit. For the most part, national security
satellites are extremely expensive, must last for many years,
and serve a critical national security function. A launch
failure is just not an option. On the other hand are all of the
mission assurance costs necessary? This is a question that the
new PEO for launch and the personnel responsible for space
operations will have to review and answer.
The Air Force will also have to look to competition to
reduce launch costs. The committee is aware that other U.S.
private sector launch providers are developing various launch
options that could be used for national security and other U.S.
government satellites. The committee supports the recent
efforts on the part of the Defense Department and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to work jointly to develop
new entrant criteria to be used to determine when a new launch
capability is proven. The committee supports development of
clear criteria to encourage new, reliable launch providers.
The committee also notes that the fiscal year 2012 budget
request for EELV includes funds that will complete development
of secondary payload standards. With the completion of these
standards and the procurement of the EELV secondary payload
adapter ring, there should be many more opportunities to launch
small satellites. For many years the committee has urged the
Air Force to utilize the excess capacity on EELV launches to
launch more small satellites.

Examination of Department of Defense science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics workforce needs

The committee recognizes the challenges the Department of
Defense is facing in meeting the needs for its future science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce and
applauds the number of efforts across the services and the
Department of Defense to better understand these challenges and
develop strategies to address them. Of note, is a STEM
Workforce Strategic Roadmap developed by the Air Force, called
``Bright Horizons'', that in part was motivated by a recent
study conducted by the National Academies for the Air Force
entitled, ``Examination of the U.S. Air Force's Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce Needs
in the Future and Its Strategy to Meet Those Needs''. The
committee encourages the Air Force to pursue and adequately
resource the implementation of this Roadmap. Furthermore, the
committee strongly urges the Departments of the Army and Navy
to conduct similar studies by an independent third party
organization and develop similar strategic roadmaps.

Navy test and evaluation

As part of the Department of Defense's efficiency actions,
the Navy's Deputy for Test and Evaluation position was
eliminated. The committee understands that the Navy is now
considering this billet as a required leadership position due
to the important responsibilities to resource and manage the
test and evaluation infrastructure investments, as well as the
requirement for enhanced developmental test planning. The
committee agrees with the Navy's position and looks forward to
this important position being reinstated as rapidly as
possible.

Rocket System Launch Program

The Air Force Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP) provides
responsive space and research, development, test, and
evaluation launch vehicle support, using excess ballistic
missile assets for U.S. Government satellite launches.
The committee notes that the budget request for RSLP for
fiscal year 2012 includes funds to support the launch of a
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
satellite that will among other things be used to support space
weather predictions and the effect of solar flares on
satellites. This partnership, in which NOAA pays for the
satellite and the Air Force pays for the launch, is a good
example of interagency cooperation for mutual benefit.
The launch of the NOAA satellite will also allow the Air
Force an opportunity to conduct an open competition for the
launch vehicle. The committee supports both the Air Force
commitment to launch the NOAA satellite and the use of fair and
open competition for the launch vehicle.
In fiscal year 2012 the RSLP program will also conduct a
competition to select a provider or providers to utilize excess
Minuteman and Peacekeeper ballistic missile assets for space
launch. Currently, there is a single provider of launch
services using these assets. While the committee supports the
use of the excess assets for space launch, the committee also
expects the competition for the use of the assets to be fair
and open.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in
division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
Defense business systems (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to update the
requirements for the review and approval of expenditures for
defense business systems. Section 2222 would be revised to: (1)
align the investment review process with the new management
structure of the Department of Defense (DOD), including
theleading role played by the Chief Management Officers of the military
departments; (2) extend review and approval requirements to decisions
to spend money on the operation and maintenance of existing business
systems; and (3) extend these requirements to business systems acquired
with non-appropriated funds as well as with appropriated funds.
The committee concludes that the extension of review and
approval authority to expenditures for existing systems is
needed to ensure that the Department phases out outdated and
unnecessary business systems in a timely manner.

Modification of authorities on certification and credential standards
for financial management positions in the Department of Defense
(sec. 1003)

The committee recommends a provision that would strengthen
the authority of the Secretary of Defense to establish
certification and credential standards for financial management
positions in the Department of Defense. The Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) has informed the committee that this
enhanced authority is needed to ensure that the Department's
financial management workforce has the capabilities needed to
achieve an auditable financial statement by the end of fiscal
year 2017 and achieve other financial management objectives
established by Congress.

Deposit of reimbursed funds under reciprocal fire protection agreements
(sec. 1004)

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense (DOD), that would amend section 1856d(b)
of title 42, United States Code, to ensure that reimbursements
to the DOD under the Reciprocal Fire Protection Agreements (42
U.S.C. Chapter 15A) do not expire and that the command which
provides fire protection services in the event of an emergency
is able to merge the reimbursed funds with those in the current
appropriation, fund, or account, which is used for DOD fire
protection services.

Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

Five-year extension and modification of authority of Department of
Defense to provide additional support for counterdrug
activities of other governmental agencies (sec. 1011)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
5 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). The provision also would modify the authorized recipients
of support under this authority to include tribal law
enforcement entities, as defined by section 4 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b).

Five-year extension and expansion of authority to provide additional
support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign
governments (sec. 1012)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
5 years, the authority to provide support for counterdrug
activities of certain foreign governments under subsection
(a)(2) of section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most
recently amended by section 1014(a) of the Ike Skelton NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). The provision also would
amend subsection (e)(2) of section 1033 of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) by increasing the authorized
maximum annual amount of support to $100.0 million, and would
amend subsection (b) of section 1033 of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 1998 to expand the list of countries eligible to receive
support to include the Governments of Benin, Cape Verde, The
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Liberia,
Mauritania, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Togo.
In general, the committee has not previously added a
significant number of countries in 1 fiscal year, but, in the
case of West Africa, the committee is concerned that adding
countries on an individual basis could prevent the Department
from pursuing a comprehensive regional strategy with the
foreign governments in Africa. The addition of eligible
countries along the western coast of Africa will enable the
Department to develop a more coherent and comprehensive
regional strategy and--potentially--help governments in the
region address the growing illicit drug trade before it becomes
endemic in many of these already vulnerable countries.

Reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign counter-drug
activities (sec. 1013)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
1 year, the reporting requirement on expenditures to support
foreign counterdrug activities under section 1022(a) of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), as amended.

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law
enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
(sec. 1014)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
1 fiscal year, the support by joint task forces under section
1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended
by section 1012 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383). The provision also would prohibit the
Department from utilizing this authority until it complies with
1012(b) of the Ike Skelton NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011.
The committee notes that the Department is currently using
this authority to conduct only one operation, and--while the
committee is pleased to learn of the Department's judicious use
of this authority--the committee also believes there are
additional activities that could potentially be conducted, most
notably in Northwest Africa and South Asia.

Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1015)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
1 fiscal year, the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism
campaign in the Republic of Colombia under section 1021 of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization (NDAA) Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as most recently amended
by section 1011 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383).

Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Limitation on availability of funds for placing Maritime Prepositioning
Ships squadrons on reduced operating status (sec. 1021)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funding to place a maritime prepositioning ship squadron
(MPSRON), or any component thereof, on reduced operating status
until: the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) submits a
report to Congress assessing the impact on military readiness
for placing such MPSRON on reduced operating status; the Chief
of Naval Operations describes the Navy's plan and comments on
the CMC's report for placing such MPSRON on reduced operating
status; and the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that
the risks to readiness of placing such MPSRON on reduced
operating status are acceptable.

Modification of conditions on status of retired aircraft carrier ex-
John F. Kennedy (sec. 1022)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1011 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to allow the Navy
to dispose of the ex-John F. Kennedy. The provision would amend
section 1011 to remove the requirement that the Navy ensure the
ship is maintained in a status that would permit the Navy to
return the ship to active service in event of a national
emergency.

Authority to provide information for maritime safety of forces and
hydrographic support (sec. 1023)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to collect and share certain marine
data and hydrographic information to maximize the safety and
effectiveness of the Navy and certain other organizations.
Specifically, the provision would authorize the collection of
marine weather and ocean data, modeling of that data, and
forecasting of potentially hazardous meteorological and
oceanographic conditions and allow the Secretary to provide the
information in support of United States, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, and coalition forces. The provision would also
authorize the Secretary to collect and provide hydrographic
information to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in
support of its mapping and charting activities and safety of
navigation mission.

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

Authority to detain unprivileged enemy belligerents captured pursuant
to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (sec. 1031)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Armed Forces of the United States to detain unprivileged
enemy belligerents captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107-40).
The committee recognizes that the Armed Forces of the
United States do not need specific statutory authorization to
detain enemy belligerents under the law of war when they are
captured in the course of any lawful armed conflict. Because
the long-term nature of the current conflict has led to the
detention of a number of individuals for a period that is not
likely to end soon, the committee concludes that such statutory
authorization is appropriate in this case.

Required military custody for members of al-Qaeda and affiliated
entities (sec. 1032)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
military custody for certain unprivileged enemy belligerents
detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
Force (Public Law 107-40), subject to a national security
waiver. The requirement to detain individuals under this
provision would apply only to unprivileged enemy belligerents
who are determined to be members of al-Qaeda or an affiliated
entity and participants in planning or carrying out an attack
or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition
partners. Under section 1031, the Armed Forces of the United
States would have the authority to detain, but would not be
required to detain, unprivileged enemy belligerents who do not
fall into this category.

Permanent requirements for certifications relating to the transfer of
detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
to foreign countries and other foreign entities (sec. 1033)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
permanent limitations on the transfer of detainees at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign
countries. Like previously enacted legislation, the provision
would: (1) prohibit such transfers unless the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, makes
certain certifications regarding the country to which the
detainee will be transferred; and (2) prohibit transfers to
countries for which there is a confirmed case of recidivism.
The provision includes an exception for transfers
undertaken to effectuate an order issued by a court or tribunal
having lawful jurisdiction or a plea agreement entered in a
military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of
this Act, and would authorize a waiver of the restrictions in a
case where the Secretary of Defense determines that the
transfer is in the national security of the United States and
that alternative actions will be taken to address the
underlying purposes of the provision and substantially mitigate
the risk of transfer. The committee understands that the goal
of closing Guantanamo shall not be the basis for a
determination that a waiver of the certification requirements
under this section with regard to the transfer of any single
detainee is in the national security interests of the United
States.

Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the
United States to house detainees transferred from United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any funds available to the Department of Defense to
construct or modify facilities in the United States to house
detainees transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unless authorized by Congress. The
committee understands that this prohibition does not apply to
Department of Justice funds that might be needed in connection
with a transfer for the purpose of a criminal trial.

Procedures for annual detention review of individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue procedures for the implementation
of the periodic review process established pursuant to
Executive Order No. 13567 for individuals detained at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The implementing procedures would, at a
minimum, clarify that: (1) the purpose of the procedures is to
make discretionary determinations whether or not a detainee
represents a continuing threat to the United States; (2) the
Secretary of Defense is responsible for any final decision to
release or transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo; and
(3) appropriate consideration is given to factors addressing
the need for continued detention.

Procedures for status determination of unprivileged enemy belligerents
(sec. 1036)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for determining
the status of persons captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107-40). In the case of any unprivileged enemy
belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the
law of war, such procedures would include proceedings at which
a military judge presides and the detainee may be represented
by military counsel. The provision would leave it to the
Department of Defense to determine what constitutes ``long-term
detention'' for the purpose of this requirement.

Clarification of right to plead guilty in trial of capital offense by
military commission (sec. 1037)

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

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

Management of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1041)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to: (1) prescribe regulations,
including traffic regulations, necessary for the protection and
administration of Department of Defense property; and (2)
designate military or civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense as law enforcement officers for the purpose of
enforcing such regulations and other applicable laws on such
property. The provision would require that any designation of
law enforcement officers be made by the Secretary of Defense or
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, based on a determination that
the designation is necessary for effective law enforcement. All
powers granted under this provision would be subject to
guidelines approved by the Attorney General.

Amendments relating to the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (sec. 1042)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain technical corrections to the Military Commissions Act
of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84), as requested by the
Department of Defense.

Department of Defense authority to carry out personnel recovery
reintegration and post-isolation support activities (sec. 1043)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out reintegration and post-
isolation support activities for certain persons returned to
the control of United States authorities following detention in
isolation or captivity by a hostile enemy while participating
in or associated with a United States-sponsored military
activity or mission.

Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of certain sensitive
national security information (sec. 1044)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to exempt from disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act (section 552 of title 5, United
States Code): (1) critical infrastructure information, the
disclosure of which would reveal vulnerabilities, the
exploitation of which could result in the disruption or
degradation of Department of Defense facilities; and (2) data
files of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance
(MFOQA) system, the disclosure of which would reveal sensitive
information regarding the tactics and capabilities of
militarycombat aircraft, units, or aircrews. Covered information would
be exempt only upon a written determination by a senior Department of
Defense civilian serving in a Senate-confirmed position. Each
determination would be accompanied by a statement of the basis for the
determination and would be available to the public upon request.
The Department of Defense has informed the committee that
information about the specific location of explosives, harmful
chemicals, alarms, pipelines and manifolds, security stations
and devices, or communication centers on military bases could
jeopardize the security of the personnel, facilities, and
equipment on such bases. The Department has also indicated that
the disclosure of aggregated and analyzed data generated by the
MFOQA system concerning aircraft flight operations, aircrew
training and readiness, and the assignment of aircraft and
aircrew to specific units could jeopardize the military's
ability to maintain a tactical and technical advantage over its
adversaries as it performs national security missions.

Clarification of airlift service definitions relating to the Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1045)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 41106 of title 49, United States Code, to clarify that
the application of section 41106 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.
Currently, the Department of Defense obtains air
transportation services from United States air carriers in
proportion to their commitment of aircraft to the Civil Reserve
Air Fleet program. The Department has become concerned that the
current language contained in section 41106 could be
interpreted to require contracting with a United States air
carrier, even though that air carrier did not have any aircraft
capable of fulfilling the contract. The amendments to section
41106 would standardize the application of the language and
clarify that the section's application 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.

Authority for assignment of civilian employees of the Department of
Defense as advisors to foreign ministries of defense and
international peace and security organizations (sec. 1046)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Department of Defense with authority, for 3 fiscal years, to
advise foreign defense ministries and multilateral peace and
security institutions on the policies and processes needed to
manage effectively national defense activities and multilateral
peace and security activities. The provision also would require
the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and would require the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness
of the program no later than December 30, 2013.
The committee supports the Secretary of Defense's continued
emphasis on building the security capacity of partner states as
an area of strategic importance. In general, current defense
institution building activities abroad tend to rely very
heavily on contractors and to a limited extent on military
personnel. These episodic engagements tend to prevent the
creation of enduring relationships. This program, which is
intended by the committee to be a pilot program, would add
defense civilians to this effort thereby providing longer-term
government-to-government linkages and--ideally--expanding
cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
As a condition of providing this authority on a global
basis, the committee expects the Department to ensure that the
number of advisors assigned to any one country during a fiscal
year is limited and that the deployment of advisors under the
program is not heavily concentrated in a single geographic
combatant commander's area of responsibility. Further, the
committee expanded the Department's request to include
multilateral peace and security institutions. The committee
expects the Department will use this expanded authority to
increase cooperation with institutions such as the African
Union and its standby brigades.

Net assessment of nuclear force levels required with respect to certain
proposals to reduce the nuclear weapons stockpile of the United
States (sec. 1047)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
President to accompany any proposal to reduce deployed nuclear
weapons below the level in the New START Treaty, or hedge
weapons, other than reductions associated with routine
stockpile stewardship activities with a net assessment report.
The net assessment would compare current and proposed U.S.
nuclear weapons levels, with those of other countries with
nuclear weapons, to determine whether the proposed nuclear
forces would be capable of meeting U.S. deterrence, extended
deterrence, assurance of allies, and defense objectives. The
report on the net assessment would be submitted to the
congressional defense committees as soon as practicable after
the date on which the President makes such a proposal. The
requirement to accompany any reduction proposals with a net
assessment report would continue in effect for all reductions
proposed before calendar year 2022.

Fiscal year 2012 administration and report on the Troops-to-Teachers
Program (sec. 1048)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to administer and fund the Troops-to-
Teachers Program during fiscal year 2012. The provision would
require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Education
to report to Congress no later than April 1, 2012, on the
funding of the program; the number of past participants who
have fulfilled, and who have not fulfilled, their service
obligation under the program; the impact of state and local
budget shortfalls on employing program participants; the
program's effectiveness as a transition assistance program; its
success in placing teachers in qualified schools and rationale
for expanding the program to additional school districts, and
an assessment of the advisability of the administration of the
program by the Department of Education in consultation with the
Department of Defense.

Subtitle F--Repeal & Modification of Reporting Requirements

Part I--Repeal of Reporting Requirements

Reduction in Department of Defense reporting requirements (secs. 1061-
1069)

The committee recommends a series of provisions that would
repeal almost 70 recurring reports currently required of the
Department of Defense (DOD) and modify roughly 25 additional
reporting requirements to make them less burdensome.
In an August 9, 2010, speech detailing his efficiencies
initiatives, the Secretary of Defense stated that DOD is
``awash in taskings for reports and studies,'' many of which
are directed by Congress. The Secretary indicated that he would
conduct a comprehensive review of internally-generated reports
and ``engage the Congress on ways to meet their needs while
working together to reduce the number of reports.''
The committee notes that similar legislation in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public
Law 108-136) resulted in the repeal or modification of 82
congressionally-required reports. The committee supports the
periodic review and reexamination of all congressionally-
directed reporting requirements with the objective of
eliminating reports that no longer serve a useful purpose.

Subtitle G--Other Study and Report Matters

Modification of dates of Comptroller General of the United States
review of executive agreement on joint medical facility
demonstration project, North Chicago and Great Lakes, Illinois
(sec. 1071)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1701(e)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to modify the
frequency of reports required to be conducted by the
Comptroller General from five annual reports to three periodic
reports.

Report on plan to implement organizational goals recommended in the
National Security Strategy--2010 (sec. 1072)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to submit a report to Congress setting forth a plan
to implement the organizational goals recommended in the 2010
National Security Strategy. The report must include each of the
changes identified in the Strategy as either underway or newly
proposed, the goals for the changes, the actions required to
achieve them, the sequencing of actions and schedule to achieve
them, and the progress made to date towards the goals. The
provision also requires an annual update of the plan indicating
progress over the previous year and any modifications that have
been made to the plan.
The committee has an enduring interest in national security
reform. Many of the most important and difficult security
challenges require the integration of the efforts, skills,
resources, and authorities of multiple departments and agencies
of the government. Interagency mechanisms and processes for
planning, funding, leading and executing ``whole-of-
government'' solutions. Executive authority flows from the
President through Senate-confirmed cabinet secretaries who
manage specialized departments.
The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel wrote
that:

``The Panel notes with extreme concern that our current
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. The U.S. defense framework
adopted after World War II was structured to address
the Soviet Union in a bipolar world. The threats of
today are much different. A new approach is needed . .
. 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 . . . Today civilian
departments and agencies lack the capacity to provide
the array of capabilities required for effective
support to the Department of Defense in stability and
reconstruction operations in unstable host nations. In
many cases, even pre-conflict and certainly post-
conflict, our civilians will be deployed in situations
of ``security insecurity'' and thus will have to be
able to operate in an integrated way with security
forces [whether with indigenous forces (especially in a
pre-conflict, failing state case), with international
peacekeepers, or with U.S. forces (especially in post-
conflict situations)].''

The President recognized these challenges in the National
Security Strategy published in May 2010. The strategy suggests
a broad set of ongoing and proposed organizational changes to
address these problems. The committee's recommended provision
would require the President to clarify these goals and
objectives, and develop a specific plan to achieve them.

Biennial assessment of and report on delivery platforms for nuclear
weapons and the nuclear command and control system (sec. 1073)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense in each odd-numbered year, to conduct an
assessment of the safety, security, reliability,
sustainability, performance, and military effectiveness of each
type of U.S. platform for the delivery of nuclear weapons and
of the nuclear command and control system. The results of the
assessment, including a description of any gaps and shortfalls
in the capabilities of the platforms or the system, or any
risks that the platforms or system would not meet mission or
capability requirements, shall be included in a report to the
congressional defense committees. In addition the report would
include any recommendations with respect to mitigation of any
gaps, shortfalls, or risks. The first report would be due March
1, 2013.

Annual report on the nuclear weapons stockpile of the United States
(sec. 1074)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees an annual report, on March 1 of each year, setting
forth an accounting of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile as
of the end of the fiscal year preceding the year in which the
report is submitted. The report would also include the planned
force levels for the fiscal year following the year in which
the report is submitted. The report would include the number of
weapons in the deployed and non-deployed stockpiles, including
each category of non-deployed weapons.

Nuclear employment strategy of the United States (sec. 1075)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
President to submit a report 30 days after issuing any new
nuclear employment strategy. The report would describe the
modifications to the strategy in effect at the time the new
strategy is issued, and an assessment of the effects of such
modifications for the nuclear posture of the United States. The
report would be submitted to the congressional defense
committees. The provision would also set forth a sense of
Congress that any new nuclear employment strategies should
support the deterrence and related goals of the United States.

Study on the recruitment, retention, and development of cyberspace
experts (sec. 1076)

The committee recommends a provision that would require an
independent study examining the availability of military and
civilian personnel for Department of Defense cyberspace
operations, identifying any gaps in meeting personnel needs,
and recommending available mechanisms to fill such gaps,
including permanent and temporary positions. Not later than 1
year after date of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the Secretary of
Defense would be required to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report containing the results of the
study, including comments on the findings and recommendations
from each of the service secretaries.

Reports on resolution restrictions on the commercial sale or
dissemination of electro-optical imagery collected by
satellites (sec. 1077)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive review of the
current restrictions on the resolution of electro-optical
imagery that commercial satellite imagery data providers are
permitted to sell or disseminate.
The provision would require the Secretary to take into
consideration a series of factors in evaluating whether the
current restriction on resolution to 0.5 meters should be
relaxed. These factors include: (1) the availability now and
over the next few years of multiple foreign satellite systems
capable of collecting at resolutions sharper than what U.S.
data providers are allowed to sell; (2) the lead time involved
in securing funding for new satellites, and designing,
constructing, and launching them, to enable U.S. data providers
to match or exceed the capabilities of new foreign satellites;
(3) whether the current restrictions remain consistent with the
President's National Space Policy, which is to maintain U.S.
commercial leadership; (4) the greater utility that higher
resolution unclassified commercial satellite imagery would
havefor U.S. military forces, the intelligence community, cooperation
with allies, scientific research, and support to domestic disaster
monitoring; and (5) the national security risks, if any, of relaxing
the current restrictions.
The provision would require a report from the Secretary of
Commerce to the appropriate committees of Congress by April 15,
2012. In addition to the committees listed in the provision,
the committee directs that the report be provided to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
The provision also would require the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (USDI) to provide a report assessing the benefits
and risks of relaxing the current resolution restrictions on
the electro-optical imagery from satellites that commercial
U.S. companies may sell or disseminate, together with
recommendations for alternative means to protect national
security related information. This report is required within 15
days of the enactment of this Act. The committee is informed
that the DNI and the USDI have already conducted this study in
response to direction from the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence in the classified annex to the House report
accompanying H.R. 2701 (H. Rept. 111-186) of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Report on integration of unmanned aerial systems into the national
airspace system (sec. 1078)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration and on behalf of the
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Executive Committee, submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth:
(1) A description and assessment of the rate of progress in
integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national
airspace system; and (2) An assessment of the potential for one
or more pilot program or programs on such integration at
certain test ranges to increase that rate of progress. Included
in the term ``test ranges'' for the purposes of this provision
would be test facilities, training facilities, or other
facilities where UAS integration testing could reasonably be
conducted.

Study on United States force posture in East Asia and the Pacific
region (sec. 1079)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to commission an independent assessment of
America's security interests in the Asia and Pacific region.
The committee notes that the 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) emphasized the critical need of the United States
to consistently assess and adapt to a dynamic world environment
and changes in the international security environment. The QDR
also established a goal to seek new opportunities for
cooperation with existing allies and emerging partners to
mutually address regional and global security challenges.
In the Asia and Pacific region, the United States has
embarked on a series of initiatives intended to realign its
military force structure to respond to regional interests with
the understanding that U.S. forces play an indispensible role
in protecting our security and economic interests, while
ensuring a stable and prosperous Asia. In this regard, U.S.
bilateral security arrangements in the region, especially with
Japan and with South Korea, remain the foundation for our
security posture and activities in Asia.
The committee realizes the region is changing and
opportunities are emerging to update the U.S. force posture to
better align it with our dynamic regional interests. As such,
the committee believes that defense and foreign policy decision
makers in the administration and in Congress would benefit from
an independent assessment of plans in the region with the goals
of freeing the review from the inertia of past decisions and
instead assessing what lies ahead in terms of security
challenges and opportunities.
The committee believes an independent assessment of current
initiatives, to include force deployment plans and options for
the realignment of forces in the region to respond to new
opportunities presented by allies and partners, should be
undertaken by a non-governmental institute that has broad
credibility in national security, drawing widely from policy
experts throughout the country, and from the region. The report
would be delivered to the Secretary of Defense within 90 days
of enactment of this Act, and then, 90 days later, to Congress,
incorporating the comments of the Secretary.

Subtitle H--Other Matters

Redesignation of psychological operations as military information
support operations in title 10, United States Code, to conform
to Department of Defense usage (sec. 1081)

The committee recommends a provision that would redesignate
``psychological operations'' as ``military information support
operations'' in title 10, United States Code, to conform to new
Department of Defense (DOD) nomenclature. Consistent with DOD
guidance, the committee does not intend for this change in
terminology to be construed as modifying in any way the mission
formerly known as ``psychological operations.''

Termination of requirement for appointment of civilian members of
National Security Education Board by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate (sec. 1082)

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the requirement that civilian members of the National Security
Education Board be subject to Senate confirmation.

Redesignation of Industrial College of the Armed Forces as the Dwight
D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource
Strategy (sec. 1083)

The committee recommends a provision that would rename the
Industrial College of the Armed Forces as the Dwight D.
Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy.

Designation of Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen and
Meditation Pavilion, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, as a
Fisher House (sec. 1084)

The committee recommends a provision that would designate
the Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen and Meditation
Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, as a Fisher House
for purposes of section 2493 of title 10, United States Code.
The Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen and
Meditation Pavilion was donated by the Fisher House Foundation
for use by family members of service members who die while
serving overseas. Family members reside in this facility while
they await the return and transfer of remains of a deceased
service member. Because the Fisher House for the Families of
the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion does not support a health
care facility as Fisher House is defined in section 2493 of
title 10, United States Code, the provisions of this statute
authorizing charging of fees and administration as a
nonappropriated fund facility do not apply in the absence of
this designation.

Sense of Senate on application of moratorium on earmarks to this Act
(sec. 1085)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the moratorium on congressionally-
directed spending items in the Senate, and on congressional
earmarks in the House of Representatives, should be fully
enforced in this Act.

Technical amendment relating to responsibilities of Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy (sec. 1086)

The committee recommends a provision that would correct a
statutory citation in section 139e of title 10, United States
Code, as added by section 896 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383).

Technical amendment (sec. 1087)

The committee recommends a provision that would make a
conforming amendment to section 382 of title 10, United States
Code, in order to conform with the intent of an amendment made
last year. Section 1075(b)(10) of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) struck the term ``biological or chemical'' from the
heading of section 382, which provides authority for the
Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to the Department of
Justice in emergency situations involving weapons of mass
destruction. However, the term ``biological or chemical'' was
not stricken from the body of the section, thus potentially
causing uncertainty about the meaning of the amended provision,
and potentially limiting its use only to emergencies involving
biological orchemical weapons, rather than any weapons of mass
destruction. This amendment would remove any such uncertainty.

Items of Special Interest

Audit readiness of Department of Defense financial statements

The committee is pleased that the nominee to be the next
Secretary of Defense has informed the committee that:
``Achieving clean audit opinions is one of my top management
improvement priorities. A clean financial audit opinion is
important to demonstrate that [the Department] is a responsible
steward of public funds and to ensure management has accurate
and timely information for decision making.'' The committee
expects senior Department of Defense (DOD) management to
embrace this objective as a top priority.
Section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) requires DOD to develop a
plan to achieve a full, unqualified audit of its financial
statements by the end of fiscal year 2017, and to submit semi-
annual reports on progress toward that objective. Section 881
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) added the requirement
that the Department's plans include: (1) interim milestones
consistent with the overall requirement of section 1003; and
(2) a financially sound method of accounting for DOD assets.
The committee continues to believe that DOD needs to
improve its financial management systems not only to achieve
auditable financial statements, but also to ensure that senior
DOD managers have timely, accurate information on which to make
business decisions. With the current DOD financial systems, the
Secretary of Defense recently stated, efforts to find
efficiencies and reduce waste are ``something akin to an Easter
egg hunt. My staff and I learned that it was nearly impossible
to get accurate information and answers to questions such as
`How much money do you spend?' and `How many people do you
have?'''
The Department's most recent status report on its Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan includes more
detailed interim milestones than previous reports, but more
work remains to be done. In particular, the interim milestones
in the Navy audit readiness plan are more detailed than those
in the audit readiness plans prepared by the Army and the Air
Force. The committee is also concerned that the Army and the
Air Force FIAR plans include numerous interim milestones in the
same year--fiscal year 2015 for the Army and fiscal year 2016
for the Air Force--leaving little if any time to identify and
address shortcomings before the statutory deadline for
compliance at the end of fiscal year 2017.
The committee notes that the Marine Corps has submitted its
fiscal year 2011 statement of budgetary resources for audit; it
is the only service that is currently prepared to do so.
According to the Marine Corps, every dollar the service has
spent on improved financial processes, systems, and
documentation has yielded almost $3 in direct financial
benefits, in the form of reduced interest payments, increased
discounts, reduced over-aged invoices, fewer payment errors,
and reduced manpower to address problems with erroneous data.
The committee encourages that other military services and
defense agencies to incorporate lessons learned from the Marine
Corps audit into their own audit readiness plans.
The committee remains committed to the statutory objective
of achieving a clean audit for the Department of Defense by the
end of fiscal year 2017, and directs the Secretary of Defense,
the DOD Chief Management Officer, and the secretaries and chief
management officers of the military departments to ensure that
appropriate interim milestones are established, and sufficient
resources are devoted, to ensure that this goal can be met.

Combating Terrorism Center

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point was
established following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
to provide U.S. Army Cadets with a focused Terrorism Studies
program that would better prepare them for the future threats
and national security challenges they will likely face as
officers. As an additional key mission area, the CTC provides
educational opportunities to federal, state, and local
government officials who play a role in our Nation's
counterterrorism efforts. Furthermore, the CTC has become well
known for its published research through the Harmony Program,
monthly Sentinel journal, and various other outlets. The CTC's
scholarship has made fundamental contributions to countering
violent extremism, a National Military Objective stated in the
2010 National Military Strategy of the United States of
America.
The committee notes that the CTC was established and has
been primarily funded through private donations to date. In
light of the significant contributions the CTC is making to the
education of U.S. Army Cadets and the study of terrorism
related issues, the committee encourages the Army to provide
additional resources to the CTC to provide a stable funding
source and better leverage the generous private donations it
has already received.

Comptroller General of the United States audit of the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency

Historically, the United States has used three security
assistance funding mechanisms and programs to train and equip
foreign militaries--Foreign Military Financing, International
Military Education and Training, and Peacekeeping Operations--
and State Department contractors to train and equip foreign
police. The traditional security assistance processes have been
criticized as being too slow and cumbersome to meet new
requirements for training and equipping foreign forces for
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
To address perceived limitations in traditional security
assistance, over the past several years Congress, at the
request of the Department of Defense and Department of State,
has expanded the number of security assistance programs and
funding mechanisms to provide quick assistance to foreign
militaries and police forces. These funding mechanisms and
programs include: the Iraq Security Forces Fund; the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund; section 1206 funding; Yemen
Ministry of Interior counterterrorism program and the Global
Peace Operations Initiative. As result in 2007, the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) officials announced that
they were examining ways to reform traditional security
assistance processes to respond better to new requirements and
to address the longstanding criticisms of program
implementation.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has done
separate reviews of a number of the new programs for training
and equipping foreign militaries and police but has not
compared these new programs and the traditional programs to
determine their respective strengths and weaknesses and whether
there are efficiencies or best practices that should be
adopted.
As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
conduct a review of DSCA's program implementation processes to
include: (1) what are the objectives, funding amounts, and
management framework (policies, procedures, and regulations)
for each program for training and equipping foreign security
forces; (2) what are the strengths and weaknesses of each
program; (3) to what extent has the Executive Branch
coordinated these programs at headquarters and in the field;
(4) how will DSCA's reforms affect the programs; (5) what, if
any, unnecessary duplication or overlap exists between DSCA's
functions and activities and those of the broader DOD and/or
State Department; (6) recommendations, if any, on how DSCA's
processes can be improved to accelerate the delivery of
equipment and training under the programs it implements; (7)
recommendations, if any, on how DSCA can improve the equipment
sustainability programs that support foreign nations; and (8)
any other issues the Comptroller General deems appropriate. The
report should be provided to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
June 30, 2012.

Department of Defense compliance with the Improper Payments Elimination
and Recovery Act of 2010

The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA)
of 2010 (Public Law 111-204) requires federal agencies to
periodically review all programs and activities that may be
susceptible to significant improper payments, estimate the
improper payments under such programs, and take appropriate
actions to reduce such improper payments. The committee is
aware of concerns that the Department of Defense (DOD) may have
relied on self-reporting of improper payments in lieu of robust
review processes and may have excluded from its estimates
improper payments that were recovered through the recoupment
process.
The committee expects DOD to comply fully with the
requirements of IPERA, including the requirement to produce
complete improper payment estimates. The committee is aware
that DOD has taken or plans to take a number of steps to
improve its processes for identifying and reporting improper
payments. However, more remains to be done. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
to report to Congress in writing no later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act on DOD's plan for
complying with the requirements of IPERA, including the
requirement to produce complete estimates of improper payments
(including commercial payments). In doing so, the committee
expects the Comptrollerto address steps that will be taken to:
1. Ensure that DOD develops a robust, statistically
supportable process to seek out and identify improper
payments across the Department;
2. Ensure that DOD improper payments estimates
accurately reflect the full range of overpayments
identified, in accordance with applicable executive
branch standards; and
3. Coordinate with other elements of the Department
to ensure that underlying validity of payments to
employees and other payments are subject to an
appropriate level of review and that the results of
such reviews are incorporated into DOD's improper
payments reports.

Department of Defense support to counter threat finance operations

The committee notes that the fundraising networks for
transnational terrorist and criminal organizations are global
in nature and that the United States Government's activities to
identify and counter the flow of money and materiel associated
with these networks is also a global endeavor. The committee
believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) plays an
important role in supporting other U.S. Government programs
that seek to deny, disrupt, or defeat and degrade adversaries'
ability to use global licit and illicit financial networks to
affect negatively U.S. national security interests.
The committee notes the efforts of the Afghan Threat
Finance Cell (ATFC), created in 2008, to disrupt the flow of
funding from the Afghan opium trade and other illicit sources
to the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other terrorist and insurgent
groups in Afghanistan. The committee notes that the ATFC and
related organizations have helped Afghan authorities
investigate and prosecute individuals connected to the opium
trade, identify outside sympathizers who have been supplying
funding to those individuals, and police a variety of corrupt
schemes that have filled the coffers of the Taliban-led
insurgency and other illicit actors. Importantly, the AFTC has
also helped U.S. forces identify and target individuals
associated with improvised explosive devices networks.
The committee notes that for the DOD, counter threat
finance activities provide a high return on investment that
may--in some cases--enable the DOD to avoid dangerous military
engagements altogether and provide DOD with an inexpensive but
effective means of weakening the enemy that cannot be achieved
with conventional military operations. In light of past
successes and the potential for comparable success outside of
Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee encourages the DOD to
expand its assistance to the Departments of Treasury, Justice,
Homeland Security, and other federal agencies (e.g. Drug
Enforcement Agency) as they work to counter the business,
financial, and logistical support networks of terrorist
organizations and transnational threats.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue
to keep the committee apprised of the Department's progress
with regard to these efforts.

Estimating the cost of global defense posture

The Department of Defense's (DOD) 2011 Global Defense
Posture Report to Congress observes that during economic
downturns there are often calls to bring forces home based on
the assumption that doing so will reduce costs. The report
argues that this assumption mistakenly focuses only on the
projected incremental costs of maintaining a unit overseas
while ignoring other costs. DOD asserts that to the extent
relocating units to the continental United States would produce
some cost savings, these are usually offset by numerous other
factors such as increased recurring costs to rotate units from
the United States to overseas locations, increased investments
in force structure to provide rotational units necessary to
achieve dwell goals, and reductions to host nation
contributions.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has produced a
series of reports addressing DOD's global defense posture.
These reports raise longstanding concerns about the lack of
comprehensive detailed information on the true cost of DOD's
global defense posture, and the lack of clearly defined methods
for estimating and evaluating future posture alternatives. The
committee believes that it is important that DOD uses an
objective, valid, reliable, and transparent methodology to
capture the full current cost and estimate the future cost of
military overseas posture.
The committee notes that on February 3, 2011, the GAO
issued a study entitled ``Additional Cost Information and
Stakeholder Input Needed to Assess Military Posture in
Europe.'' GAO noted in this study that DOD ``posture planning
does not require European Command (EUCOM) to include
comprehensive cost data in its theater posture plan and, as a
result, DOD lacks critical information that could be used by
decision makers as they deliberate posture requirements.'' The
study goes on to state that ``until DOD requires the combatant
commands to compile and report comprehensive cost data in their
posture plans, DOD and Congress will be limited in their
abilities to make fully informed decisions regarding DOD's
posture in Europe.'' As such, the Department is directed to
update the committee within 90 days on its plans to implement
the recommendations set forth by this GAO study to more
accurately and comprehensively account for costs related to its
theater posture plan.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
assess the DOD methodology and assumptions used to reach its
conclusion about the relative cost of overseas posture compared
to stationing forces in the United States and report the
results of its work by April 30, 2012. The Comptroller General
should examine DOD's recent posture decisions and supporting
analysis, such as the decision to retain three brigade combat
teams stationed in Europe, the request to normalize tours in
South Korea including increasing the number of American
families accompanying service members stationed there, or any
other posture initiative that the Comptroller General deems
appropriate.

Export control reform

The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
invested a great deal of time and energy into reforming the
U.S. Government's regulations and procedures for exporting
weapons and dual-use equipment and technology. In the Senate
report accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rept. 111-201) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the committee
noted its support for the Secretary of Defense's initiative to
consolidate and improve the current regulations and procedures
for exporting weapons and dual-use equipment and technology. As
noted in the report, the Secretary said, ``[the current export
control] arrangement fails at the critical task of preventing
harmful exports while facilitating useful ones.''
The committee continues to share the goal of consolidating
and improving the current export control regime and urges the
next Secretary of Defense to continue to move forward with the
export control reform effort.
The committee notes that as the reform effort proceeds and
new regulations and lists are proposed, it will become more
critical for the administration to work closely with Congress
in order to ensure that the reform effort adequately: (1)
ensures that the U.S. export control system prohibits the
transfer of critical military and dual-use technologies to
countries, entities, and individuals that pose a real or
potential threat to the United States; (2) protects the
technological edge of the United States; (3) cultivates a
strong and innovative defense industrial base; (4) facilitates
greater interoperability and cooperation with U.S. allies and
foreign partners; and (5) ensures U.S. compliance with
applicable international agreements.

Global Combat Support System-Army

The Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army) is
intended to integrate the Army supply chain to provide improved
information on asset visibility and the maintenance and
transportation of equipment for Army tactical units. The Army's
Audit Readiness Plan indicates that GCSS-Army is one of several
Enterprise Resource Planning systems, the fielding of which is
critical to the Army's plans to achieve audit readiness by the
end of fiscal year 2017, as required by section 1003 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84). For this reason, the committee is concerned that
the Army has found it necessary to delay the full deployment of
GCSS-Army from the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015 to the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report
to the congressional defense committees by no later than March
15, 2012, on the status of GCSS-Army and possible alternatives
to the full fielding of GCSS-Army. The Secretary's report
should include: (1) an updated cost analysis of GCSS-Army,
including an estimate of the full life-cycle cost of the system
and the savings that will be achieved through the elimination
of legacy systems and manual processes; and (2) a business case
analysis that compares the costs and benefits of proceeding
with full fielding of GCSS-Army with other alternatives,
including:
the use of existing legacy systems and newer
``bridging systems'' to provide needed logistics
capability and financial information;
the fielding of a reduced-scope GCSS-Army,
coupled with improved legacy and ``bridging'' systems,
as appropriate; and
the adaptation of Global Combat Support
System-Marine Corps to meet Army needs.

Intelligence and information support for counterinsurgency

In January 2010, Major General Michael T. Flynn, USA, at
the time the Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence (CJ2) for the
International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, along
with co-authors, published a paper entitled ``Fixing Intel: A
Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan.''
General Flynn's major critique was that military and national
intelligence organizations were not providing the information
necessary to support the population-centric counterinsurgency
(COIN) strategy in Afghanistan, and were instead predominantly
focused on supporting the targeting of Taliban and al Qa'ida-
related personnel and force protection.
In June 2010, General Flynn left his position in
Afghanistan, and General Clapper, confirmed by the Senate as
the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in early August,
announced his intention to appoint General Flynn to a position
where he would be responsible for overseeing the implementation
of the reforms he advocated in support of the counterinsurgency
campaign.
The committee recently learned that General Clapper, when
serving as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,
tasked the Defense Science Board (DSB) to conduct a study of
the issues raised by General Flynn's January 2010 report. The
DSB's report, ``Counterinsurgency (COIN) Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operations,'' was
recently published and briefed to the leadership in the
Department of Defense.
This report concludes that little progress has been made in
addressing the shortcomings identified by General Flynn. The
DSB Task Force concludes that intelligence support is still
focused on kinetic counterterrorism operations and force
protection missions involving the targeting of enemy forces
with technical collection systems--namely, airborne ISR
platforms with various imagery and signals intelligence
systems. The report states that ``DoD and IC [Intelligence
Community] officials tend to focus narrowly on airborne
technical collection capabilities rather than on the wider
capabilities needed to support COIN . . . The Task Force
discovered that although ISR for COIN in Afghanistan gets
considerable lip service, most senior civilian and military
leaders take a fairly constrained view, concluding that more
technical collectors (e.g., Reapers or Predators) will answer
the requirements. Non-traditional sources of military ISR get
very little support in terms of funding, manpower, or tasking
priorities.''
The DSB report asserts that the broad intelligence
community is still not addressing adequately the main focus of
COIN--the population, their safety, their aspirations, and
their socio-economic and political dynamics. This information
would come from many sources other than tactical and national
technical collection systems, including all types of human
intelligence, open sources, non-governmental organizations,
other government agencies and departments, and academia.
The DSB Task Force believes that military commanders
themselves bear some responsibility for failing to provide a
``demand signal.'' At the same time, the IC and the interagency
are not taking the initiative to gather and shape the relevant
information, and requirements are not being distilled and
articulated through the Department of Defense requirements
process. Specifically, the DSB Task Force concludes that ``a
comprehensive set of intelligence requirements for COIN does
not exist . . . The defense intelligence community has not
translated those aspects of commander's intent dealing with
COIN into intelligence requirements.''
The committee believes that the finding that the ground
force commanders are not demanding the right kinds of
intelligence to support the COIN strategy is disturbing. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage theater commanders to
determine the extent of this problem and what steps are needed
to correct it. The committee also directs the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to oversee the
development of requirements for non-materiel solutions to
provide intelligence support for COIN, from sources within the
Defense Department, the IC, and the government as a whole. This
effort should be coordinated with the Assistant DNI for
Systems, Resources, and Analysis, responsible for Intelligence
Community Capability Requirements. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to consider using the ISR Task Force
mechanism to provide resources and implementation oversight for
responding to the COIN requirements promulgated by the JROC.
The DSB Task Force recommended that the DNI create a
National Intelligence Manager (NIM) for the COIN mission. The
committee notes that there are already NIMs for the Near East
and South Asia who could serve this purpose for Afghanistan and
Iraq. The committee reserves judgment on the best approach, but
urges the DNI to focus more attention on coordinating and
integrating COIN intelligence support.

Strategic airlift aircraft force structure

The Department of Defense (DOD) authorization request
included provisions that would: (1) strike subsection (g) of
section 8062 of title 10, United States Code; and (2) change
the certification requirement in section 137 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84).
Subsection (g) of section 8062 requires the Secretary of
the Air Force to maintain a strategic airlift aircraft
inventory of 316 aircraft.
Section 137 prevents the Secretary of the Air Force from
retiring a C-5 aircraft until the Secretary certifies that the
retirement of such aircraft will not increase the operational
risk of meeting the National Defense Strategy and that the
retirement of such aircraft will not reduce the total strategic
airlift force structure below 316 strategic airlift aircraft.
The committee has not included the requested provisions
because of concerns about whether the Air Force would be able
to meet wartime and peacetime requirements with acceptable
trade-offs between operational risk and affordability. The
committee recognizes that the Defense Department completed an
update of study of strategic lift requirements last year that
identified a peak wartime demand for strategic airlift aircraft
of 32.7 million ton-miles per day. With the current fleet of C-
5 aircraft and when all C-17 aircraft currently on order are
delivered, the Air Force would have a wartime capability of
roughly 35.8 million ton-miles per day.
The study, however, made no assessment of requirements for
peacetime sustainment, nor did it address the operational risk
in meeting combatant commander warfighting requirements for
tonnage or timeliness.
The committee believes that it needs more information on
these and other issues before recommending a change to the
current requirements. The committee intends to seek such
information, and, if persuaded that a change is appropriate,
will act on this DOD proposal.
The Committee understands, as a result of information
provided by the Air Force, that by allowing the Air Force to
reduce the fleet to 299 aircraft, the U.S. Government would
avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars more in
unprogrammed maintenance costs through fiscal year 2016,
including costly investments in avionics upgrades and
maintenance for aircraft slated for retirement. The committee
agrees that DOD and the American taxpayer should not spend
millions of dollars maintaining aircraft that DOD does not
need.

United States force posture in the Asia-Pacific region

The committee strongly supports the need for a robust U.S.
presence in the Asia-Pacific, but has become increasingly
concerned about the posture planning for U.S. military forces
and, particularly, the strategic implications and costs
associated with U.S. commitments throughout the region. The
Defense Department's (DOD) 2010 report on the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) states that the United States needs to
``sustain and strengthen our Asia-Pacific alliances and
partnerships to advance mutual security interests and ensure
sustainable peace and security in the region,'' and that, to
accomplish this, DOD ``will augment and adapt our forward
presence'' in the Asia-Pacific region. The QDR report does not
provide detail on what is intended by this broad policy
objective. Since the 2010 QDR was published, however, more
detail has begun to emerge regarding the broad plans for the
region. The 2011 National Military Strategy (NMS), released in
January 2011, stated that the United States intends to ``invest
new attention and resources in Southeast and South Asia.''
Likewise, in testimony before the committee in April, the
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command offered that ``attaining better
access to and support from Allied and partner nations in South
and Southeast Asia is increasingly important.'' The Commander
also stated that ``[c]urrent force posture throughout the Asia-
Pacific remains heavily influenced by post-World War II- and
Cold War-era basing and infrastructure.'' In addition to
potential new resource requirements in these southern areas,
DOD remains engaged in significant realignment efforts for U.S.
forces in Northeast Asia, specifically in South Korea and
Japan.
Despite the enhanced explanation from DOD regarding what is
planned for the region, the details, and particularly details
regarding cost, have not been fully presented. A recently
released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report,
entitled ``Comprehensive Cost Information and Analysis of
Alternatives needed to assess Military Posture in Asia,''
reached the independent conclusion that ``across the Pacific
region, DOD has embarked on complex initiatives to transform
U.S. military posture, and these initiatives involve major
construction programs and the movement of tens of thousands of
DOD civilians and military personnel, and dependents--at an
undetermined total cost to the United States and host
nations.'' The report goes on to explain that ``DOD is
presenting Congress with near-term funding requests that will
result in significant long-term financial requirements whose
extent is unknown.'' The committee agrees with GAO's conclusion
that DOD needs to develop comprehensive cost estimates of
posture in the Pacific and the recommendation that DOD develop
annual cost estimates for DOD posture in the U.S. Pacific
Command area of responsibility.
The strategic posture and presence of the U.S. military in
the Asia-Pacific is critically important to the overall
security and stability in that region. Expanding U.S. military
presence in Southeast Asia is a mid- to long-term prospect that
will require deliberate planning and resource allocation.
Strategic choices regarding posture and presence must support
the strong alliances we maintain in the region and respond to
the opportunities presented by emerging alliances and partners,
while also addressing the reality of constrained budgets and
the intense competition for resources in the United States as
well as in our allied and partner nations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to complete the following actions no later than December 31,
2011:
1. Review the current operational plans of Commander,
U.S. Pacific Command to determine whether the existing
force posture, as well as proposed U.S. force
realignments in the region are consistent with the QDR,
the NMS, and the forecast of future U.S. national
security objectives in the region over the next 20
years;
2. Develop a strategic plan for the region with goal
for force posture realignments required to sustain U.S.
national interests that will guide agreements and
investments over the next 20 years; and
3. Require the military departments to develop annual
cost estimates for DOD posture in the U.S. Pacific
Command area of responsibility that provide a
comprehensive assessment of overall posture costs,
including costs associated with posture initiatives.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide for an independent assessment of America's security
interests in Asia, current force deployment plans, and likely
future needs related to the posture of U.S. military forces in
the region, to include plans for South and Southeast Asia as
well as plans to realign U.S. forces and increase the number of
families in South Korea, transfer U.S. Marines from Okinawa to
Guam, and substantially increase the U.S. force presence on
Guam with the corresponding impact on Guam's infrastructure.
This independent study should be conducted by a group of policy
and regional experts drawn widely from throughout the country
and the Asia-Pacific region and should incorporate input from
the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense
committees of Congress. Results of the study should be
available to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives by May 1, 2012, in order to inform
future congressional deliberations on the adequacy of the
Department's force deployments plans in the Asia-Pacific
region.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Authority of the secretaries of the military departments to employ up
to 10 persons without pay (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1583 of title 10, United States Code, to allow each
service secretary to employ, without pay, up to 10 persons of
outstanding experience and ability. Current law provides such
authority only to the Secretary of Defense.
Extension of eligibility to continue federal employee health benefits
for certain employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8905a of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the
Department of Defense to pay the government's share and
administrative fees for Temporary Continuation of Coverage
(TCC) health insurance premiums for former employees enrolled
in TCC based on separation due to a reduction in force. The
provision also includes a technical amendment that would remove
applicability of section 8905a to the Department of Energy with
respect to the establishment of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Authority for waiver of recovery of certain payments previously made
under civilian employees voluntary separation incentive program
(sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to retroactively waive, on a case-by-
case basis, repayment of voluntary separation incentive pay for
certain individuals reemployed in temporary positions by the
Department of Defense between June 1, 2004, and March 1, 2008,
to support a declared national emergency related to terrorism
or a natural disaster.
Permanent extension and expansion of experimental personnel program for
scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1104)
Section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261)
established a 5-year experimental personnel management program
for technical personnel at the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Due to the success of the program in
attracting highly qualified technical personnel, subsequent
amendments to this section extended the duration of the
experimental program and expanded the authority to other
Department of Defense organizations.
The committee recommends a provision to make this program
permanent and increases the ceiling on the number of positions
allocated to DARPA due to increased need. In addition, the
program is expanded to include up to 10 positions for the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). This
personnel need was communicated in a report on DOT&E Personnel
Requirements, Allocations, Resources, and Plans to Manage
Increasing Complexity requested in the Senate report
accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rept. 111-201) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
Modification of beneficiary designation authorities for death gratuity
payable upon death of a United States Government employee in
service with the armed forces (sec. 1105)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8102a(d) of title 5, United States Code, to allow
civilian employees to designate anyone they choose to receive
the entirety of a death gratuity if the employee dies of
injuries incurred in connection with service with an armed
force in a contingency operation. Current law restricts these
employees from designating more than 50 percent of a death
gratuity to go to an unrelated person.

Two-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to personnel on official duty in a
combat zone (sec. 1106)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
temporary discretionary authority to federal agencies to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those
provided to members of the foreign service to an agency's
civilian employees on official duty in a combat zone. This
authority would expire in 2013.

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1107)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the
aggregate of basic and premium pay payable through calendar
year 2012 to an employee who performs work in an overseas
location that is in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, United States Central Command, or an overseas
location that was formerly in the area of responsibility of the
Commander, United States Central Command but has been moved to
an area of responsibility of the Commander, United States
Africa Command in support of a contingency operation or an
operation in response to a declared emergency.
The amount payable may not exceed the total annual
compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of
title 3, United States Code.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Expansion of scope of humanitarian demining assistance authority to
include stockpiled conventional munitions (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
scope of humanitarian demining assistance by including
stockpiled conventional munitions under section 407 of title
10, United States Code. The provision would also amend other
sections of the underlying law to reflect this change.
The Department of Defense (DOD) currently may provide
humanitarian demining assistance including activities related
to the furnishing of education, training, and technical
assistance with respect to the detection and clearance of
landmines and other explosive remnants of war. As currently
enacted, section 407 does not authorize DOD to provide
education, training, or technical assistance to nations that
request assistance with the physical security and stockpile
management of degraded and potentially dangerous stockpiles of
explosive ordnance. Physically securing and safely managing
stockpiles is critical to mitigating the loss of innocent life
due to the theft of ordnance, or deterioration of ordnance into
a dangerous condition. Further, and most importantly, from a
force protection of U.S. service member perspective,
identifying, securing, and managing old stockpiles of
conventional munitions--which are often used to engineer
improvised explosive devices (IED)--will help DOD expand
further its counter IED efforts in countries of particular
concern.
One-year extension and modification of authorities applicable to
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP)
in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2012 and authorize the use of up
to $400.0 million to enable commanders to respond to urgent
humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements by carrying
out small-scale projects that immediately assist the Afghan
people.
The committee understands that the budget request included
$425.0 million for CERP, consisting of $400.0 million for
programs in Afghanistan and $25.0 million for programs in Iraq.
With the transition of the U.S. mission after September 2010 to
an advise and assist role, the requirements for CERP in Iraq
have decreased. In the coming months, United States Forces-Iraq
will be drawing down to meet the December 31, 2011, deadline
for the withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq, as
set out in the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement signed in November
2008. The committee believes that as the December 2011 deadline
approaches, the Government of Iraq should assume responsibility
for, and pay the costs of, humanitarian projects in Iraq. The
committee therefore recommends a decrease in the budget request
for CERP of $25.0 million, to a funding level of $400.0 million
for CERP in Afghanistan only.
Three-year extension of temporary authority to use acquisition and
cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for
personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
3 years the temporary authority of the Secretary of Defense to
loan or lease certain personnel protection equipment to the
military forces of partner nations for use during coalition
operations or for pre-deployment training in preparation for
such operations. The authority to provide military equipment
under this section would expire on September 30, 2014.
Conditional extension and modification of authority to build the
capacity of counter terrorism forces of Yemen (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for
1 fiscal year, the authority of the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to build the
capacity of the Yemen Ministry of Interior counterterrorism
forces if the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State
jointly certify that such activities are important to the
national security interests of the United States. In light of
conditions on the ground in Yemen, the provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to
provide a report with the certification that would provide the
reasons the administration deemed the provision of such
assistance and assistance provided to Yemen's national military
forces under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) important to the
national security interests of the United States, as well as
establish a 60-day ``notice and wait'' period for the provision
of assistance. The provision would also permit the Department
to expend not more than $10.0 million per fiscal year on minor
military construction projects outside of Sana'a--the capital
of Yemen, and Sana'a Governorate.
The committee is aware of the uncertain political situation
in Yemen and the violent actions President Saleh has taken
against the Yemeni people. For these reasons, the provision
requires the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to
receive assurances from the Government of Yemen that any
assistance provided be used in a manner that promotes the
observance of and respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and respect for legitimate civilian authority in
Yemen. The committee is also keenly aware of the threat posed
by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to the United
States Homeland and our interests around the world. The
committee believes--subject to a determination by the Secretary
of Defense and Secretary of State that such activities are
important to the national security interests of the United
States--that the Department should continue to have at its
disposal the authority to continue capacity building activities
with the Yemen Ministry of Interior counterterrorism forces to
mitigate the threat posed by AQAP.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to ensure any support provided under this
authority is coordinated, to the extent practicable, with the
broader counterterrorism operations of the United States in
Yemen.
Extension of authority for support of special operations to combat
terrorism (sec. 1205)
As requested by the Department of Defense, the committee
recommends a provision that would extend the authority for
support of special operations to combat terrorism contained in
section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
amended, through fiscal year 2017.
The committee has previously expressed concern with regard
to the adequacy of the Department's annual report and
notifications required under this authority. The committee
appreciates efforts by the Department to provide more detailed
information in its annual report, but requests continued
vigilance in providing complete details in notifications and in
fully complying with all annual reporting requirements.
The committee has also previously expressed concern with
regard to the appropriateness of some support provided under
this authority which appeared to be focused on long-term
engagement and capacity building, rather than exclusively to
support or facilitate U.S. operations to combat terrorism. The
committee appreciates efforts by the Department to ensure
funded activities meet the original intent of this authority,
including closing out activities which have achieved their
intended result or which no longer fit within the scope of the
authority.

Limitation on availability of funds for authorities relating to program
to build the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1206)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit to
$100,000,000 the funding authorized during fiscal year 2012 for
programs under section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119
Stat. 3456) to train and equip foreign military forces until
the Secretaries of Defense and State jointly submit the report
required by section 1237 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122
Stat. 4642). The report, which assesses the implementation and
utility of certain Building Global Partnership authorities of
the Department of Defense, was required to be submitted by no
later than December 31, 2010.

Global Security Contingency Fund (sec. 1207)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
joint Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of State (DOS)
fund to provide a pooled resources approach for responding to
crises that require a range of military assistance and other
assistance in the security sector. The provision would allow
the DOD and the DOS to transfer up to $300.0 million into the
fund to be used for training and equipping foreign security
forces or building foreign nations' law enforcement or justice
sector capacity. Programs under the Global Security Contingency
Fund would be jointly formulated by the DOD and the DOS and
would support a number of existing DOD and State authorities,
including foreign military financing, International Military
Education Training, DOS law enforcement training authorities,
and DOD's Global Train and Equip program (``Section 1206'').
The fund would be initially established as a 3-year pilot
program.

Authority to build the capacity of certain counterterrorism forces of
East African countries (sec. 1208)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize,
for 2 fiscal years, the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State to build the capacity of
the national military forces, security agencies that serve a
similar defense function, and border security forces of
Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya, and the national military forces
of nations participating in the African Union Mission in
Somalia for the purpose of conducting counterterrorism
operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, and al
Shabaab in East Africa.
The committee believes Somalia is a failed state, and
despite the intentions of the Transitional Federal Government
(TFG) to establish a functioning state, the Government of
Somalia remains unable to provide essential services to its
population or exercise control of its territory on its own. The
tenuous stability that does exist in Mogadishu is in large part
due to the African Union Mission in Somalia, which receives
major personnel contributions from Uganda and Burundi.
Somalia's instability is further amplified by the increased
influence of violent extremist groups, like al Shabaab, in East
Africa over the last year. Al Shabaab's growing strength
provides an opportunity for other global terrorist groups, like
al Qaeda, to use Somalia as a potential safe haven to plan and
conduct global terror operations, train foreign fighters, and
further spread its violent ideology. The committee agrees with
the Commander of U.S. Africa Command that the situation in
Somalia ``poses a direct threat to the security of the United
States.''
At present, U.S. regional security and counterterrorism
efforts in the Horn of Africa have only received limited
funding. According to the Congressional Research Service, only
an estimated $27.0 million was dedicated by the State
Department to a regional counterterrorism program to counter
the growing threat in East Africa in fiscal year 2010. The
committee hopes this increase in train and equip assistance
authorized by this section will permit the U.S. Government to
better enable our partners in the region to address the threat
posed by al Shabaab and other violent extremist groups to
regional and global security interests. This program will also
help the U.S. enhance regional cooperation, as well as improve
our military-to-military relationships in this important region
of Africa.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to ensure any support provided under this
authority is coordinated, to the extent practicable, with the
broader counterterrorism operations of the United States in
Yemen.

Support of forces participating in operations to disarm the Lord's
Resistance Army (sec. 1209)

The committee recommends a provision that would--pursuant
to the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda
Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172)--authorize, for 2
fiscal years, the Department of Defense to obligate not more
than $35.0 million in each fiscal year in operation and
maintenance funding to provide logistical support, services and
supplies, and intelligence support to: (1) the national
military forces of Uganda participating in operations to
mitigate or eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance
Army (LRA); and (2) the national military forces of any other
countries determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to be participating in
operations to mitigate or eliminate the threat posed by the
LRA. The provision would expressly prohibit any personnel
associated with the United States Government from taking part
in combat operations, except for the purpose of self-defense or
of rescuing personnel associated with the U.S. Government.
Further, the provision would prohibit any type of support that
is otherwise prohibited by law and prohibits the Secretary of
Defense from providing support to any foreign country that is
otherwise prohibited by law. Lastly, the provision would
require the Secretary of Defense--upon the concurrence of the
Secretary of State--to notify the specified committees of
Congress of any determination of an additional eligible country
and of any support provided pursuant to this provision.

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

Extension and modification of logistical support for coalition forces
supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1221)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2012 the authority provided in section 1234 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 394), as amended by section 1218 of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4394) to provide logistical
support for coalition forces supporting operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The provision would also increase the amount of
funds available under this section from $400,000,000 to
$450,000,000.
The committee notes that the report on coalition support
authorities, required by section 1234 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383), is overdue. The provision would limit the amount
of funds available to be obligated or expended to provide
logistical support for coalition forces supporting operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan to not more than $200,000,000 until the
report on coalition support authorities is submitted to
Congress.

One-year extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security forces of
Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1222)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year, through December 31, 2012, the authority under section
1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 (Public Law 111-81; 123 Stat. 2533), as amended by section
1214 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4391), to
transfer defense articles, and provide defense services in
connection with the transfer of those articles, to the Iraq
security forces or the Afghanistan security forces. The
provision would also extend through March 31, 2013, the
requirement to provide quarterly reports on the use of this
authority, except that no report would be required for any
fiscal quarter in which the authority was not used.

One-year extension of authorities applicable to the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1223)

The committee recommends a provision that extends for 1
year the authorities of section 1224 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123
Stat. 2521), as amended by section 1220 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383), regarding the use of the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund to build the counterinsurgency
capabilities of the Pakistan security forces.

One-year extension of authority to use funds for reintegration
activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1224)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority under section 1216 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) for the Secretary of Defense to use up to $50.0
million to support the reintegration of former insurgent
fighters into Afghan society.

Modification of authority on program to develop and carry out
infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1225)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4393) to establish a program to develop
and implement high-priority, large-scale infrastructure
projects in support of the counterinsurgency strategy in
Afghanistan.
The budget request included $475.0 million for the
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund to support the Afghanistan
Infrastructure Program (AIP), $75.0 million more than the
$400.0 million authorized for the AIP in fiscal year 2011. The
committee notes that the Department finally submitted in May
2011 its plan for how it intended to use the $400.0 million
authorized for the AIP in fiscal year 2011 and as a result the
obligation and expenditure of funds for these purposes has been
delayed. Given that the program has yet to demonstrate its
capacity to build and implement large-scale infrastructure
projects at the currently authorized funding level, the
committee does not believe that an increase in funding for the
AIP for fiscal year 2012 is warranted. The committee therefore
recommends maintaining the authorized level of funding for the
AIP at up to $400.0 million, a decrease of $75.0 million from
the budget request.

One-year extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition
nations for support provided to United States military
operations (sec. 1226)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2012 the authority pursuant to section 1233 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393), as amended most recently by
section 1213 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), for the
Secretary of Defense to use funds (``Coalition Support Funds'')
to reimburse key nations for logistical and military support
provided to or in connection with U.S. military operations in
Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF). Coalition Support Funds may also be
used to procure and provide supplies and specialized training
and loan specialized equipment to coalition partners supporting
OEF. The total amount of reimbursements and other support that
could be provided under this provision during fiscal year 2012
would be $1.75 billion.
The provision would also extend through September 30, 2013,
the additional congressional notification requirements
applicable to reimbursements to Pakistan for support provided
to or in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom.

Two-year extension of certain reports on Afghanistan (sec. 1227)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through September 30, 2014, the requirement under section 1230
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 385), as most recently amended
by section 1231 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), to
report semi-annually to Congress on the progress toward
security and stability in Afghanistan.
The provision would also extend through September 30, 2014,
the requirement under section 1231 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122
Stat. 385), as most recently amended by section 1232 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383), to report on the long-term plan for
sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces.

Authority to support operations and activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1228)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide up to $524.0 million to
support the operations and transition activities of the Office
of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) and security assistance
teams engaged in security cooperation activities. Authorized
types of support would include life support, transportation and
personal security, and minor construction and facilities
renovation. The provision would also require that the Secretary
of Defense ensure that future foreign military sales contracts
with Iraq include the costs associated with the operations and
activities of the OSC-I as part of the contract price paid by
Iraq.
The committee recognizes the importance of maintaining a
stable Iraq as the withdrawal of U.S. forces proceeds. The
activities of the OSC-I will be central to establishing a
normal military-to-military relationship with Iraq comparable
to OSC-type activities throughout the world.
The committee understands that the preponderance of the
support costs that would be covered by the authority of this
section would regularly be included as costs paid by the
recipient country under the terms of foreign military sales
(FMS) contracts. The committee understands, however, that a
number of legacy FMS contracts negotiated under the Iraq
Security Forces Fund do not incorporate these costs into the
contract price paid by Iraq. The funding authorized by this
provision would help meet these costs under the existing FMS
contracts as future FMS contracts with Iraq are negotiated. The
committee believes that all future FMS contracts with Iraq must
provide for the Government of Iraq to pay the costs associated
with the operations and activities of the OSC-I and security
assistance teams implementing those contracts.

Benchmarks to evaluate the progress being made toward the transition of
security responsibilities for Afghanistan to the Government of
Afghanistan (sec. 1229)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to establish benchmarks to evaluate progress being
made in Afghanistan toward transitioning and transferring lead
security responsibilities to the Government of Afghanistan, and
to report regularly to Congress on those benchmarks.

Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

Report on progress of the African Union in operationalizing the African
Standby Force (sec. 1241)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to provide a report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives that includes the following elements: (1) an
assessment of the existing personnel strength and capabilities
of each of the African Standby Force's (ASF) five regional
brigade structures and the brigade-level headquarters; (2) an
assessment of the specific capacity-building needs of the ASF,
including supply management, information management, strategic
planning, and other critical components; (3) a description of
the functionality of each of the five regional brigades' supply
depots and an update on existing stocks; (4) an assessment of
the African Union's capacity to manage the ASF structure; (5)
an assessment of the inter-organizational coordination on
assistance to the African Union/ASF between multilateral
donors, including the United Nations, European Union, and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and (6) an assessment of
the African Union's ability to absorb additional international
assistance toward the development of a fully functional ASF.
This report shall be provided no later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.

Comptroller General of the United States report on the National Guard
State Partnership Program (sec. 1242)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of
the effectiveness of the National Guard State Partnership
Program (SPP) to include: (1) a summary of the sources of
funding for the SPP program over the last 5 years; (2) an
analysis of the types and frequency of activities performed by
SPP participants; (3) how the SPP objectives are established
and coordinated with the respective geographic combatant
commands, U.S. Country Teams, and other federal departments and
agencies; (4) how the Department selects and designates
particularstate/foreign country partnerships; (5) how the
Department measures the effectiveness of the SPP activities; and (6) an
assessment by the Comptroller General of the effectiveness of the SPP
activities in meeting the program's objectives. The Comptroller General
shall report the results of the review to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
March 31, 2012.
The SPP is designed to link a State National Guard with a
single country or region to develop additional and deeper
military-to-military relations in those countries--primarily in
Eastern Europe and Africa. Since its inception in 1993, the SPP
program has grown from programs in three countries in Eastern
Europe to over 60 countries around the world. In addition to
the growth in numbers of new partnerships, the mission of the
SPP appears to have broadened significantly from primarily
military-to-military engagement to encompass projects designed
to improve economic and social development of partner countries
and which include National Guard forces working with civilian
authorities. While the committee remains supportive of the
overall objectives of the program, the committee is concerned
by the expanding mission of the SPP and believes it is critical
that the SPP be well coordinated with U.S. national security
objectives in a particular country and not performed on an ad
hoc basis.

Items of Special Interest

Burden sharing within NATO

The committee is concerned about a growing disparity of
defense expenditures and capabilities between the United States
and those of many of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) allies. The committee notes that during the 2002 Prague
Summit, a non-binding agreement was reached among members of
the Alliance to spend 2 percent of their respective Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. According to Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates, today only 5 of 28 allies, including the
United States, exceed this threshold. According to a March 10,
2011, release by NATO entitled Financial and Economic Data
Relating to NATO Defence, the average defense spending as a
percentage of GDP among European members of NATO was 1.7
percent in 2010--well below the NATO agreement of 2 percent--
while the United States spent 5.4 percent of its GDP on defense
that year. During a speech in Brussels, Belgium, on June 10,
2011, Secretary Gates expressed his concerns about
``significant shortcomings in NATO--in military capabilities,
and in political will'' and worried about ``NATO turning into a
two-tiered alliance'' composed of ``those willing and able to
pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and
those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership.'' The
committee commends Secretary Gates for the candor of his
remarks in Brussels on June 10, 2011, and strongly agrees that
``nations must be responsible for their fair share of the
common defense.'' The committee is concerned that a continued
decline in defense investment by many of the NATO members may
have far reaching implications on the durability of the
Alliance and its capability to effectively respond to future
security challenges.

Comptroller General of the United States Report on the Islamic Republic
of Iran

The Senate report accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rpt. 111-201) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
included an item of special interest directing the Comptroller
General of the United States to update and expand the scope of
its Iran related audit activities. The Senate report
specifically directed the Comptroller General to update its
work on a semi-annual basis.
The committee supports the Comptroller General's request
that this report be updated on an annual basis rather than a
semi-annual basis.

Report on Taiwan's Air Defense Force

In the statement of managers accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84),
the conferees directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress, not later than January 28, 2010, a report that
contained an assessment of: (1) the current state of Taiwan's
air defense forces; (2) the ability of Taiwan's air defense
forces to defend Taiwan's air space in response to a range of
cross-Strait scenarios; and (3) possible measures, if any, that
Taiwan could undertake to strengthen its air defense forces.
On February 16, 2010, the Department of Defense submitted a
preliminary response to Congress, providing an assessment of
Taiwan's air defense status. In that preliminary assessment,
the Department raised the possibility that the Taiwan Air Force
could face significant operational shortfalls, finding that
``[a]lthough Taiwan has nearly 400 combat aircraft in service,
far fewer of these are operationally capable.'' In addition,
the Department concluded: ``Many of Taiwan's fighter aircraft
are close to or beyond service life, and many require extensive
maintenance support. The retirement of Mirage and F-5 aircraft
will reduce the total size of the Taiwan Air Force.''
In the cover letter conveying the preliminary response, the
Department indicated that it and the intelligence community
were conducting a more comprehensive evaluation of the military
situation in the Taiwan Strait, and would respond to the
questions posed by the conferees upon the conclusion of that
analysis. The Department has yet to provide Congress with this
analysis although more than a year has passed since the
congressionally-mandated deadline for doing so.
The committee also notes that in 2006, Taiwan sought to
purchase 66 U.S.-made F-16C/D aircraft in an effort to
modernize its air forces and maintain its self-defense
capability, a request that was reiterated as recently as May
12, 2011, when Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou stated at an
international conference that ``I continue to urge the US to
provide Taiwan with necessary defensive weaponry, such as the
F-16.'' To date, the administration has not addressed Taiwan's
requests to purchase F-16C/D aircraft.
The committee is concerned that the administration's
failure to either provide the report required by the statement
of managers or to respond to Taiwan's requests to purchase F-
16C/D aircraft raises questions about whether the
administration is in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act
(Public Law 96-8), which requires the United States to make
available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services
in such quantity ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to
maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the report required
by the statement of managers, including a determination on
whether Taiwan requires additional F-16C/D aircraft to maintain
a self-defense capability, without further delay.

Report on U.S.-India Security Cooperation

The committee believes that a deepening global strategic
partnership between the United States and India will be
critical to the maintenance and expansion of a rules-based
international system that promotes freedom, democracy,
security, prosperity, and the rule of law in the 21st century.
It is in the national interest of the United States, through
military-to-military relations, arms sales, bilateral and
multilateral joint exercises, and other means, to support
India's rise and build a strategic and military culture of
cooperation and interoperability between our two countries, in
particular with regard to the Indo-Pacific region.
The committee notes that combined naval exercises,
conducted between the United States and India, have become a
vital pillar of stability, security, and free and open trade,
in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Recent U.S. arms sales
to India, including C-130J military transport aircraft, a U.S.
amphibious transport dock, UH-3H Sea King helicopters, counter-
battery radar sets, and P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft,
have benefitted the United States and India alike, increasing
commonality of military equipment platforms and contributing to
security in the Indo-Pacific region. The committee also notes
that India recently announced its intention to purchase 10 C-17
Globemaster III aircraft.
The Secretary of Defense, not later than November 1, 2011,
shall submit to the congressional defense committees an
unclassified report, with a classified annex as appropriate,
that provides a plan to enhance U.S.-India security
cooperation, containing the following: (1) a detailed
assessment of the current state of U.S.-India security
cooperation; (2) a 5-year plan for enhancing U.S.-India
security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region and globally,
to include recommendations for the United States to further
improve and expand this relationship in four areas: combined
military exercises; defense trade and support for India's
military modernization; cooperation in areas such as disaster
response and relief, humanitarian assistance,
counterproliferation, counterpiracy, counterterrorism, homeland
security and coastal defense, and the maintenance of secure sea
lines of communication; and multilateral exercises and
cooperation incorporating other Indo-Pacific allies and
strategic partners; and (3) a detailed assessment of the
desirability and feasibility of the future sale of F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters to India, and a potential U.S. partnership with
India to co-develop one or more military weapon systems,
including but not limited to the anticipated program to replace
the U.S. Air Force T-38 trainer jet.

United States-Tunisia military-to-military cooperation

The committee believes that expanded military assistance
and cooperation with the Tunisian Armed Forces is an important
component of a comprehensive U.S. policy to support the people
and Government of Tunisia in its transition to democracy. It is
in the U.S. national interest for Tunisia, as the first Arab
country in 2011 to experience a peaceful, youth-driven, pro-
democracy revolution, to become a prosperous, stable, and
secure democracy. The committee notes the professionalism
displayed by the Tunisian Armed Forces during the Tunisian
revolution, in particular with regard to its refusal to use
violence against peaceful protesters. The committee also notes
the deteriorating regional security environment confronting
Tunisia and the serious challenges posed to the Tunisian Armed
Forces with regard to the policing of the country's land and
maritime borders, due to instability in Libya as well as the
continuing threat posed by transnational extremist groups. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, to enhance and expand U.S. security
assistance to Tunisia in order to strengthen the capacity of
the Tunisian Armed Forces, in particular with regard to
securing Tunisia's land and maritime borders.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec.
1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill,
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$508.2 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision
would also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program
element, require notification to Congress 30 days before the
Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2012
funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in the
provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days before
the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2012
funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR
program element.
The committee notes that the CTR program categories have
changed in the fiscal year 2012 budget request and that the
biological engagement programs are now consolidated into a
single line, which represents over half of the CTR fiscal year
2012 budget. As the CTR branches out to the new biological
engagement programs in countries outside of the former Soviet
Union, the committee urges the program to ensure that these
programs are meeting national security goals. While the CTR
biological programs must be coordinated with local host country
public health entities as well as with U.S. Government public
health entities, these programs should continue to be first and
foremost about preventing biological attacks and the
proliferation of biological weapons materials and technologies.
The program category of defense and military contacts has
changed in the fiscal year 2012 budget request and is now
called global threat engagement. In the past these funds were
used to support one of the goals of the CTR program when
originally established to improve relationships between the
U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. military, and the
Ministries of Defense and the militaries of the states of the
former Soviet Union. These interactions were successful and
should be sustained. As the program has grown, however,
particularly in the biological threat reduction area, much of
the interaction is with civilian agencies and entities. The
committee supports these broader interactions as long as they
continue to support the CTR program's threat reduction mission.
In addition, the committee believes that there may be
opportunities to broaden the military contacts to include
interaction with the Chinese military to explore mutually
beneficial threat reduction cooperation.
Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence
in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from obligating or expending more than
$0.5 million of Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds to
establish a center of excellence in any country outside of the
former Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the Secretary of
Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a
report on the particular center to be established. The report
shall identify the country where the center would be
established, the purpose for which the center would be used,
the agreement under which the center would operate, and the
funding plan for the center including any cost-sharing
arrangement.
The committee supports the expansion of CTR into countries
outside of the FSU but would like to understand in more detail
plans for new centers as these plans evolve.
The committee also supports the effort to secure the most
vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that
this is a significant challenge that will require close
interagency cooperation to be fully successful. The committee
notes that the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, have a long
and productive history of cooperation in threat reduction
programs, and urge them to continue this close collaboration in
the accelerated program.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Military Programs

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the
levels identified in section 4401 of division D of this Act.
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the
levels identified in section 4401 of devision D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would
authorizeappropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels
identified in section 4401 of division D of this Act.

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1404)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense at the levels identified in section 4401 of division D
of this Act.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 1405)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide at the levels identified in section
4401 of division D of this Act.

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4401
of division D of this Act.

Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

Authorized uses of National Defense Stockpile funds (sec. 1411)

The committee recommends a provision that 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 provision would also
permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or
emergency conditions 45 days after congressional notification.

Revision to required receipt objectives for previously authorized
disposals from the National Defense Stockpile (sec. 1412)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3402(b)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), as amended, to
increase Department of Defense stockpile commodity disposal
authority from $730.0 million to $830.0 million, and to extend
this authority from 2013 to 2016.

Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home

Part I--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 1421)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$67.7 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 from the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Part II--Armed Forces Retirement Home Authorities

Amendment of Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (sec. 1422)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that any amendments or repeals in this Act made in reference to
the Armed Forces Retirement Home be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Act of 1991 (title XI of Public Law 101-510).

Annual validation of multiyear accreditation (sec. 1423)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, if
accreditation is granted to the Home for more than 1 year, to
seek validation of the accreditation for every year that the
Department of Defense Inspector General does not conduct an
inspection of the Home.

Clarification of duties of Senior Medical Advisor (sec. 1424)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
oversight responsibilities and reporting requirements of the
Senior Medical Advisor of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Replacement of local boards of trustees for each facility with single
advisory council (sec. 1425)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
an Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory Council, with members
appointed by the Secretary of Defense to serve the interests of
both facilities of the Home, as well as the interests of its
residents. While the Council would replace the local boards
established for each of the Armed Forces Retirement Home
facilities, it would be required to provide for the
participation of a representative of the resident advisory
committee of each facility of the Home in carrying out its
responsibilities.

Administrators and ombudsmen of facilities (sec. 1426)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
appointment of an Administrator and Ombudsman for each facility
of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Inspection requirements (sec. 1427)

The committee recommends a provision that would revise the
interval of inspections that the Department of Defense
Inspector General would be required to make of each Armed
Forces Retirement Home facility from annually to not less than
every 3 years.

Repeal of obsolete provisions (sec. 1428)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
obsolete provisions in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of
1991 (title XV of Public Law 101-510) that relate to
transitional provisions for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Board and directors and deputy directors of the Home's
facilities.

Technical, conforming, and clerical amendments (sec. 1429)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
several technical, conforming, and clerical amendments to the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (title XV of Public
Law 101-510).

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
(sec. 1431)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds from Defense Health
Program operation and maintenance to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund. Such funds would be authorized to be used
for operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center or other facilities designated as a combined
federal medical facility. The President's budget request
projects $135.6 million for transfer to the fund in fiscal year
2012.

Budget Items

Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan

The budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD)
Office of Inspector General (OIG), included $286.9 million in
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and $1.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E). The committee
continues to be concerned that funding levels for independent
audit and investigative functions should keep pace with the
demand for these services, particularly given that the OIG
return on investment was over $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2010
with respect to achieved monetary benefits, investigative
fines, restitutions, recoveries, and equates to a ratio of $22
returned for every $1 spent. The committee notes that in fiscal
year 2010, OIG investigations resulted in 301 indictments and
241 convictions.
The OIG audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the
programs and operations of the DOD, and recommends policies and
process improvements that promote economy, efficiency,
effectiveness, and integrity in DOD programs and operations.
The committee continues to note the dramatic growth in the
number and cost of DOD contracts for operations, procurement,
research, and military construction within the United States
and around the world. The increase recommended by the committee
will enable the OIG to conduct oversight related to military
operations in Afghanistan, review contract management and
acquisitions, and support audits to identify potential waste,
fraud, and abuse.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $40.5
million in O&M and $2.9 million in RDT&E for the OIG.

Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities

The budget request included $1.2 billion for drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities. The committee
recommends a total reduction of $39.0 million, including: (1)
$30.0 million undistributed for general contract support; $5.0
million undistributed for support to U.S. European Command's
(EUCOM) counterdrug programs; $3.5 million for the Office of
Naval Intelligence (project code 3359); and $0.5 million for
strategic communications (project code 9220).
The committee notes that the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's counternarcotics and global threats operations are
highly dependent on general support and service support
contractors for its day-to-day operations and that additional
contractor support reductions are manageable. This
undistributed reduction should not be used for reductions to
specialized or technical contractor support activities.
The committee notes that EUCOM has re-focused its
counternarcotics activities to illicit trafficking routes
entering its area of responsibility from the east; however,
EUCOM continues to maintain counter illicit narcotics
trafficking programs that are largely Africa-centric. The
committee urges EUCOM and U.S. Africa Command to develop a
counternarcotics strategy that does not duplicate efforts and
manages effectively the operational and intelligence collection
seam that exists between the combatant commands.
The budget request includes funding for the Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI) to assist the U.S. Navy and--in limited
circumstances--foreign countries to conduct illicit narcotics
interdiction operations. ONI provides critical support to the
U.S. and international efforts to counter illicit narcotics
trafficking operations; however, the budget request for drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities includes funding for
ONI support to counterterrorism operations as well. As such,
the committee recommends a reduction of $3.5 million.
The budget request includes $0.5 million (project code
9220) to fund a United States-Colombia bilateral strategic
communications program whereby assistance is provided to the
Colombian Government to engage more effectively the media on
issues associated with the narcotics trade and efforts by the
Colombian Government to counter the threat posed by the
narcotics trade. The committee recommends cancelling this
program and a reduction of $0.5 million.

Item of Special Interest

Beryllium stockpile evaluation

The committee notes that related to the National Defense
Stockpile, the Department of Defense (DOD) Strategic Materials
Protection Board identified high purity beryllium as, ``both a
strategic and critical material'' in a report prepared for
Congress in December 2008, pursuant to section 843 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364).
The Board also noted that high purity beryllium ``possesses
unique properties that makes it indispensable in many of
today's critical United States defense systems'' and that
``there is significant risk of supply disruption.'' Therefore,
the committee encourages the DOD to evaluate--on a consistent
basis its beryllium inventory and investment strategy to ensure
the inventory is adequate for defense requirements and meets
DOD specifications.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that 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.

Procurement (sec. 1502)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for procurement at the levels
identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for research, development, test, and
evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division
D of this Act.

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for operation and maintenance at the
levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act.

Military personnel (sec. 1505)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an additional $11.2 billion for military personnel.

Working capital funds (sec. 1506)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at
the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this
Act.

Defense Health Program (sec. 1507)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the
levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1508)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counter-
Drug Activities, Defense-wide, at the level identified in
section 4402 of division D of this Act.

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector
General at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D
of this Act.

Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)

The committee recommends a provision that would state that
amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by
this Act.

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related
funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this
title.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

One-year extension and modification of authority for Task Force for
Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1531)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority provided in section 1535 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) for the Secretary to use up to $150.0
million to fund the activities of the Department of Defense's
Task Force on Business and Stability Operations (``Task
Force'') in Afghanistan. The Task Force is authorized to carry
out projects that assist the Commander of United States Forces
Afghanistan and the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan to enhance
the stability and economic normalcy of Afghanistan through
strategic business and economic activities. The provision would
clarify the types of projects to be carried out by the Task
Force. The provision would also allow for representatives of
the Department of State and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) to participate on the Task
Force.
The committee believes that efforts to promote
Afghanistan's economic stability and private sector development
are important to achieving a sustainable transition to
Afghanistan assuming responsibility for its own security and
affairs. During hearings on the defense budget request, the
committee heard from several Department of Defense officials
regarding the valuable work of the Task Force in support of the
civilian-military campaign, particularly in assisting the
development of Afghanistan's mining sector. The committee
believes that these significant activities need to continue
during the critical transition period ahead.
The committee remains concerned, however, that efforts to
promote Afghanistan's long-term economic stability and private
sector development need to be led by U.S. Government civilian
agencies. The planning process for transitioning these
activities to a civilian lead should begin immediately. As a
first step in that process, the committee strongly urges the
inclusion of representatives from the Department of State and
USAID on the Task Force to enhance the coordination of those
civilian agencies with the activities of the Task Force.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require
funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund (ASFF) in fiscal year 2012 to be used
under the conditions in subsections (b) through (g) of section
1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 428), as amended by section
1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4424). The
provision would also clarify that assistance under the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund may include training to build
the logistical, management, administrative, and literacy skills
of military and civilian personnel of the Ministry of Defense
and Ministry of Interior. The committee encourages the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission in Afghanistan to
consider instituting programs of instruction for these purposes
at its national and regional training facilities in
Afghanistan.

Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web Initiative
(sec. 1533)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from obligating or expending any
funds for the Trans Regional Web Initiative (TRWI) until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that
any program conducted under the TRWI: (1) appropriately defines
its target audience; (2) is determined to be the most effective
method of reaching the defined target audience; (3) is the most
cost effective means of reaching the target audience; and (4)
includes measurement mechanisms to ensure such target audience
is being reached.
In a separate section of this report, the committee
recommends a reduction in funding for TRWI.

Report on lessons learned from Department of Defense participation on
interagency teams for counterterrorism operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq (sec. 1534)

The committee notes the important role that collaborative
interagency teams have played in recent years in successfully
targeting, disrupting, and eliminating elements of the al Qaeda
leadership, their support networks, and affiliated groups and
individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. These teams have grown and
matured over time from being nearly exclusively led and manned
by special operations forces in the beginning to now including
representatives from the general purpose forces, Department of
Defense (DOD) agencies, intelligence community, and various
federal departments and agencies such as the Department of
State, Department of Treasury, Department of Homeland Security,
and Drug Enforcement Agency, among others. Through
collaboration, team members have made effective use of the
disparate authorities assigned to their parent organizations to
pressure terrorist networks, thereby providing space for
broader counterinsurgency and capacity building efforts to take
hold.
While the work of these interagency teams continues to
result in successful kinetic and non-kinetic operations against
al Qaeda and affiliated groups, the committee is concerned that
the unique organizational structures, attributes, and skill
sets of such teams may begin to atrophy over time as the U.S.
military footprint in Afghanistan and Iraq diminishes and as
interagency team leaders and participants move on to other
career opportunities. The committee notes that these teams
remain primarily ad hoc in nature and rely on the voluntary
contributions of their members and parent organizations.
Furthermore, the committee believes that the lessons learned
from DOD participation on such teams are not adequately
understood or codified in military doctrine.
A recent report by the National Defense University's
Institute for National Strategic Studies highlights the
difficulty of formalizing effective interagency teams. The
report states that a General Officer from U.S. Special
Operations Command who created such interagency teams in
Afghanistan and Iraq ``believed that establishing and
maintaining the interagency relationships had to be a constant
preoccupation'' and said ``It's an informal process, based on
handshakes, and people change at the senior levels or midgrade
levels; the power of those handshakes is not recorded.
Therefore, you always run the risk of it degrading over time.
We thought about writing memorandums of instruction or
memorandums of understanding so that we codified it. My fear
was, if we codify it, people are scared to sign contracts, so I
felt they would sign a contract [agreeing to] much less than
they were willing to actually do.'' The committee believes that
the apparent necessity to avoid formal agreements between
organizations providing members of these interagency teams in
order to make the teams operate effectively is a strong
indictment of the interagency process.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, a report
on the lessons learned from DOD participation on interagency
teams for counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This report should include the following elements:
(1) Describe the value of interagency teams to
counterterrorism operations;
(2) Identify and describe the best practices of such
interagency teams;
(3) Describe efforts to codify the best practices of
interagency teams in military doctrine;
(4) Discuss how the lessons learned through DOD
participation on such teams may or may not be
applicable to other interagency teams on which DOD
personnel participate;
(5) Analyze the feasibility and advisability of
adding a skill identifier to track DOD civilian and
military personnel who have successfully supported,
participated on, or led interagency teams; and
(6) Identify any additional authorities needed to
allow DOD personnel to more effectively support,
participate on, or lead an interagency team.

Budget Items

AH-64 Apache Longbow Block III

The budget request included $35.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), to procure a single, newly built AH-
64D Apache Longbow Block III aircraft as a war loss
replacement. The committee does not agree that procurement of
this single aircraft is a legitimate war loss replacement. The
AH-64D Apache Block III is finishing system development and
demonstration. Contract award for the aircraft is not planned
until fiscal year 2013 with delivery in fiscal year 2014.
Equipping of a first unit with Block III's will not occur until
fiscal year 2014, will use remanufactured AH-64D Apache Block
II aircraft, and will go to the aviation training base rather
than deployable combat aviation units. The committee recommends
a decrease in APA of $35.5 million for new AH-64D Apache Block
III aircraft.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

The budget request includes $2,577.5 million in the
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). This
amount includes $1,368.8 million for the attack the network
line of operation; $247.5 million for the train the force line
of operation; and $961.2 million for the defeat the device line
of operation. As noted in title I of this report, the committee
recommends transferring JIEDDO's budget request for operating
the organization from the base budget to the OCO budget
account. Adding these funds together, JIEDDO's total budget
request is $2,798.1 million.
A significant amount of JIEDDO's operating expenses, such
as overhead, staff, and infrastructure costs, are budgeted in
JIEDDO's business lines, in addition to its operations account.
The committee estimates that these operating costs total about
$440.0 million more than the $220.6 million requested in the
base budget request for JIEDDO's operations. For fiscal year
2013, the committee directs JIEDDO to account for all
operations-related expenses in the operations budget line
rather than the three other programmatic business lines of
operation.
Improvised explosive devices (IED) have been and continue
to be a significant threat to U.S. forces, and the committee
remains highly supportive of JIEDDO's support to the vital
mission of protecting our troops from IEDs and attacking the
terrorist networks responsible for them.
While the Secretary of Defense's March 2011 efficiency memo
identified the future elimination of one General Officer billet
after changes in force deployments and the IED threat, the
committee notes that JIEDDO was not otherwise addressed in the
Secretary of Defense's efficiencies initiative and that the
JIEDDO has significant amounts of unobligated and unexpended
funds from previous fiscal years. Further, the committee notes
that JIEDDO is highly dependent on general contractor support
for virtually every aspect of its activities--both in the
United States and overseas--to include the vast majority of its
headquarters and programmatic implementation staff.
Despite significant efforts by JIEDDO to rationalize its
operations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported
in March that the Department's efforts to respond to urgent
operational needs, including technology to counter-IEDs,
continues to suffer from fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication. GAO found that no fewer than 31 DOD entities, many
of which started as ad hoc organizations, play a significant
role in various urgent needs processes. For example, GAO
reported, JIEDDO, the military services, and the Special
Operations Command have all established their processes and
guidance on meeting specific urgent needs, and their own
feedback mechanisms for assessing how well fielded solutions
meet such needs. In addition, GAO has reported that DOD lacks
visibility over the totality of its urgent needs activities as
well as more specifically over its counter-IED efforts. As a
result of this lack of coordination, and visibility, DOD is at
risk of costly duplication in its counter-IED programs. For
example, the Army and the Marine Corps have pursued their own
separate efforts to develop counter-IED mine rollers. Since
2007, GAO has recommended that DOD and JIEDDO develop a
database to establish comprehensive visibility over its
counter-IED efforts, but no such database has yet been
developed. Based onGAO's conclusions, the committee believes
the Department's counter-IED budget is, in fact, much larger than the
JIEDDO budget.
The committee concludes that JIEDDO and senior DOD
leadership should be able to achieve significant efficiencies
by improving JIEDDO's operations in the following areas: (1)
eliminating overlapping science and technology investments with
the military services and defense labs; (2) consolidating and
eliminating its multiple centers of excellence across the
continental United States; (3) identifying duplicative efforts
between military service intelligence activities, the
intelligence community, and the Counter-IED Operations
Intelligence Center; (4) reducing significantly its dependence
on contractors for its workforce; (5) establishing
comprehensive visibility over all of DOD's counter-IED efforts
as recommended by GAO; (6) evaluating opportunities to
consolidate counter-IED efforts across DOD, as part of DOD's
broader efforts to respond to GAO's recommendation to consider
consolidation options of urgent needs entities and processes;
(7) curtailing programs associated with U.S. military
operations in Iraq that may be unneeded due to planned force
reductions; and (8) speeding the transfer of initiatives older
than 2 years to the services for program management
incorporation efficiencies.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $265.0
million to JIEDDO funding, distributed across the enterprise as
follows: $90.0 million from the attack the network line of
operation; $5.0 million from the train the force line of
operation; $150.0 million from JIEDDO's defeat the device line
of operation; and $20.0 million from the operations line of
operation. The committee expects these reductions to be
achieved through improved efficiencies without any diminution
of the vital support JIEDDO provides to U.S. forces deployed
overseas in Afghanistan.

Marine Corps budget request realignments

After the submission of the budget request, the Marine
Corps reduced the acquisition objective for the Medium Tactical
Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) truck family. As a result, the
budget request contained $300.0 million in excess funds for
MTVR procurement in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
account. The Marine Corps requested a realignment of these
funds for other urgent Marine Corps OCO needs.
The committee recommends the following additions to the
Marine Corps OCO procurement account. In line 32,
Communications Switching and Control Systems, an additional
$20.0 million for Digital Technical Control shelters, and $50.0
million for Data Distribution System Core Modular Suites. In
line 46, Assorted Power Equipment, an additional $20.0 million
for Advanced Power Sources, and $35.0 million for Mobile Power
Equipment. In OCO Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, line
10, an additional $27.0 million for Family of Shelters and
Shelters Equipment.
The committee notes that procurement of renewable energy
Solar-Powered Adaptors for communications equipment and solar
powered batteries; efficient power generators; renewable energy
networks for remote patrol bases; and the Family of Shelters
and Shelter Equipment, including tent liners and Light-Emitting
Diode lighting will dramatically reduce logistical sustainment
and convoy operations in Afghanistan, reduce the need for fuel
and logistical resupply, lighten the combat load, increase
combat effectiveness, and reduce risk to Marines in combat. The
Marine Corps has stated to the committee that the accelerated
acquisition of these items will provide an annual projected
cost saving of $38.6 million, an annual weight savings of 13.4
million pounds, and an expected full return on investment in
2.1 years.

Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement

The budget request included $392.4 million for procurement
of 783 Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) trucks in
Procurement, Marine Corps, of the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) account. Since the budget request was
submitted, the Marine Corps has substantially reduced its
acquisition objective for the MTVR. As a result, the committee
recommends authorization of $92.4 million for MTVR procurement.
The Marine Corps requested that the savings from the MTVR
reduction be reallocated to other Marine Corps priorities.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
authorization of funds for other urgent Marine Corps OCO needs.

Special operations forces aircraft procurement

The budget request included a total of $150.8 million in
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for the
replacement of two rotary-wing and one fixed-wing aircraft lost
in combat by special operations forces. Funding for the
replacement of these combat loss aircraft was appropriated by
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10) which was enacted
after the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request was
submitted to Congress.
Therefore, the committee recommends decreases of $17.5
million in OCO Aircraft Procurement, Army, for one UH-60; $70.0
million in OCO Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for one CV-22;
$40.5 million in OCO Procurement, Defense-wide, for one MH-47G;
$7.8 million in OCO, Procurement, Defense-wide, for special
operations-peculiar modifications to one MH-60; and $15.0
million in OCO, Procurement, Defense-wide, for special
operations-peculiar modifications to one CV-22.

Commanders' Emergency Response Program

The budget request included $425.0 million in Operations
and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in
Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2012. The request
consisted of $25.0 million for CERP in Iraq and $400.0 million
for CERP in Afghanistan. The committee's concerns regarding
CERP funding in Iraq are discussed in the section of this
report relating to title XII. Accordingly, the committee
recommends the termination of the CERP program in Iraq in
fiscal year 2012 and a corresponding decrease of $25.0 million
in OMA, OCO, for CERP to a level of $400.0 million to be
available for CERP in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund

The budget request included $89.0 billion for Operation and
Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of
which $475.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund (AIF) in fiscal year 2012 to support the Afghanistan
Infrastructure Program to build and maintain high-priority,
large-scale infrastructure projects that support the civilian-
military campaign in Afghanistan. The budget request would be a
$75.0 million increase over the $400.0 million authorized for
the AIF in fiscal year 2011. The committee's concerns regarding
the delays in standing up the Afghanistan Infrastructure
Program--and the impact of those delays on the funding level
requested for the program for fiscal year 2012--are discussed
in the section of this report relating to title XII.
The committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million for
OM, OCO, for AIF, which would maintain the funding level for
the program at the fiscal year 2011 level of $400.0 million.

Trans Regional Web Initiative

The budget request included $22.6 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for Overseas Contingency Operations
for the Trans Regional Web Initiative (TRWI), a U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) initiative under which USSOCOM
establishes and maintains news and information websites in
support of the geographic combatant command's (GCC) countering
violent extremism objectives.
The committee notes that in recent years these websites
have become a significant and costly component of the
countering violent extremism campaigns of the GCCs despite
there being limited information to demonstrate these websites
are reaching or appropriately influencing their intended target
audience in support of U.S. national security objectives. The
committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM and the GCCs to
counter violent extremism, but the committee believes this
initiative, at a minimum, should be reviewed by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy, and, ideally, the
implementation of any programs under this initiative or similar
initiative should be limited to those regions where internet
access is readily available and where U.S. national security
interests are of immediate concern.
The committee recommends a reduction of $11.3 million. In a
separate section of this Act, the committee prohibits the
obligation and expenditure of the remaining funds until the
Secretary of Defense makes a series of certifications regarding
the effectiveness of the TRWI.

Item of Special Interest

Improvised explosive device precursor chemicals originating in Pakistan

The committee notes that ammonium nitrate (AN), a prime
component in improvised explosive devices (IED) that have
killed or wounded thousands of U.S., coalition, and Afghan
troops andAfghan civilians, continues to flow into Afghanistan.
The vast majority of this AN flows in from fertilizer factories in
Pakistan. In 2010, in an effort to stem the flow of this material, the
Afghan government banned the use of AN as a fertilizer. Despite this
effort and vigilance by Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), IED
incidents and casualties have continued to increase. The Afghan
government appears committed to this fight and has enacted appropriate
legal measures and enforcement efforts. But ammonium nitrate is still
ever-present in Afghanistan due to smuggling along supply routes from
its neighbors, particularly from Pakistan. The amounts of AN reportedly
ferried into Afghanistan from Pakistan are staggering.
The committee notes that urgent action must be taken to
stem the flow of AN into Afghanistan. In 2010, 268 U.S. service
members were killed by IEDs in Afghanistan, and 101 U.S.
service members have been killed since January of this year.
This is not just a problem in Afghanistan. The Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)
reports that, in 2010, there were more than 1,000 reported IED
incidents in Pakistan--only Iraq and Afghanistan experienced
more IEDs. The vast majority of these attacks have occurred in
the Federal Administered Tribal Areas where Pakistani security
forces continue operations against insurgent groups.
The committee believes Pakistan must take several measures
to restrict the flow of ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan.
Specifically, the committee urges the administration to engage
with Pakistani officials to urge them to take the following
steps: (1) the Pakistani legislature should pass legislation
which would regulate explosive precursor materials used in IEDs
such as ammonium nitrate and other precursor materials; (2)
Pakistani customs officials should seek to improve efforts to
limit the passage of goods across the border which are illegal
in Afghanistan, like ammonium nitrate; (3) the private owners
of fertilizer plants and other producers active in Pakistan
should introduce technologies that make AN easier to track; and
(4) Pakistani authorities need to conduct a public education
campaign on the dangers posed by AN and the value of
alternative fertilizers, such as urea.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure
accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions in base closure rounds.
The following tables provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in division B of this Act, and summarize that funding by
account.
The fiscal year 2012 budget requested $14.8 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$12.5 billion was requested for military construction, $1.7
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $582.3 million for base closure activities.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction and housing programs totaling $13.9
billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations
reflects the committee's continuing commitment to invest in the
recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. The
committee recommends a reduction of $1.04 billion in
unjustified or lower priority projects and rescissions totaling
$388.4 million. The committee recommends no additional
authorization of appropriations resulting in total reduction of
approximately $1.4 billion below the President's budget
request.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
division B of this Act as the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization infrastructure program as October 1, 2014, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later.
Funding tables (sec. 2003)
The committee recommends a provision that makes this
division's authorizations of appropriation available in funding
tables.
TITLE XXI--ARMY

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.2 billion for military construction and $681.6 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.0 billion for military construction and $681.6 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends incrementally funding the Aviation
Task Force Hangar at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and a reduction
in funding for barracks in Honduras to reflect efficiencies
reported by the Army.
The committee recommends eliminating funding for five
projects, two at Fort Bliss, Texas, two at Germersheim,
Germany, and one at Fort Belvior, Virginia. The committee
believes the projects at Fort Bliss and at Germersheim are
ahead of need as they support future missions or replace
facilities that are still adequate. The committee recommends
these projects be resubmitted at a future date if they remain
Army priorities.
The committee recommends elimination of the road and
infrastructure improvement project at Fort Belvoir at this time
because the project supports the museum of the United States
Army. The committee understands that fundraising for the museum
has delayed construction putting this project ahead of need.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2012. It would also authorize
funds for facilities that support family housing, including
housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage
facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2012 to improve existing Army family
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2012 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Army. The state list contained in
this report is the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 project
(sec. 2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in the table in section 2101(a) of
theMilitary Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(division B of Public Law 110-417) for Fort Benning, Georgia, for
construction of a Multipurpose Training Range.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project
(sec. 2106)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in the table in section 2101(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(division B of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2629) to allow the
Secretary of the Army to construct a secure elevated roadway at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011
projects (sec. 2107)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in the table in section 2101(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(division B of Public Law 111-383) for Schofield Barracks,
Hawaii; Fort Drum, New York; and Wiesbaden Air Base, Germany.

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project
(sec. 2108)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Army to carry out a military construction
project to construct a water treatment facility for Fort Irwin,
California in the amount of $115.0 million using available,
unobligated balances of Army military construction funds.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 projects (sec.
2109)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for two Army fiscal year 2008 military
construction projects until October 1, 2013, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. This extension was
requested by the Department of Defense.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec.
2110)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for seven Army fiscal year 2009 military
construction projects until October 1, 2012, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later. This extension was
requested by the Department of Defense.

Technical amendments to correct certain project specifications (sec.
2111)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical amendments to the table in section 3002 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(division B of Public Law 111-383).

Rescission of Army military construction funds (sec. 2112)

The committee recommends a provision that would rescind
unobligated military construction funds.

Tour normalization (sec. 2113)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to do an
analysis of alternatives and for the Secretary of the Army to
submit a master plan on the Army's planned Tour Normalization
in Korea.

Items of Special Interest

Storage of Army artifacts

The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of
the Army recommended funding in Military Construction, Army,
for three climate controlled storage buildings at Forts
Benning, Lee, and Sill. These facilities were intended to
support movement of Army macro-artifacts which were following
Training and Doctrine Command schools re-locating as part of
the Base Closure and Realignment 2005 process. Although the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) did not authorize these projects, the
committee supports the requirement to protect and preserve
these historical collections.
The committee has encouraged the Army to investigate all
options for facility solutions. The committee encourages the
Army to pursue the solutions that best address the priorities
the Army has identified and that are the most fiscally prudent
from a life cycle standpoint. Therefore, the committee directs
the Army to complete its review of all options under
consideration and provide a report to the committee not later
than September 30, 2011, on its preferred solution set. The
report shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
1. The Army's requirements and priorities with
respect to storing these artifacts;
2. Identification of various solution sets and a
business case analysis for each course of action, as
well as identifying any legal or regulatory barriers
for the different options;
3. Estimates for the life cycle cost to the
government for each option;
4. The expected cost and implications of not
providing appropriate storage locations for the
artifacts;
5. The Army's recommendation for the appropriate
option at each installation;
6. Any necessary legislative changes necessary to
dispose of any artifacts that are not deemed to be of
national historic significance; and
7. Delineation and listing of all artifacts to be
stored, with special emphasis on those that are to be
used for training and in what context, and those that
merely have historical value as an artifact.
With respect to the Army's preferred option for each of the
three installations, the committee notes that it does not and
will not support the use of any appropriated funds being used
to build or support a public museum.

Military realignments in Korea

The committee reaffirms its unwavering support for the
alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea
(ROK). This alliance has long been a vital anchor for security
and stability in the Asian-Pacific region, and has assumed
greater importance in recent years in addressing mutual
concerns throughout the world. Although specific arrangements
with the alliance have been modified through bilateral
agreement over the decades, the importance of the alliance and
the contribution of American forces on the Korean Peninsula to
regional peace and security remain unchanged.
The committee notes that on August 14, 2004, the President
authorized a realignment program to reduce and relocate U.S.
forces in South Korea from 37,000 to 25,000 by September 2008.
In 2008, The President reached a mutual agreement with the
Government of South Korea to halt the reduction at 28,000. The
relocation plan has continued and consists of two elements.
The first, the Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP), envisions the
transfer of a large percentage of the 9,000 U.S. military
personnel and their families at the Yongsan base in Seoul to
U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Humphreys, which is about 40 miles
south of Seoul, so the land can be returned to South Korea. The
plan calls for the Government of South Korea to fund much of
the construction costs for this initiative, with the exception
of the construction of replacement housing for military members
and their families, which will be the funding responsibility of
the United States government. U.S. Forces Korea (USFK)
estimates that it will cost South Korea about $6.3 billion and
the United States approximately $2.0 billion in construction
costs through fiscal year 2016.
The second initiative, the Land Partnership Plan (LPP),
will withdraw about 10,000 troops of the Second Infantry
Division from areas near the Demilitarized Zone to relocate
them to Camp Humphreys so the land they vacate can also be
returned to South Korea. The total estimated construction costs
for this plan are approximately $4.0 billion with the United
States share approximately $3.4 billion.
The end result of YRP/LPP is a reduction of the 104
different USFK's sites held in 2002 to just 48 with the
majority of forces clustered in two main locations, or
``hubs''--Osan Air Base/USAG Humphreys and USAG Daegu--that
contains five ``enduring sites.''
The relocations to Camp Humphreys was originally scheduled
to be complete in 2008, but there have been several
postponements and delays. New cost estimates for these projects
exceed $13.0 billion.
Unrelated to the YRP and LLP initiatives, the Department
has been pursuing the ``normalization'' of tours in South
Korea. Tour Normalization, the process of changing U.S. force
presence in South Korea from being one of forward-deployed to
being one of forward-stationed with the presence of family
members, changes the length of military service tours in Korea
to 3-years for those accompanied by their families and 2-years
for those who are unaccompanied. Historically, the vast
majority of service members assigned to South Korea serve 1-
year tours unaccompanied by family members. On October 18,
2010, the Secretary of Defense announced that he had directed
USFK to ``proceed with full Tour Normalization for Korea, as
affordable, but not according to any specific timeline.'' The
Department of Defense's goals with this initiative according to
General Walter Sharp, Commander, United States Forces Korea are
to ``enhance force readiness, provide greater stability for
military personnel and their families, improve quality of life,
and demonstrate in no uncertain terms U.S. commitment to an
enduring force presence in the ROK.''
To date, Tour Normalization has resulted in an increase of
about 2,500 families--from about 1,700 families to about 4,200
today. If full Tour Normalization is completed, about 12,000
total families will be in South Korea and most military
personnel will be on a 3-year accompanied or a 2-year
unaccompanied assignment similar to the U.S. forces stationed
in Europe and Japan.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report (GAO-11-316) on May 25, 2011 entitled ``Defense
Management: Comprehensive Cost Information and Analysis of
Alternatives Needed to Assess Military Posture in Asia.'' In
the report they estimated that full Tour Normalization could
cost approximately $5.1 billion through fiscal year 2020 and
approximately $22.0 billion through fiscal year 2050. The GAO
also noted that ``the initiative lacked a business case
analysis that would have considered alternative courses of
action and their associated costs and benefits. As a result,
DOD is unable to demonstrate that tour normalization is the
most cost-effective approach to meeting its strategic
objectives.''
The committee also shares the concern outlined in the GAO
report that allowing military forces in Korea to be subjected
to world-wide deployment requirements actually undermines the
mutual decision outlined in 2008 between the two countries to
maintain a minimum number of U.S. forces on the peninsula for
the sake of security from a belligerent North Korea.
Finally the GAO concluded ``as for achieving the goal of
improving quality of life for service members, DOD has not
produced specific analysis to show that moving families to
South Korea is an option that most service members and their
families would consider an improvement to their quality of
life, especially if service members deployed to South Korea
would then be subject to separation from their families if they
are redeployed to other regions. In those cases, service
members would be separated from their immediate family members
in South Korea when they are deployed, and family members
residing in South Korea would be separated from their extended
family network in the United States.''
The current plans for construction at Camp Humphreys do not
include building the necessary infrastructure to accommodate
the population expected if Tour Normalization is fully
implemented. In addition to these high, unbudgeted costs, the
precarious security situation on the Korean Peninsula created
by the belligerent and unpredictable regime in North Korea
raises serious concerns about the appropriateness of pursuing
Tour Normalization at this time or in the foreseeable future.
Additionally, there has been a lack of clarity on funding
streams for these various programs. Under a Special Measures
Agreement reached in 2009, the South Korean direct financial
contribution for U.S. troops in South Korea in 2010 will be
approximately $571.0 million. This is about 42 percent of the
total cost of maintaining U.S. forces in South Korea. It is
unclear how much of the South Korean contributions to YRP and
LPP are taken from these funds. It is also unclear who bears
the burden for cost increases to these programs.
The committee believes that the blending of construction
requirements and funding streams for YRP, LPP, and Tour
Normalization risks unconstrained program and funding growth.
As USFK embarks on initiatives that involve moving thousands of
U.S. civilians to South Korea; constructing schools, medical
facilities, and other supporting infrastructure; and realigning
our military forces, the committee requires a more complete
understanding of total costs and potential alternatives to
achieve our strategic objectives.
In consideration of these facts, we direct the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a review of the realignment of the basing
ofU.S. military forces in South Korea and provide a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by June 30, 2012 with the following information.
1. An explanation of the data relied upon to
determine that Tour Normalization improves service
member's quality of life;
2. An assessment of the ability of family members and
other noncombatants to be evacuated during a
contingency;
3. The strategic rationale for massing the
overwhelming majority of all U.S. forces at two major
hubs;
4. A plan to address the military training
requirement for U.S. Army and Air Force combat units
stationed in Korea for three year tours;
5. A description and of all construction projects
necessary to complete each program, accompanied by
clear and concise funding profiles.
TITLE XXII--NAVY

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.5 billion for military construction and $468.7 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2012.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.2 billion for military construction and $468.7 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends a reduction of $3.1 million in the
Multi-Purpose Building project in Bridgeport, California. The
justification material for the project states that these funds
would replace the Post Exchange. The committee believes that
non-appropriated dollars are the proper type of funds for a
replacement Post Exchange.
The committee recommends a reduction of $14.7 million in
the Fitness Center North Island project in Coronado,
California. The committee believes this project bundled a
number of projects together including a pool, a single sailor
center, and athletic fields along with the gym. The committee
recommends that the Navy bring these projects forward in
another fiscal year if they remain a priority and therefore
recommends only funding for the gym in fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends elimination of two projects in
Bahrain. The committee has concerns about execution of these
projects in the fiscal year.
The committee recommends elimination of two projects in
Guam. The relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam remains an
important aspect of our alliance with Japan. However, the
Department of Defense has failed to provide the committee with
a requested master plan. Recent developments have called into
question the force mix of Marines that would move from Okinawa
to Guam, which only heightens the need for a master plan so the
committee can better understand which facilities the Marines
need and when. Until a force lay-down is agreed upon and a
master plan is provided, the committee continues to recommend
that no authorization of funds be provided for relocation of
Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2012. It would also authorize
funds for facilities that support family housing, including
housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage
facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2012 to improve existing Navy family
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2012 in this Act.
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the
amount authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the
Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008 project (sec.
2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2008 authorization for various world-wide host
nation infrastructures until October 1, 2012, or the date of an
act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2013, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec.
2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2009 authorization for three projects until October
1, 2012, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later.
Rescission of Navy military construction funds (sec. 2207)
The committee recommends a provision that would rescind
unobligated military construction funds.
Guam realignment (sec. 2208)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide the congressional
defense committees with his preferred force lay-down to
implement the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa
to Guam. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to provide a master plan to implement this lay-down.

Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General report on aircraft carrier homeporting on the East
Coast

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct an
independent analysis of alternatives on the Department of the
Navy's plan to establish a second east coast homeport for a
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. The analysis should assess,
at a minimum, the strategic, fiscal, and operational risks,
requirements, and constraints the Navy's plan seeks to address.
The committee directs that this report be provided to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2012. The
report will be submitted in an unclassified format, with the
provision for a classified annex if necessary.

Report on the feasibility of moving Marine Corps aviation on Okinawa
from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Kadena Air Base

The committee believes that the proposed plan for the
relocation of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, located
on the island of Okinawa, has become untenable and must be
resolved sooner and more economically than the current plan
will allow.
The construction of a new Marine Corps air station on
Okinawa at Camp Schwab to replace MCAS Futenma was agreed to by
the United States and Japan as part of the Defense Policy
Review Initiative as detailed in the 2005 U.S.-Japan Alliance
Transformation and Realignment for the Future and the U.S.-
Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation agreement
(``Roadmap agreement'') of 2006, and reaffirmed in an agreement
between the two allies in May 2010. The committee notes that of
the 19 major initiatives that came out of these U.S.-Japan
transformation and realignment agreements, the vast majority
are being implemented as planned. The implementation of the
agreement to build a Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF),
however, stands in stark contrast to these other successful
initiatives.
Although detailed cost and time estimates for construction
of a FRF are unavailable, it appears that, even under the most
reasonable circumstances, the FRF, as envisioned by the Roadmap
agreement, would likely take at least 7 to 10 years to complete
at a cost to the Government of Japan of approximately $5.0-10.0
billion dollars. As envisioned by the Roadmap agreement and the
associated Agreed Implementation Plan, the FRF involves land-
filling a massive area of Henoko Bay immediately adjacent to
Camp Schwab, an existing Marine Corps base in the Henoko area
of Okinawa. While it appears that such an enormous undertaking
is technically achievable, the reality is that the cost and
time required to complete it, combined with the substantial
local political and public opposition to the plan, make it
clear that the project will likely never be finished; and, even
if it is, it will cost more and take longer than even the most
conservative estimates have projected to date. In the meantime,
Marine Corps aviation on Okinawa would continue to operate from
MCAS Futenma in a congested area of Okinawa that presents
aviation safety and noise concerns for local residents.
Complicating the matter is the fact that the Roadmap
agreement ties the movement of about 8,000 Marines from Okinawa
to Guam to ``tangible progress'' toward the completion of the
FRF. Moreover, the committee understands that the Commandant of
the Marine Corps has proposed to the Secretary of the Navy a
lay-down of Marines on Guam that differs from the lay-down
planned under the Roadmap agreement implementation plan and it
is unclear how a change in the Marine Corps lay-down on Guam
would impact the buildup planned for Guam.
The committee believes that the challenges of building
large new U.S. military facilities on both Okinawa and Guam, in
a time of severe fiscal constraints and in the face of mounting
political and public opposition, are too substantial to
overcome in a realistic timeframe. A reasonable alternative to
the FRF that warrants further examination is the movement of
Marine Corps aviation assets currently at MCAS Futenma to
Kadena Air Base (AB) in central Okinawa, and the possible
dispersal of some or all of the Air Force missions now at
Kadena AB to other existing U.S. air bases in the region.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
feasibility of relocating Air Force assets at Kadena AB and
moving Marine Corps aviation assets currently at Futenma on to
Kadena rather than building an expensive replacement facility
at Camp Schwab, with the goals of maintaining mission
integrity, minimizing cost to the United States and Japan,
returning land occupied by MCAS Futenma to Okinawa
expeditiously, and reducing noise impacts on the people living
in the areas around Kadena.
The study, which should seek to strengthen or maintain the
defensive capabilities of the U.S.-Japanese alliance, shall
include, at a minimum:
1. An examination of the requirements to move the
Marine Corps aviation assets currently at MCAS Futenma
to Kadena AB.
2. An examination of where U.S. Air Force assets
currently at Kadena AB could be moved, including other
existing air bases in Japan or other locations in the
Pacific, such as Anderson Air Force Base in Guam.
3. An analysis of the costs associated with moving
Marine Corps aviation from MCAS Futenma to Kadena AB.
4. Estimates for the length of time it would take to
accomplish the necessary steps to move Marine Corps
aviation to Kadena AB and to then close MCAS Futenma.
5. An examination of what would be required to move
the Marine Corps aviation mission to Kadena AB without
increasing noise levels in and around the Kadena AB
area, and what would be required to reduce noise levels
at Kadena AB, if Marine Corps aviation at MCAS Futenma
moved to Kadena AB.
6. The views of United States Pacific Command and
United States Transportation Command on this study and,
specifically, their views on the impact of such moves
on operational plans in the region.
The Secretary shall report the results of this study to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by December 1, 2011.
The committee reaffirms its appreciation for the important
contributions of the U.S.-Japanese alliance to peace and
security in the Asia-Pacific region. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to consult with the Japanese Minister of
Defense in the preparation of this report.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.4 billion for military construction and $489.5 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.2 billion for military construction and $489.5 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends incrementally funding the Guam
Strike Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar. This action is taken
without prejudice and merely to facilitate the most efficient
use of taxpayer funds.
The committee recommends incrementally funding the U.S.
Strategic Command Replacement Facility. This action is taken
without prejudice and merely to facilitate the most efficient
use of taxpayer funds.
The committee recommends the elimination of funding for two
projects. The committee understands that the F-35 Hangar 45E/
Aircraft Maintenance Unit facility at Hill Air Force Base is
ahead of need due to slips in delivery of Joint Strike
Fighters. Phase 4 of the Blatchford Preston Complex at Al-Udeid
has been built to a standard higher than Air Force regulations.
Al-Udeid is a forward operating site hosting troops on a
rotational basis. It appears that construction plans for Al-
Udeid would result in a ``one plus one'' standard more
appropriate for permanently stationed troops. The committee
encourages the Air Force to reevaluate their plans for Al-Udeid
housing and program them into future budget requests.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2012.
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction and planning and design of family housing
units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2012. It would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2012 to improve existing Air Force
family housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2012 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Air Force. The state list
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.

Modification of authorization to carry out certain fiscal year 2010
project (sec. 2305)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in the table in section 2301(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(division B of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2628) for Hickam
Air Force Base, Hawaii for construction of a Ground Control
Tower at the installation.

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2009 project (sec.
2306)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2009 authorization for a Child Development Center
at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany until October 1, 2012, or the
date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for
fiscal year 2013, whichever is later.

Rescission of Air Force military construction funds (sec. 2307)

The committee recommends a provision that would rescind
unobligated military construction funds.

Item of Special Interest

Report on using flying operation costs in the Air Force's strategic
basing process

The committee commends the Air Force for its commitment to
developing and maintaining a transparent, repeatable, and
effective strategic basing process. The committee is aware that
the Air Force has developed a process that consists, in part,
of establishing basing criteria, developing a preliminary list
of candidate bases based upon those criteria, and selecting
final bases following a detailed evaluation of a smaller group
of installations.
The committee notes that the basing criterion typically
includes an evaluation of the relative cost of basing aircraft
at each candidate base, which typically represents 5 percent or
less of the total score for candidate bases. For instance, the
F-35A basing criteria provided a maximum of 5 points out of 100
points for those candidate bases with the lowest evaluated
costs.
In addition, the evaluation of the relative cost of each
candidate base during the strategic basing process has
typically consisted of an evaluation of (1) local military
construction costs, as determined by the July 2009 Office of
Secretary of Defense pricing guide, and (2) costs related to
the basic allowance for housing for personnel associated with
the basing decision.
The committee notes that the cost criteria do not appear to
include the relative operational costs that may vary from each
candidate base. Given the high cost of operating aircraft and
the fact that these flying operation costs are recurring, the
committee believes these costs warrant examination in the
strategic basing process.
These flying operation costs include, at a minimum, the
costs associated with the additional flying time resulting from
a candidate base's relative distance to (1) operational
training areas for fighters and training aircraft, (2)
operational refueling tracks for tankers, and (3) critical
logistic centers for strategic and tactical airlift aircraft.
The committee therefore directs, no later than 180 days
after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force
to review and report on the role that the efficiency of flying
operation costs should play in the strategic basing process and
any steps that it plans to take to capture these costs in
evaluating candidate bases in that process.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.8 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $75.3 million for chemical demilitarization
construction, and $54.0 million for family housing for the
defense agencies, the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the
Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends an authorization of appropriations
of $3.5 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $75.3 million for chemical demilitarization
construction, and $54.0 million for family housing for the
defense agencies, the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the
Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends incrementing funding for
Mountainview Operations Facility, the Data Center, two
Ambulatory Care Centers, and a Hospital Replacement Facility.
This action is taken without prejudice and merely to facilitate
the most efficient use of taxpayer funds.
The committee recommends deferring the authorization for
the High Performance Computing Capacity until the design is
more mature and costs are better projected. The committee
eliminates funding in this fiscal year without prejudice and
encourages the Department to submit the project next fiscal
year with a more complete design package.
The committee recommends increasing the funding for the
Whitelaw Wedge Building Addition as updated justification
documents show more funding is required to meet program
specifications. It should be noted, the Department has
requested this additional funding.

Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation
projects.
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2012 in this Act. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.

Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization
construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the chemical
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2012. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Rescission of defense agencies military construction funds (sec. 2412)
The committee recommends a provision that would rescind
unobligated military construction funds.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriation of $272.6 million for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of
$272.6 million for this program.

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $272.6 million for the United States'
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program for fiscal year 2012.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $1.2 billion for military construction in
fiscal year 2012 for Guard and Reserve forces facilities. The
committee recommends a total of $1.2 billion for military
construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding
recommendations are contained in the state list table included
in this report.
The tables contained in this report make two location
changes to projects requested in the President's budget
request. These corrections were requested by the Secretary of
the Army. They are changing the location of two Army Reserve
Centers: the first from Lawrence, Indiana to Fort Benjamin
Harrison, Indiana, and the second from Weldon Springs, Missouri
to Saint Charles, Missouri.
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-
location basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2012 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 projects (sec.
2607)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2008
military construction projects until October 1, 2012, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later. These
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec.
2608)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2009
military construction projects until October 1, 2012, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2013, whichever is later. These
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 project
(sec. 2609)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in the table in section 2601(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(division B of Public Law 110-714; 122 Stat. 4710) for Elko,
Nevada for construction of an Army Reserve Center.

Item of Special Interest

Guard and Reserve budget requests
The committee recognizes that in the past, Congress has
chosen to increase National Guard and Reserve military
construction budgets above the amounts requested by the
President. For example, in fiscal years 2008-2010, the last 3
fiscal years funded with congressional additions, the Air Force
National Guard and Reserve appropriations more than doubled
over the budget request. In fiscal year 2011, Congress added
over $300.0 million to the President's request for all of the
reserve components; and in 2010, Congress added approximately
$600.0 million, 60 percent above the President's request.
We are concerned that the Department has, in previous
years, under-budgeted National Guard and Reserve military
construction accounts. Therefore, the committee directs each of
the services to review the future-years defense program for
National Guard and Reserve military construction to determine
if currently projected funding levels, if enacted into law,
will result in infrastructure funding deficiencies for these
components.
TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $323.5 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The
committee has authorized the amount requested for these
activities in section 2701 of this Act.
In addition, the budget requested an authorization of
appropriations of $258.7 million for implementation of the 2005
BRAC round. The committee has authorized the amount requested
for these activities in section 2702 of this Act.
The following table provides the specific amount authorized
for each BRAC military construction project as well as the
amount authorized for appropriations for all BRAC activities,
including military construction, environmental costs,
relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent
change of station costs for military personnel, and other BRAC
costs.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense base closure
account 1990 (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for fiscal year 2012 that are
required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title
of the report lists the specific amounts authorized at each
location.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal
year 2012 that are required to implement the decisions of the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for BRAC military construction projects. The state list
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.

Rescission of military construction funds for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense base
closure account 1990 (sec. 2704)

The committee recommends a provision that would rescind
unobligated military construction funds.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

General military construction transfer authority (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
transfer of authorization of appropriations, not to exceed
$400.0 million, within the military construction accounts.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects outside the United
States (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance
funds for construction projects outside of the United States
for fiscal year 2012.
The committee continues to support operational flexibility
and the ability of commanders to satisfy urgent war-fighting
requirements in theaters where contingency operations are being
conducted. The temporary authority extended in this provision
is specifically written to facilitate these activities under
certain conditions.
The authority precludes use at a military installation
where the United States is reasonably expected to have a long-
term presence, such as locations with permanently stationed
U.S. Armed Forces or locations identified as forward operating
bases that have a steady, constant rotation of U.S. military
forces. In cases where an installation is shown to have a
reasonable expectation of a long-term presence, the committee
expects the Department to use other authorities for emergency
and contingency construction contained in title 10, United
States Code, to address facility requirements.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
identified cooperative security locations (CSL) and forward
operating locations (FOL) as ``enduring locations'' in Theater
Security plans maintained by each Combatant Commander. It is
the committee's belief that this identification was made in
order to justify the use of military construction funds at
those locations; however, it has also resulted in a concern of
whether a CSL or FOL can reasonably be expected to have a long-
term presence precluding the use of the temporary authority
contained in this section.
The committee expects the Department to assess the expected
duration of the operational requirement and the status of
forces at a location in question to determine whether there is
a reasonable expectation that the United States will have a
long-term presence at any location. The committee believes that
the designation of a CSL as an enduring location does not by
itself indicate a long-term presence. The required assessment
should be provided to Congress as part of the statutory
notification for each project.
The committee also notes that this authority can only be
used for requirements in which the United States would have no
intention of using the constructed facility or infrastructure
after the emergent requirement was satisfied. The level of
construction should be the minimum extent necessary to meet the
operational requirement and temporary methods of construction
should be used to the extent practicable to safely support the
operation.
Clarification of authority to use the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance
Revolving fund for minor construction and alteration activities
at the Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2803)
The committee recommends a provision to clarify the use of
Pentagon Maintenance Revolving fund for minor construction and
alteration activities at the Pentagon Reservation.

Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Exchange of property at military installations (sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
certain exchanges of real property at military installations.
Clarification of authority to limit encroachments (sec. 2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI)
program, codified at section 2684a of title 10, United States
Code. The REPI program is designed to limit the development or
use of property in the vicinity of military installations to
protect the military mission while also preserving the
environment. The amendment would clarify that certain
agreements entered into pursuant to section 2684a can provide
for enforcement of environmental covenants and easements to
protect Department of Defense (DOD) interests and would allow
payments by the United States to be made in a lump sum and to
be placed in an interest bearing account with the interest
being available to be applied for the same purposes as the
principal. Also, the amendment would authorize DOD to enter
into agreements without a ``reverter'' clause so long as
certain conditions are met.
Department of Defense conservation and cultural activities (sec. 2813)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2694 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
ability of the Department of Defense to assist in the
implementation of certain ecosystem-wide land management plans
and to clarify that the purpose of wildlife studies already
authorized under the section includes the sustainability of
military operations.

Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

Release of reversionary interest, Camp Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas
(sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision to make a technical
correction to facilitate a land conveyance at Camp Joseph T.
Robinson, Arkansas.
Clarification of land conveyance authority, Camp Caitlin and Ohana Nui
areas, Hawaii (sec. 2822)
The committee recommends a provision that clarifies the
authority of the Secretary of the Navy to convey real property
located at Camp Caitlin and the Ohana Nui areas, Hawaii.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Investment plan for the modernization of public shipyards under
jurisdiction of department of the Navy (sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a plan to address the
facilityand infrastructure requirements at each public shipyard under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy.

Data servers and centers (sec. 2832)

The committee recommends a provision that would impose a
moratorium on the acquisition or upgrade of data servers,
server farms, and data centers, with a waiver process for
exceptions; and require the implementation of a plan developed
by the Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer
(CIO) to achieve (1) a reduction in the size of data centers,
(2) a reduction in the energy consumed to power and cool
servers and data centers, (3) an increase in server
virtualization, (4) an increase in the utilization rates of
servers and data center capacity, (5) a reduction in the cost
of software and applications running on servers and within data
centers, and (6) a reduction in the cost of labor associated
with operating servers and data centers.
The committee is aware that the executive branch, under the
guidance of the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO), is
attempting government-wide to achieve substantial gains in
server utilization and virtualization rates, and a dramatic
reduction in the number and overall size of government data
centers. This government-wide efficiency initiative hopes to
take advantage of commercial practices that have produced huge
savings in the private sector. The administration is also
working on a strategy to exploit rapidly maturing cloud
computing and thin-client computing models and technology. The
committee intends that this provision will assist the Secretary
of Defense in wringing out as much savings and efficiencies as
possible in the information technology sector.
The provision is modeled on direction and guidance already
issued by the Army and Navy. The committee chose not to impose
specific numerical objectives to be achieved to provide
flexibility to the Department, but will not be satisfied with
gains that are significantly at variance with commercial
benchmarks. The current level of performance is clearly dismal,
which should allow rapid progress and substantial cost savings.
For one example of current inefficiency, the Federal CIO has
found that the average server utilization rate across the
Federal government is about 27 percent, as compared to a
reasonable benchmark of about 80 percent.
The committee advises the Department to exercise careful
scrutiny in this consolidation endeavor about applications,
software costs, and labor costs. Without reducing the number of
applications running on servers, and without reducing the
number of people maintaining servers, data centers,
applications, and software, server and data center
consolidation will not save much money, if any. The committee
expects the DOD CIO to provide aggressive and measurable
targets to the components and to be prepared to defend the
results.
The committee is concerned that DOD's planning to date in
this area has not focused enough attention on outsourcing to
the commercial sector. The committee is aware that security
practices are today insufficient to justify moving DOD
sensitive data and computing services to so-called public
clouds. But the committee does assume that the commercial
sector is more efficient at designing, building, and operating
large data centers than the government is, especially in a
competitive environment. This provision requires the DOD CIO to
develop and articulate a long-term outsourcing strategy as part
of the Department's reporting to Congress.
There is a related, final point. Taking advantage of
commercial technologies for cloud computing, virtualization,
and thin-client architectures and services raises security
concerns in some respects, but provides opportunities for
security improvements at the same time. For example, the
General Services Administration outsourced its internal
computing services and achieved significant performance and
capacity improvements at greatly reduced costs and,
significantly, substantially increased cybersecurity at the
same time. Outsourcing and managed security services should be
considered together.

Items of Special Interest

Force Protection and Anti-Terrorism Standards

The committee recognizes the importance of anti-terrorism
and force protection (AT/FP) standards for Department of
Defense (DOD) installations and facilities. Revised standards
developed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in 2001 and
published as Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) were intended to
ensure a minimum level of protection for all military,
civilian, and contractor personnel working for the Department
of Defense.
Since then, the Department has invested billions of dollars
with the support of Congress to upgrade security infrastructure
and to install AT/FP measures at military facilities around the
world, to include facilities that are leased by the Department
of Defense for use by DOD employees and members of the
military.
The committee notes that the Department has delayed
compliance with deadlines for the implementation of AT/FP
standards for certain facilities and is in the process of
studying a reduction in the requirements for AT/FP measures in
future facilities and leases.
In September 2009, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology approved a delay of the
requirement that all lease renewals executed after September
30, 2009, comply with the enhanced DOD minimum anti-terrorism
(AT) criteria for buildings that house DOD employees. At the
same time, the Under Secretary directed the development of a
detailed plan of action to acquire UFC AT compliant leased-
facility space that will enable all DOD employees occupying
leased facilities in the National Capital Region to be located
in AT compliant space. As of this date, that plan of action has
not been developed.
The committee is concerned that changes to the requirements
for AT/FP standards in the UFC, as well as a change in the
policy of implementation, may result in a portion of the DOD
workforce not having the same level of protection as others in
similar military and leased facilities. The committee believes
the Department should continue to take positive and direct
actions to acquire UFC AT compliant facilities, to the maximum
extent practicable.

Defense facility condition index

The Department of Defense (DOD) has the responsibility to
maintain in the United States and overseas over 539,000
facilities with a plant replacement value exceeding $700.0
billion located on approximately 29 million acres of land.
These assets must provide modern, safe, work and training areas
for our military forces, as well as quality housing. Due to
competing resource priorities, the Department has historically
struggled to budget for the maintenance or recapitalization of
facilities at levels comparable to the private sector. This
chronic underfunding has been the subject of numerous
Government Accountability Office reports that cite the impact
to militaryreadiness as well as increased costs in Operations
and Maintenance accounts as a result of deferred maintenance and
recapitalization.
The committee notes that the Department does not have a set
of standards or metrics that can be used to inform budget
decisions and Congress on the minimal annual levels of funding
required to recapitalize the physical plant at a rate that
matches the design lives of facilities in the DOD inventory. In
contrast, the committee notes that the Department provides
Congress annually a budgetary goal of the minimal amount
required to maintain the physical plant, and an assessment of
the budget request against that goal for funding requested
annually for facility sustainment requirements. Theoretically,
the Department should fund 100 percent of that requirement
annually, but budgetary pressures result in a request to
Congress ranging typically from 80 to 90 percent of the goal.
The committee also notes that budget pressures and other
priorities can result in funds appropriated for facility
sustainment being used to fund other categories of base
operating support. This leads to facilities that do not receive
minimal levels of annual preventive maintenance, and are not
modernized to current standards for safety, security, and
technology. Over the long-term, underfunded maintenance on
DOD's facilities costs the Department more in eventual repairs
and replacement.
The committee also notes that in previous years, the
Department used a metric to gauge the annual level of funding
dedicated to the recapitalization of facilities. This metric
applied the annual budget request for recapitalization in both
the military construction and operations accounts to the value
of DOD's physical plant to determine the rate in years that a
facility would be replaced. The DOD goal was 67 years, but
annual budget requests in each service or defense agency ranged
from 97 years to 1,100 years. The Department has since stopped
using this metric.
The committee is aware that the military departments
maintain a rating system for facilities; the Q-rating, or the
Facility Condition Index, which are reported to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense annually. The ratings are based on the
ability of the facility to support the military mission
supported by the facility, and are as follows:
(1) Q-1: New or well maintained (Good);
(2) Q-2: Satisfactorily maintained (Fair);
(3) Q-3: Under maintained (Poor); and
(4) Q-4: Considered for replacement (Failing--
facility is still safe, but more cost-effective to
replace than maintain).
With such a system already in existence, the committee
encourages the Department to adopt a program that will
establish goals to achieve a minimum overall Q-rating for each
service and the Department as a whole by a certain year, and
then maintain that rating, as a basis of analysis to inform
budget discussions related to the adequate annual amounts for
military construction and facility sustainment, restoration,
and modernization accounts.
As an example, the committee notes that the DOD Education
Administration (DODEA) is undergoing a major renovation of its
facilities. DODEA has stated in a report to Congress that only
30 percent of its facilities are Q-2 or better, with the
remaining 70 percent at Q-3 or Q-4, and that 49 percent of its
facilities are greater than 45 years of age. In response, DODEA
has allocated resources to meet a set of goals that by the
conclusion of the current program, which is funded between
fiscal years 2011-2016, all of its facilities will be Q-2 or
greater, and only 7 percent will be greater than 45 years of
age. The committee supports these goals and believes the
military services and other defense agencies would benefit from
a similar strategy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to include within the budget request for fiscal year 2013 a set
of facility repair and recapitalization goals based on the Q
ratings at various categories of facilities and an assessment
of the funding levels contained in the request for each
military service and defense agency and their impact on such Q
ratings.

Kansas City Information Technology Center

The committee is aware that Marine Corps plans call for
establishing the primary information technology center to
support the Marine Corps Enterprise Information Technology
Services (MCEITS) program at the Kansas City Information
Technology Center (KCITC) in Kansas City, Missouri. The
committee understands that the Marine Corps has conducted a
review to consider other potential geographic locations for the
center.
The committee notes that the KCITC is housed in an existing
federal building owned by the General Services Administration
with room for potential expansion, that the Federal government
has made a significant investment in this facility, and that
nearly 800 government civilians and contractors provide an
existing information technology capability at KCITC. In a time
of severe budgetary constraints, the federal government should
not undertake a course of action that would require the
unnecessary and duplicative use of funds to develop a new
facility instead of locating functions in an existing facility
that has the capacity to address its needs.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives by no later than August 1, 2011, on Marine
Corps plans for the location of information technology centers
to support the MCEITS program. The Secretary's report should
specifically address the need for new facilities or new
construction at any locations currently under consideration,
the source of funds for any such facilities or construction,
other costs associated with any required movement of employees
or equipment, and any other relevant issues that the Marine
Corps may be considering.

Life cycle cost management in military construction projects

The committee is concerned that the need to control costs
in military construction projects is resulting in the
specification of construction methods, building systems, and
equipment in facility designs that may be cheaper to acquire
initially, but may not be efficient or economical in the long-
term. While the selection of a building system with an
estimated design life of 20 years may be less expensive to
purchase than one of a 50-year design life, the cost of
maintenance and a quicker need to replace the system results in
additional costs that are incurred over the life of the
military mission or requirement. In addition, current
Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines do not require facility
designers to address goals established for sustainable design,
energy consumption reduction, and energy efficiencies as
baseline requirements for performance of building systems and
equipment in new or renovated facilities.
The committee further notes that section 2802 of title 10,
United States Code, requires the secretary of each military
department in requesting authorization for a military
construction project to ``submit to the President such
recommendations as the Secretary considers to be appropriate
regarding the incorporation and inclusion of life-cycle cost-
effective practices as an element in the project documents.''
The committee notes that the provision in title 10 is intended
to ensure life cycle costs analyses are incorporated in each
justification for a military construction project in order to
provide for the most efficient investment over the life of the
facility.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to include in the military construction project data (DD Form
1391) submitted for each project included in future Presidents'
budget requests a description of proposed construction in
paragraph 10 that includes a clear specification of the minimum
design life for the facility as well as a description of the
specific ratings for energy efficiency for each major building
system. In addition, the DD Form 1391 should clearly delineate
for the congressional defense committees what specific items of
the proposed construction will address a reduction of the life
cycles costs of the facility in terms of maintenance/
replacement cost avoidance or a reduction in utility costs. The
committee intends for the inclusion of these items in the DD
Form 1391 to serve as minimum, mandatory requirements that will
be carried out during design of the facility with the goal of
achieving the most efficient use of taxpayer funds over the
life of the building.
The committee defines a ``building system'' to include the
structure, roof, windows/doors, walls/insulation, lighting,
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical service,
water, sewage, communication systems, utility management, fire
alarms/suppression, security system, and other equipment
required to complete the facility.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorization

Overview

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2012, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes
appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental
cleanup; and (3) other defense activities.
The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at
the Department totaled $18.1 billion, a 12 percent increase
above the fiscal year 2011 appropriated level. Of the total
amount requested:
(1) $11.8 billion is for NNSA, of which:
(a) $7.6 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.5 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.2 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $450.1 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.4 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; and
(3) $860.0 million is for other defense activities.
The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy
supply.
The committee recommends $18.1 billion for atomic energy
defense activities, the amount of the budget request.
Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
(1) $11.8 billion for NNSA, of which;
(a) $7.6 billion is for weapons activities, a
decrease of $1.0 million below the budget request;
(b) $2.5 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, a reduction of $2.8
million below the budget request;
(c) $1.2 billion is for naval reactors, the amount of
the budget request; and
(d) $450.1 million is for the Office of the
Administrator, the amount of the budget request;
(2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup
activities, an increase of $10.0 million above the amount of
the budget request; and
(3) $860.0 million for other defense activities, the amount
of the budget request.
The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a
reduction of $6.2 million.

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $11.8 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in
fiscal year 2012 for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to
national security, $3.8 million below the amount of the budget
request.

Weapons activities

The committee recommends $7.6 billion for weapons
activities, $1.0 million below the amount of the budget
request.
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $2.0 billion for directed stockpile work, a decrease
of $2.0 million below the budget request; $1.8 billion for
campaigns, a decrease of $2.0 million below the budget request;
$2.3 billion for readiness in the technical base and
facilities, a reduction of $5.0 million below the budget
request; $251.3 million for the secure transportation asset,
the amount of the budget request; $222.1 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget
request; $96.3 million for facilities and infrastructure
recapitalization, the amount of the budget request; $104.0
million for site stewardship, the amount of the budget request;
$847.5 million for safeguards and security, a decrease of $2.0
million below the request; and $30.0 million for national
security applications, an increase of $10.0 million above the
budget request.
The committee notes that the NNSA received a substantial
increase in its budget for fiscal year 2011, has requested a
substantial increase in fiscal year 2012, and has additional
substantial annual increases planned well into the future.
Notwithstanding the congressional support for further
modernization of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure and
the life extension programs, the committee urges the NNSA to
find efficiencies where and whenever possible. The ability to
sustain these increases during a time of decreasing federal and
defense budgets will be increasingly difficult as time goes on.
Good stewardship of the funding, as well as the nuclear weapons
and the nuclear weapons complex, is critical to the long-term
support for and sustainment of the projected increases.

Directed stockpile work

The committee recommends $2.0 billion for directed
stockpile work, a decrease of $2.0 million below the amount of
the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports
work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including
day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development,
engineering, and certification activities to support planned
life extension programs. This account also includes fabrication
and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies,
weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support
equipment.
The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for the
W-78 life extension study. The committee fully supports the
life extension for the W-78, as well as exploring the
possibility of common options for both the W-78 and the W-88.
The committee is aware, however, that because of the 8 month
delay in receiving authorization to start this study the
program is behind schedule and will not need all of the
requested funds in 2012.
The committee is concerned that in spite of the substantial
increases in the NNSA weapons activities account, the budget
does not fully support the enhanced surveillance efforts. The
committee urges NNSA to identify and utilize any excess weapons
activities funds for enhanced weapons surveillance.

Campaigns

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns, a
decrease of $2.0 million below the amount of the budget
request. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts
involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada
National Security Site, and the weapons production plants. Each
campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and
maintain the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear
weapons testing. These efforts form the scientific underpinning
of the Department of Energy's annual certification that the
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear
weapons testing.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
National Ignition Facility (NIF) campaign for diagnostics,
cryogenics, and experimental support. The committee wants to
insure that there are adequate diagnostics to fully utilize and
support the experimental capability of the NIF.
The committee recommends a reduction of $7.0 million in the
readiness campaign for tritium readiness. The reduction for
tritium readiness takes into account a large carryover balance
resulting from contracting delays and problems with the tritium
producing bars. The committee recognizes the importance of
having a domestic source for enriched uranium using U.S.
technology to meet our nation's future tritium requirements to
ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and Management plan defines
the elements of the stockpile stewardship program including the
careful planning that goes into designing and developing the
science, technology, and engineering (STE) program. The STE
program provides the physics based understanding needed to
predict performance of various weapons components to support
the life extension and surveillance programs. As stated in the
report: ``These STE capabilities determine what can be
engineered and the spectrum of changes that can be confidently
assessed without UGT (underground testing).'' Two of the key
elements of the STE program are the Predictive Capability
Framework (PCF) and the Component Maturation Framework (CMF).
Each of these frameworks has a detailed, complementary 15 year
plan. The PCF plan carefully balances the four key components
of weapons assessment with the development of experimental and
computation capabilities. The CMF develops the components
needed for life extension based on the development of the
knowledge and predicative capabilities derived from the PCF. As
the plan states: ``These strategies are coupled because the CMF
includes the maturation plans for development and production of
stockpile sustainment components. PCF provides the tools and
capabilities for establishing the environments that those
components will witness and the qualification of those
components in meeting performance specifications.''
The committee notes that the NNSA is considering a new
typeof subcritical experiment called a scaled experiment for which the
diagnostics do not exist and that is not included in the STE plan.
While the committee recognizes the need to modify the STE plans from
time to time, the committee is concerned that a near-term scaled
experiment can only be done at the expense of some other part of the
STE plan as there is not funding in the budget request to support the
scaled experiment. The committee understands the cost of the experiment
and the diagnostics could be as much as several hundred million
dollars. The committee is also aware that NNSA has tasked the JASONs to
conduct a review of this type of experiment and to assess its benefits
to stockpile stewardship; including how and when these experiments
should be incorporated into the STE plan. The committee directs the
NNSA not to obligate or expend any funds to conduct such an experiment
until the JASON study is complete, and the NNSA submits to the
committee a plan that will identify the cost of the experiment, the
cost of the development of the diagnostics, the source of the funds,
what portions of the current STE will not be conducted, and any impact
or delay to the complementary goals of the current PCF and CMF.
The committee notes that one of the essential stockpile
tools, the JASPER gas gun located at the Nevada National
Security Site, is not operational. The committee directs the
NNSA to set forth a plan to resume operations as soon as
possible.

Readiness in the technical base

The committee recommends $2.3 billion for readiness in the
technical base (RTBF), a decrease of $5.0 million below the
budget request for operations of facilities. This account funds
facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex
and includes construction funding for new facilities.
The committee commends the NNSA and the Los Alamos National
Laboratory for their efforts to address the nuclear safety
issues at the PF-4 facility that have been identified by the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The committee supports
prompt resolution of these issues as well as other emerging
issues recently identified by the laboratory and would support
efforts by the NNSA to identify additional funds to resolve the
issues at PF-4.
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for
the Kansas City Plant as a result of substantial excess carry-
over balances above the NNSA threshold levels of carry-over
funds as identified by the Government Accountability Office.
The committee appreciates the identification of specific
funds for the Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure
Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) project as a separate
element of the RTBF and directs the NNSA to maintain the
distinction between the KCRIMS and the old Bannister Complex
funding until the move to the new facility is complete. The
committee also notes that the KCRIMS project is on schedule.
The committee continues to believe that replacing the
existing Chemical and Metallurgical Research facility, and the
existing Uranium Processing facility (UPF) are essential and
urges the NNSA to continue to look at options to reduce the
cost of the new Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement
(CMRR) facility and the new UPF consistent with maintaining
health and safety and validated mission requirements.
The committee continues to believe that managing the design
and construction of the CMRR, the UPF, and the other new NNSA
nuclear facilities will be very challenging. Managing these
projects in accordance with the DOE 413 order series and
project management and guidance is essential for success, as is
making sure that the projects have clearly defined and
validated requirements that do not change. The NNSA is also
directed to conduct a true independent cost estimate for both
the CMRR Nuclear Facility, which is phase III of the CMRR
project, and the UPF. The committee instructs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to review these independent cost
estimates to ensure the accuracy of the cost estimates. The
committee also directs the GAO to evaluate the NNSA's efforts
to ensure that all cost savings measures have been considered.
The committee continues to be concerned that the phase III
project is being divided into multiple sub-projects.
Notwithstanding this management approach the committee directs
as it did last year, that the CMRR baseline, when developed and
submitted to the committee at the CD-2 phase of construction,
reflect all phases and subprojects for the purpose of
developing a cost and schedule baseline and to be accounted for
as a single project.
The committee also remains concerned about what appears to
be a building maintenance backlog at the Pantex Plant
exacerbated by the recent flood and urges NNSA to maintain
adequately the Pantex Plant.
The committee also notes that the successful Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is coming to a
close. The FIRP was established in the early days of the NNSA
to address the large backload of deferred maintenance in the
nuclear weapons complex. Even though the FIRP is coming to an
end, the challenge of maintaining the complex does not go away.
The committee urges the NNSA to be mindful of the need to
maintain facilities and not slip back into the old habits of
deferring maintenance.

Secure transportation asset

The committee recommends $251.3 million for the secure
transportation asset (STA), the amount of the budget request.
The secure transportation asset is responsible for the
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure
transport. In the Senate report accompanying S. 3001 (S. Rept.
110-335) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee directed the STA to include in its
budget submittal for fiscal year 2010 a break out of the lease
expenses for each leased facility and the expenses for each
minor construction project. The STA decided not to pursue a
third-party financing option. If the STA resumes consideration
of any third-party option, the committee expects STA to fully
notify Congress of such arrangements in advance of executing
any leases.

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

The committee recommends $222.1 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget
request.

Facilities and infrastructure

The committee recommends $96.4 million for the facilities
and infrastructure program, the amount of the budget request.

Site stewardship

The committee recommends $104.0 million for site
stewardship, the amount of the budget request.

Safeguards and security

The committee recommends $847.5 million for safeguards and
security, a decrease of $2.0 million below the amount of the
budget request from construction project 08-D-701, nuclear
materials upgrade project.

National security applications

The committee recommends $30.0 million for national
security applications, an increase of $10.0 million above the
budget request, to support sustainment of the special skills,
capabilities, and infrastructure of the NNSA laboratories to
support a broad array of national security challenges.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

The committee recommends $2.5 billion for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, a reduction of $2.8 million
below the amount of the budget request. The NNSA has management
and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation
programs at the DOE.
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $427.0 million for nonproliferation and verification
research and development, an increase of $9.4 million above the
budget request, $159.8 million for nonproliferation and
international security, a decrease of $2.0 million; $571.6
million for international nuclear materials production and
cooperation, the amount of the budget request, $880.0 million
for fissile materials disposition, a decrease of $10.2 million;
and $508.3 million for the global threat reduction initiative,
the amount of the budget request.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

The committee recommends $427.0 million for
nonproliferation and verification research and development an
increase of $9.4 million above the amount of the budget
request. The committee notes that included in the budget
request for research and development is $55.8 million for
pension payments, thus the true amount requested for actual
research and development is $361.8 million.
The committee continues to support the valuable research
and development work that is conducted under this program. The
additional funding will support high priority research
requirements including work to support the long-term ability of
the United States to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear
weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons,
improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices.
Much of the work supported by NNSA is unique to the Federal
Government and serves as the technical basis for work by many
other agencies including the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of Defense.

Nonproliferation and international security

The committee recommends $159.8 million for
nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of $2.0
million for Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
(GIPP). The committee notes that the GIPP has significant
prior-year funds. Elsewhere in this Act the committee
recommends a provision that would bring the GIPP program in
Russia to a close at the end of 2013.

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation

The committee recommends $571.6 million for international
nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the
budget request.

Fissile materials disposition

The committee recommends $880.0 million for fissile
materials, a decrease of $10.2 million below the amount
requested. This fissile materials disposition program coverts
excess weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel for use in
commercial power reactors. The United States and Russia have
signed an agreement where each country has agreed to
disposition 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium,
thus removing the possibility that this plutonium could be
reused for weapons or fall into the hands of terrorists.

Unites States fissile materials disposition

The committee recommends $880.0 million for U.S fissile
materials disposition, the amount of the budget request. The
committee is concerned about the delay as well as the cost
growth in the pit disposition program. The pit disposition
facility is required to take apart the plutonium pits from
weapons and produce the plutonium oxide needed to manufacture
the mixed oxide fuel to support the U.S. plutonium disposition
program.

Russian fissile materials disposition

The committee recommends no funds for the Russian fissile
materials disposition program, a reduction of $10.2 million
below the budget request. The committee notes that although the
United States and Russia, after many years of negotiations,
finally signed a new protocol to the Plutonium Management and
Disposition agreement to allow each country to disposition 34
metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium, the
implementation of the Russia portion of this program has been
delayed. As a result there are excess carryover funds available
from fiscal year 2011 to offset this reduction.
The committee notes that the budget request includes $7.2
million to continue the joint gas reactor technology
demonstration program with Russia. The gas reactor is a more
efficient burner of excess plutonium than either conventional
nuclear power reactors or fast reactors, which Russia currently
plans to use to disposition plutonium. The committee notes that
Russia and the United States jointly fund this effort and that
Russian support for the program generally exceeds the U.S.
contribution. The committee directs the NNSA to use fiscal year
2011 carry over funds to sustain the gas reactor project in
fiscal year 2012.
The committee continues to support the fissile materials
disposition program as an important part of the overall nuclear
nonproliferation program.

Global threat reduction initiative

The committee recommends $508.3 million for the global
threat reduction initiative, the amount of the budget request.
The committee supports this effort to secure within 4 years,
vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb
or in an improvised nuclear device. The committee directs the
NNSA to provide quarterly reports, at the end of each quarter
of fiscal year 2012, briefly describing the projects, including
the cost and schedule for each project that has been
implemented that quarter.

Naval reactors

The committee recommends $1.2 billion for naval reactors,
the amount of the budget request. The committee notes that the
Naval Reactors program is in the second year of the planning
and design of a major new nuclear facility at the DOE Idaho
National Laboratory to support the management of spent naval
nuclear fuel. Elsewhere in this act the committee recommends a
provision that would authorize the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board to exercise its oversight responsibilities during
the design and construction of this facility.

Office of the Administrator

The committee recommends $450.1 million for the Office of
the Administrator, the amount of the budget request.

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at
the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $10.0 million.
The defense environmental cleanup activities support the
cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and surface
water, and the treatment and disposal of radioactive and other
waste generated through the production of nuclear weapons and
weapons materials. The environmental management program was
established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold War waste from
the production of nuclear weapons and materials including
plutonium and highly enriched uranium.

Savannah River Site

The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah
River Site an increase of $10.0 million to maintain the H-
Canyon. The committee believes that it is premature to stop
operations at the H-Canyon and that the facility should
continue to operate. Past experience has shown that the H-
Canyon will be needed as new waste streams evolve and as the
National Nuclear Security Administration continues to receive
returned highlyenriched uranium research reactor fuels. The
committee directs the DOE to use fiscal year 2012 funds to maintain
operations at the H-canyon rather than placing it in a warm-standby
status.

Waste Treatment Plant

The committee continues to follow the progress of the
design review that Environmental Management is carrying out at
the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at the Department of Energy
(DOE) Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. While the purpose
of this review is to simplify the operations of the
pretreatment facility, the committee wants to ensure that the
appropriate safety analysis is performed to develop the
analytical basis for any determinations as to whether a system
is safety class or safety significant. As the DOE guidance says
``a successful safety design depends on the quality of the
safety analysis and on engineering judgment in the
transformation of this guidance to the final design.'' The
committee expects the analysis for this very important and very
expensive facility to be of high quality.
The Defense Nuclear Safety Board (DNFSB) has a statutory
responsibility to oversee operational nuclear safety aspects of
the WTP project. Part of this responsibility includes oversight
of the facility construction and design to ensure that the
design meets DOE industry standards and guidance for nuclear
safety. The committee continues to expect the review and design
change process to be carried out expeditiously but also
thoroughly and to be kept informed by both DOE and the DNFSB as
the effort progresses.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$860.0 million for other defense activities, the amount of the
budget request. The committee recommends $456.5 million for
health, safety, and security, the amount of the budget request;
$170.1 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget
request; $98.5 million for Nuclear Energy, defense related
infrastructure for the Idaho site security, the amount of the
budget request; $118.0 million for departmental administration,
the amount of the budget request; $11.9 million for acquisition
workforce improvements, the amount of the budget request; and
$6.4 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount
of the budget request.

Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Review of security vulnerabilities of national laboratory computers
(sec. 3111)

The committee recommends a provision that amends section
2659 of title 50, United States Code, to delete the requirement
for an annual independent external red team to review the
security and vulnerabilities of the computers at the national
laboratories and for the Secretary to submit an annual report
setting forth the results of the red team review. The provision
would direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct an annual
review of security vulnerabilities of the national laboratory
computers. The Secretary would submit a report to the
congressional defense committees only if and when a significant
vulnerability was discovered.

Review by Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense of Comptroller
General assessment of budget requests with respect to the
modernization and refurbishment of the nuclear security complex
(sec. 3112)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3255 of the National Nuclear Security Administration
Act (50 U.S.C. 2455(a)) to direct the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to review the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report required by this
section. Within 30 days of receiving the GAO report, the
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, would complete the review of the GAO report and submit
the results to the congressional defense committees. This
report would include the results of the review of the GAO
report and the views of the two Secretaries with respect to the
findings in the GAO report.
In addition the two Secretaries would report on whether the
actual funding level in the fiscal year in which the report is
submitted is sufficient for the modernization and refurbishment
of the nuclear security complex and the refurbishment of the
nuclear weapons stockpile. Finally, the report would include a
description of any measures the administration plans to take in
response to the GAO report.

Aircraft procurement (sec. 3113)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Energy to use weapons activities funds
available in any fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2013 to
purchase not more than one aircraft. The committee notes that
this will allow the Secure Transportation Asset (STA) to
acquire a third Boeing 737 aircraft.
The committee also notes that in the Committee Print No. 10
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), the Secretary of Energy
and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) were directed to consult with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine whether the
operations of the aircraft are public or civil operations, or a
combination, and the appropriate equivalency standard under
which the STA aircraft should be operated, maintained, and
managed. In addition, the Secretary and the Administrator were
directed to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees that sets forth the FAA determination, the ability
of the NNSA to meet the requirements of the Department of
Energy (DOE) orders if NNSA will operate as a self-regulated
entity, and whether the DOE Office of Aviation is capable of
conducting FAA like oversight and inspections. This report was
required to be delivered before 737 operations began. The
committee notes that this report has still not been submitted.
As a result the committee directs that no 737 operations begin
until the report is submitted.

Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence
in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 3114)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) from obligating or expending more than
$0.5 million of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program funds
to establish a center of excellence in any country outside of
the former Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the
Administrator of the NNSA submits to the congressional defense
committees a report on the particular center to be established.
The report would identify the country where the center will be
established, the purpose for which the center will be used, the
agreement under which the center will operate, and the funding
plan for the center including any cost-sharing arrangement.
The committee supports the continued efforts of the NNSA
nonproliferation programs in countries outside of the FSU but
would like to understand in more detail plans for new centers
as these plans evolve.
The committee also supports the effort to secure the most
vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that
this is a significant challenge that will require close
interagency cooperation to be successful. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense and the NNSA, have a long and
productive history of cooperation in threat reduction programs,
and urge them to continue this close collaboration in the
accelerated program to secure vulnerable nuclear materials.

Recognition and status of National Atomic Testing Museum (sec. 3115)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 7142 of title 42, United States Code, to recognize the
National Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Subtitle C--Reports

Report on feasibility of federalizing the security protective forces
contract guard workforce at certain Department of Energy
Facilities (sec. 3121)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator for Nuclear Security
to report on the feasibility of federalizing some or all of the
security protective forces contract guard force at Department
of Energy (DOE) atomic energy facilities. The provision would
also direct the Secretary and the Administrator to submit a
draft of the report to the Comptroller General. Not later than
1 year from the date of enactment of this Act the final report,
together with the comments of the Comptroller General, would be
submitted to the congressional defense committees.
Managing the DOE contractor protective forces to take into
account the physical requirements, the special
responsibilitiesof the protective forces, longevity, and retirement
options, has been an issue that the DOE and the National Nuclear
Security Administration have been struggling with for several years.
There have been many studies including one in June 2009,
titled ``Enhanced Career Longevity and Retirement Options for
DOE Protective Force Personnel.'' This study made 29
recommendations for action by DOE. In the report accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84), the Secretary was directed to submit an
implementation plan by April 2010, for the 29 recommendations.
This plan was submitted in January 2011. While many of the
recommendations will be implemented under this plan the most
difficult recommendations, dealing with retirement options,
will, as the January 2011 report says, require ``further
detailed analysis before any potential actions can be
appropriately discussed.''
The committee includes this provision as an additional
option for the DOE to consider as a solution to the retirement
challenges that confront the protective forces. The committee
does not favor any specific approach other than one that
recognizes the valuable contributions of the protective forces,
many of whom are veterans, and sustains their ability to
continue to serve their country.

Comptroller General study on oversight of Department of Energy defense
nuclear facilities (sec. 3122)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General to conduct a study of the value of and the
need for external regulation or external oversight of the
safety of nuclear operations and the design and construction of
defense nuclear facilities at the Department of Energy (DOE) to
protect public health and safety. For the defense nuclear
facilities, the study would require the Comptroller to assess
the value of external oversight or regulation; to assess the
ability of existing regulatory authorities to regulate nuclear
safety; an assessment of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board's capability (DNFSB) to regulate safety, if there were to
be given such authority; to assess the effectiveness of the
current oversight functions of the DNFSB; an assessment of the
relative advantages and disadvantages of oversight versus
external regulation; to identify any facilities that are
similar to facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC); to identify the facilities that should remain
under DNFSB oversight or be transferred to external regulation
and when any such facilities should be transferred; whether the
external regulatory authority, if required, should be a new or
existing authority; a comparison of the relative advantages and
disadvantages of oversight and external regulation and any
other recommendations that the Comptroller might wish to make.
An interim report on the status of the study would be
submitted to the congressional defense committees 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act. One year after the
date of enactment, the final study would be submitted to the
DOE, the DNFSB, and the NRC for comments, which would in turn
be due to the congressional defense committees 180 days after
receipt of the report. The congressional defense committees
would also receive the final report when it is provided to the
DOE, the NRC, and the DNFSB.
The defense nuclear facilities of the DOE and the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are not subject to
external regulation for matters of nuclear safety. Under the
terms of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703), the
DOE instead relies on internal regulatory authority. Over the
years the technical strength and the rigor of the internal
authority has varied. In the late 1980s the DOE experienced a
series of events that conclusively demonstrated that the
internal authority alone was not adequate. In response Congress
established the DNFSB to provide independent, external
oversight at the DOE and NNSA. At the time there was
considerable discussion as to whether the external oversight or
regulation was the most appropriate approach. In the end,
Congress determined that an external authority was needed but
that the external authority should provide independent
technical oversight and not be a regulator in the same vein as
the NRC. As a result Congress established the DNFSB in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1989 (Public
Law 100-456) to provide recommendations to the Secretary of
Energy regarding worker and public health safety at the
facilities operated by the DOE.
In creating the DNFSB, one aim of Congress was to provide
an expert body to act as an adviser to DOE on establishing, and
operating in accordance with, standards comparable to those
that prevailed in the commercial nuclear power industry. The
Board's responsibilities to review the standards that
underpinned safety pertained to all lifecycle phases of defense
nuclear facilities-design, construction, operation, and
decommissioning. The DNFSB is also responsible for
investigating any event or practice at a DOE facility that had
or could adversely affect public health and safety, for
analyzing design and operational data pertinent to safety, and
for reconstruction design reviews and construction oversight
for DOE nuclear facilities.
Congress provided the Board with a variety of powers to
carry out its oversight mission, chief among them, the power to
issue formal recommendations to the Secretary. These
recommendations are not binding on the Secretary but the
Secretary must respond and if the Secretary chooses not to
accept the recommendations, has to fully explain the reason for
not accepting the recommendations. The manner and timing of the
Secretary's response is specifically set forth in the statue.
In its efforts to formulate its recommendations and other
advice, the Board is empowered to conduct investigations and
studies, gather information, issue subpoenas, hold public
hearings, and establish reporting requirements for DOE. The
Board is statutorily required to deliver reports to Congress at
least annually on its oversight activities, any recommendations
issued to the Secretary, and improvements in safety achieved at
defense nuclear facilities as a result of its activities. The
DNFSB is unique in that it is oversight with teeth.
Although there have been several studies and reports since
the DNFSB was created, weighing the oversight versus regulation
debate, the committee is particularly concerned that with the
unprecedented amount of nuclear facility construction projects
that are currently underway or planned, it is time to revisit
the issue. The committee is concerned that given the current
small size and budget of the DNFSB the task will be
overwhelming and in the end, nuclear health and safety will
suffer at the DOE without some change.
There are many options to deal with the problem, the
oversight capacity of the DNFSB could increase by increasing
the current size of the DNFSB, which is approximately 100
people, the DNFSB could be converted to a regulatory and
licensing body, an existing regulatory body, such as the NRC
could be tasked to oversee the DOE, or some new hybrid approach
might be appropriate. These are just a few examples of
potential recommendations that could flow from the study. The
committee notes that the Comptroller General has looked at the
issue of DOE external regulation or oversight previously and
thus has the expertise to conduct the study.

Plan to complete the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
program in the Russian Federation (sec. 3123)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Administrator for Nuclear Security at the Department of Energy
(DOE) to submit a plan with the fiscal year 2013 budget request
to complete the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
(GIPP) program in the Russian Federation by the end of calendar
year 2013.
The committee notes that since the GIPP program was
established in the early 1990s to work with Russian and other
former Soviet Union scientists and engineers in the early days
following the collapse of the Cold War, it has had considerable
success. As one of the original programs to support the nuclear
weapons scientists, and former biological and chemical weapons
scientists, it filled a critical gap in research and
development funding while at the same time bringing U.S.
industry and Russian scientists and engineers together. With
the passage of time, however, the mission has changed as a
large portion of the original Russian Cold War scientists and
engineers have retired or no longer participate in the program.
As a result, the committee believes that the time has come for
the DOE to bring this aspect of the Russian GIPP program to a
close.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$33.2 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB), an increase of $4.2 million above the budget request.
The DNFSB is the independent oversight entity for
operational nuclear safety at the Department of Energy (DOE)
defense nuclear facilities. The work of the DNFSB ensures that
as a self-regulated entity, the DOE has an external oversight
body, which although not a regulatory body, can bring to the
attention of the DOE issues dealing with operational nuclear
safety.
The committee notes that the DNFSB received $23.3 million
in fiscal year 2011, approximately 18 percent less than the
fiscal year 2011 budget request. As a result of this reduction
the DNFSB is unable to increase its staff by 7 people as
planned and will remain at 103 Full-Time Employees, has had to
forgo critical computer upgrades, has been unable to contract
for specific technical expertise and may reduce the level of
oversight at certain DOE facilities.
The DNFSB was established by Congress to provide oversight
for nuclear operations in lieu of a formal regulatory process.
With major new nuclear facilities under construction and more
planned, and older facilities experiencing ever more difficult
operating environments, oversight is needed more than ever. The
committee directs the DNFSB and the Secretary of Energy to
explore two options to ensure the DNFSB retains the ability to
execute its statutory mission. The first is to look at the
option of establishing a set percentage of the DOE annual
budget request each year for nuclear facility construction to
support the additional work associated with the new
construction. These funds would be transferred to DNFSB by DOE
to offset the increased cost of oversight. The second option
would be to look at utilizing a full cost recovery user fee
model similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The committee is concerned that with several major new
nuclear facilities planned, including the uranium processing
facility, the chemical and metallurgical research replacement
facility, as well as new work on plutonium pit disassembly and
plutonium oxide production, the DNFSB will need additional
technical staff to review fully the operational nuclear safety
for the new projects. Meaningful DNFSB participation occurs at
the early stages of design when done in a collaborative fashion
with the DOE.
Over the past several years the DNFSB has been heavily
focused on design changes that the DOE is making to the Waste
Treatment Plant (WTP) at the DOE Hanford facility. The
committee commends the DOE and the DNFSB for significantly
improving the working relationship at the WTP. Nevertheless
there still remain a number of unresolved issues, such as pulse
jet mixing testing, and the ability of the WTP to process all
of the waste currently stored in the tanks at Hanford. The
committee urges the DOE and the DNFSB to agree to a process to
resolve current and future issues. The committee continues to
urge the DOE to complete the analysis necessary to justify the
changes to the WTP.
Authority of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to review the
facility design and construction of the construction project
10-D-904 of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec.
3202)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2286g(1)(A) of title 42, United States Code, to provide
authority to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to
review the facility design and construction of the construction
project 10-D-904 of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA).
This construction project is a new, billion dollar facility
for the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Naval Nuclear Reactors,
which will receive spent nuclear fuel from Naval surface ships
and submarines. As a nuclear facility at the NNSA the committee
believes that oversight similar to other large construction
projects at NNSA is warranted. The committee notes that this
authority is limited solely to the nuclear safety design and
operation for and during the planning, engineering, design, and
construction of the project only.
TITLE XXXIII--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

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

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this
bill, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific
entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4601)
The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item
guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance
with the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also
display the line-item funding requested by the administration
in the fiscal year 2012 budget request and shows where the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from
the administration request, as set forth in budget
justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
9 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)...... 2,784 314,167 -150,000 2,784 164,167
Program reduction............ [-150,000]
13 STINGER MODS.................... 0 14,495 -14,500 0 -5
Transfer at Army request to [-14,500]
RDTE Army PE 23801A.

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
14 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM.......... 21 181,329 49 322,000 70 503,329
Program increase............. [49] [322,000]
17 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON 5 16,046 -16,000 5 46
SYSTEM FAMILY.
Transfer at Army's request to [-16,000]
RDTE, Army PE 64601A.
19 MACHINE GUN, CAL .50 M2 ROLL.... 4,700 65,102 -34,000 4,700 31,102
Transfer at Army request to [-34,000]
WTCV line 34.
20 LIGHTWEIGHT .50 CALIBER MACHINE 700 28,796 -1,700 700 27,096
GUN.

Transfer at Army request to [-1,700]
RDTE Army PE 64601A .
34 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS...... 0 14,856 34,000 0 48,856
Transfer at Army request from [34,000]
WTCV line 19.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
39 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM..... 17,120 775,832 -200,000 17,120 575,832
Program delay in GMR and [-200,000]
Maritime/Fixed radios.
147 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM........... 0 184,072 -28,300 0 155,772
Program delay and transfer to [-28,300]
PE 64827A.
198 BCT TRAINING/LOGISTICS/ 0 149,308 -123,300 0 26,008
MANAGEMENT.
Program cancelation.......... [-123,300]
199 BCT TRAINING/LOGISTICS/ 0 57,103 -57,100 0 3
MANAGEMENT INC 2.
Program cancelation.......... [-57,100]
200 BCT UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE INC 0 11,924 -11,900 0 24
2.
Program cancelation.......... [-11,900]

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
FUND
4 OPERATIONS...................... 0 220,634 -220,634 0 0
Transfer to Title XV JIEDDO [-220,634]
Operations.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
3 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET...... 28 2,369,047 -9 -495,000 19 1,874,047
Funded in H. R. 1473......... [-9] [-495,000]

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
17 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON.. 0 238,215 -1 -205,000 -1 33,215
Booster for SV4 early to need [-1] [-205,000]

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
68 CANES........................... 0 195,141 -89,600 0 105,541
Transfer to Ship [-77,600]
Communications Automation
(OPN 76) per USN request.
Transfer to PE 33138N (RDN [-12,000]
201) per USN request.
76 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION.. 0 177,510 77,600 0 255,110
Transfer from CANES (OPN 68) [77,600]
pe USN request.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
31 RADIO SYSTEMS................... 0 89,479 1,000 0 90,479
Equipment upgrade for CBNIRF [1,000]
(UFR).

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
24 HH-60M.......................... 3 104,711 -2 -69,900 1 34,811
Combat losses funded in FY11. [-2] [-69,900]
25 LIGHT ATTACK ARMED RECON ACFT... 9 158,549 -9 -158,549 0 0
Defer production pending R&D [-9] [-158,549]
completion.
40 F-16............................ 0 73,346 -16,600 0 56,746
Mode 5 procurement ahead of [-16,600]
need.
73 H-60............................ 0 34,371 54,600 0 88,971
Transfer from PE 65299F (RDAF [54,600]
81) per USAF request.
75 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS......... 0 431 10,400 0 10,831
Transfer from PE 65299F (RDAF [10,400]
81) per USAF request.
76 OTHER AIRCRAFT.................. 0 115,338 0 0 115,338
EHF SATCOM, FAB-T advance [47,100]
procurement-AF program change
(non-add).

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
19 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT........... 0 81,811 -40,000 0 41,811
Excess advance procurement-- [-40,000]
AF program change.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
46 MILSATCOM SPACE................. 0 104,720 0 0 104,720
EHF SATCOM, FAB-T advance [63,800]
procurement-AF program change
(non-add).

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
52 NON-STANDARD AVIATION........... 15 272,623 -6 -96,600 9 176,023
NSAV-M Unjustified [-2] [-50,100]
Requirement.
AvFID Funding ahead of need.. [-4] [-55,000]
NSAV-L Transfer from OCO..... [8,500]
70 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS............ 0 74,702 15,600 0 90,302
VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement. [15,600]
71 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS.......... 0 9,196 4,000 0 13,196
VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement. [4,000]
76 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS......... 0 6,899 15,000 0 21,899
HSAC Unfunded Requirement.... [15,000]
78 TACTICAL VEHICLES............... 0 33,915 27,800 0 61,715
VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement. [27,800]
88 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL 0 362 2,600 0 2,962
SYSTEMS.
VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement. [2,600]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
FUND
1 ATTACK THE NETWORK................ 0 1,368,800 -90,000 0 1,278,800
Undistributed efficiencies [-90,000]
reduction.
2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE................. 0 961,200 -150,000 0 811,200
Undistributed efficiencies [-150,000]
reduction.
3 TRAIN THE FORCE................... 0 247,500 -5,000 0 242,500
Undistributed efficiencies [-5,000]
reduction.
4 OPERATIONS........................ 0 200,634 0 200,634
Transfer from Title I [220,634]
Operations.
Undistributed efficiencies [-20,000]
reduction.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
32 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS.. 0 54,177 70,000 0 124,177
Digital technical control [20,000]
shelters.
Data distribution system [50,000]
modules.
38 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE 783 392,391 -300,000 783 92,391
REPLACEMENT.
MTVR Reduction................. [-300,000]
46 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED.......... 0 51,895 55,000 0 106,895
Advanced power sources......... [20,000]
Mobile power equipment......... [35,000]

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
19 V22 OSPREY........................ 2 70,000 -1 -70,000 1 0
Combat Loss funded in FY11..... [-1] [-70,000]

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
50 MH-47 SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION 2 40,500 -1 -40,500 1 0
PROGRAM.
Combat Loss funded in FY11..... [-1] [-40,500]
51 MH-60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM....... 1 7,800 -1 -7,800 0 0
Combat Loss funded in FY11..... [-1] [-7,800]
52 NON-STANDARD AVIATION............. 9 8,500 -8,500 9 0
NSAV-L Transfer to Base........ [-8,500]
57 CV-22 MODIFICATION................ 1 15,000 -1 -15,000 0 0
Combat Loss funded in FY11..... [-1] [-15,000]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2012 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION, ARMY
84 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 73,728 17,700 91,428
..................... Transfer at Army [16,000]
request from WTCV line
17.
..................... Transfer at Army [1,700]
request from WTCV line
20.
119 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 48,309 7,600 55,909
DEM/VAL.
..................... Transfer at Army [7,600]
request from OPA line
147.
121 0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS COMBINED 406,605 -406,605 0
AGGREGATE PROGRAM (CAP).
..................... Program Decrease...... [-406,605]
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT,
ARMY
140 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 262,456 50,000 312,456
FACILITIES.
..................... Program Increase...... [50,000]
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, ARMY
169 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 44,560 14,500 59,060
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
..................... Transfer at Army [14,500]
Request from MPA line
13.
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH, NAVY
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 104,804 -40,000 64,804
RESEARCH.
..................... Program Decrease- Free [-30,000]
Electron Laser.
..................... Program Decrease- [-10,000]
Electromagnetic
railgun.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 114,270 -16,900 97,370
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Program Decrease- [-16,900]
Electromagnetic
railgun.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, NAVY
190 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 209,396 0 209,396
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
..................... Amphibious Combat [18,000]
Vehicle (non-add).
201 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 12,906 12,000 24,906
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
..................... Transfer from CANES [12,000]
(OPN 68) per USN
request.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT, AIR FORCE
14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 39,738 10,000 49,738
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
..................... Program Increase- [10,000]
Metals Affordability
Initiative.
23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 54,042 -20,000 34,042
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Program Decrease- [-20,000]
Unjustified growth.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES, AIR FORCE
39 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 67,202 20,000 87,202
BALLISTIC MISSILE.
..................... Program Increase...... [20,000]
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION, AIR FORCE
65 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 273,689 6,000 279,689
SYSTEMS.
..................... Space Surveillance [6,000]
Telescope military
utility assessment.
67 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 621,629 35,000 656,629
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
..................... Data explotation...... [15,000]
..................... SABRS integration on [20,000]
SV 5 and 6.
80 0605221F NEXT GENERATION AERIAL 877,084 -127,100 749,984
REFUELING AIRCRAFT.
..................... Align funding to [-127,100]
signed KC-46A contract.
81 0605229F CSAR HH-60 94,113 -83,113 11,000
RECAPITALIZATION.
..................... Transfer to HC-130 [-10,400]
modifications (APAF
75) per USAF request.
..................... Transfer to HH-60 [-54,600]
modifications (APAF
73) per USAF request.
..................... Program reduction to [-18,113]
reflect new
acquisition strategy.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT,
AIR FORCE
97 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 654,475 50,000 704,475
SUPPORT.
..................... Program Increase...... [50,000]
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, AIR FORCE
129 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 718,432 -140,000 578,432
..................... Provide funds that Air [-140,000]
Force can execute in
FY12.
191 0305159F ENTERPRISE QUERY & 0 20,000 20,000
CORRELATION.
..................... Enterprise query & [20,000]
correlation.
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH, DW
18 0602663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS APPLIED 9,235 -4,000 5,235
RESEARCH.
..................... Program Decrease...... [-4,000]
19 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 9,735 -5,000 4,735
..................... Program Decrease...... [-5,000]
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT (ATD), DW
41 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 187,707 -10,000 177,707
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
..................... Program Decrease- [-10,000]
Unjustified growth.
43 0603663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS 9,235 -4,000 5,235
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Program Decrease...... [-4,000]
45 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED 10,709 -5,000 5,709
RESEARCH.
..................... Program Decrease...... [-5,000]
47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 17,888 30,000 47,888
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
..................... Program Increase- [30,000]
Industrial Base
Innovation Fund
program.
48 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 26,972 -13,000 13,972
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Cargo airship [2,000]
demonstration.
..................... Pelican............... [-15,000]
61A 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 200,000 200,000
PROGRAM.
..................... Program Increase...... [200,000]
68 0603901C DIRECTED ENERGY RESEARCH. 96,329 -60,000 36,329
..................... Program Decrease--ALTB [-60,000]
71 0603942D8Z TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 0 10,000 10,000
..................... Program Increase- [10,000]
Technology Transition
Initiative.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES, DW
83 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 290,452 20,000 310,452
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
..................... THAAD production [20,000]
improvements.
88 0603888C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,071,039 -40,000 1,031,039
TEST & TARGETS.
..................... Program Decrease-- [-40,000]
Excess funds.
91 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 960,267 30,000 990,267
..................... SM-3 Block IB [30,000]
production
improvements.
99 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 177,058 -20,000 157,058
(SBX).
..................... Program Decrease-- [-20,000]
Excess funds.
101 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 106,100 50,000 156,100
PROGRAMS.
..................... David's Sling [25,000]
development.
..................... Arrow System [20,000]
Improvement Program.
..................... Arrow-3 interceptor [5,000]
development.
104 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,221 32,100 35,321
CORROSION PROGRAM.
..................... Program increase-- [32,100]
funding shortfall.
111 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 424,454 20,000 444,454
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Program Increase- [20,000]
software Integration.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION (SDD), DW
121 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES 49,198 20,000 69,198
JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
(AITS-JPO).
..................... Cyber threat discovery [20,000]
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT,
DW
163 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 56,269 -4,000 52,269
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
..................... Program Decrease...... [-4,000]
165 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,805 5,000 20,805
EVALUATION.
..................... Program Increase...... [5,000]
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, DW
201 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 8,366 20,000 28,366
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
..................... Cybersecurity pilots.. [20,000]
207 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 348,593 3,000 351,593
SECURITY PROGRAM.
..................... File sanitization tool [3,000]
(FiST).
.....................
.....................
..................... DARPA--UNDISTRIBUTED..... -150,000 -150,000
..................... Undistributed [-150,000]
reduction--
Underexecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
There are no committee-recommended adjustments to the budget request.

TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY

BA 04: ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,093,877 -10,000 1,083,877
Unjustified program growth-Joint DOD Support.. [-5,000]
Unjustified program growth-PA Strategic [-5,000]
Communications...............................

UNDISTRIBUTED
480 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -459,100 -459,100
Reduction in funding for contract services.... [-121,700]
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems. [-32,500]
Management efficiencies in the military [-29,900]
intelligence program.........................
Unobligated balances.......................... [-275,000]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG

UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -20,000 -20,000
Reduction in non-dual status technician [-20,000]
limitation...................................

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY

UNDISTRIBUTED
710 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -298,300 -298,300
Reduction in funding for contract services.... [-122,800]
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems. [-40,400]
Management efficiencies in the military [-11,300]
intelligence program.........................
Unobligated balances.......................... [-123,800]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

UNDISTRIBUTED
210 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -28,800 -28,800
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems. [-7,200]
Unobligated balances.......................... [-21,600]

BA 04: ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
400 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 662,180 -165,000 497,180
Program decrease.............................. [-165,000]
420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 1,078,769 -118,000 960,769
Air Force funds for Space Shuttle (for museum) [-14,000]
Program decrease.............................. [-104,000]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

UNDISTRIBUTED
470 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -353,900 -353,900
Reduction in funding for contract services.... [-144,200]
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems. [-19,400]
Management efficiencies in the military [-46,600]
intelligence program.........................
Unobligated balances.......................... [-143,700]

BA 04: ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 682,831 -152,280 530,551
Reduction to Global Train and Equip........... [-150,000]
Program decrease--Security Cooperation [-2,280]
Assessment Office............................
250 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 81,754 -33,000 48,754
Ahead of need--Guam FSRM...................... [-33,000]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

UNDISTRIBUTED
280 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -844,200 -844,200
Reduction in funding for contract services.... -694,800
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems. -18,200
Management efficiencies in the military -41,300
intelligence program.........................
Impact Aid.................................... 25,000
Severe disabilities........................... 5,000
Unobligated balances.......................... -119,900

DEFERRED EXPENSES FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS........ 406,605 406,605

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments (In
Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY

BA 01: OPERATING FORCES
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 425,000 -25,000 400,000
Termination of CERP in Iraq.................. [-25,000]

AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

UNDISTRIBUTED
050 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -75,000 -75,000
Undistributed Reduction...................... [-75,000]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

BA 01: OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 2,069,485 27,000 2,096,485
Family of Shelters and Shelters Equipment.... [27,000]

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

BA 01: OPERATING FORCES
020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 3,269,939 -11,300 3,258,639
Trans Regional Web Initiative................ [-11,300]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 4401. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 101,194 -6,700 94,494
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems [-6,700]

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
030 WAR RESERVE MATERIAL............................ 65,372 -6,300 59,072
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems [-6,300]

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,
DEFENSE
010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 1,156,282 -39,000 1,117,282
DEFENSE........................................
Undistributed reduction for contractor [-30,000]
support......................................
Undistributed reduction to U.S. European [-5,000]
Command's counterdrug activities.............
Office of Naval Intelligence (PC 3359)....... [-3,500]
Strategic communications/program termination [-500]
(PC 9220)....................................

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................. 286,919 40,500 327,419
Program increase--Growth plan................ [40,500]
020 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................. 1,600 2,900 4,500
Program increase--Growth plan................ [2,900]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4402. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments (In
Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 369,013 -38,500 330,513
Reduction in funding for DoD business systems [-38,500]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLV--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

SEC. 4501. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Senate
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....................... ....................... Military Construction, Army
Army Alaska Fort Wainwright Aviation Complex, Ph 3A.... 114,000 -57,000 57,000
Army Texas Fort Bliss Vehicle Maintenance 24,000 -24,000 0
Facility.
Army Texas Fort Bliss Infrastructure............. 14,600 -14,600 0
Army Virginia Fort Belvoir Road and Infrastucture 31,000 -31,000 0
Improvements.
Army Germany Germersheim Infrastructure............. 16,500 -16,500 0
Army Germany Germersheim Central Distribution 21,000 -21,000 0
Facility.
Army Honduras Honduras Various Barracks................... 25,000 -5,000 20,000
....................... .......................
....................... ....................... Military Construction, Navy
Navy California Bridgeport Multi-Purpose Building-- 19,238 -3,100 16,138
Addition.
Navy California Coronado Fitness Center North Island 46,763 -14,700 32,063
Navy Bahrain Island SW Asia Bachelor Enlisted Quarters. 55,010 -55,010 0
Navy Bahrain Island SW Asia Waterfront Development, Ph 45,194 -45,194 0
4.
Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas North Ramp Utilities-- 78,654 -78,654 0
Anderson AFB, Inc 2.
Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Finegayan Water Utilities.. 77,267 -77,267 0
....................... .......................
....................... ....................... Military Construction, Air
Force
AF Nebraska Offutt AFB STRATCOM Replacement 150,000 -30,000 120,000
Facility, Inc 1.
AF Utah Hill AFB F-35 ADAL Hangar 45E/AMU... 6,800 -6,800 0
AF Guam Joint Region Marianas Guam Strike Fuel Systems 128,000 -64,000 64,000
Maintenance Hangar.
AF Qatar Al Udeid Blatchford Preston Complex, 37,000 -37,000 0
Ph 4.
....................... .......................
....................... ....................... Military Consruction,
Defense-Wide
Def-Wide Colorado Buckley Air Force Base Mountainview Operations 140,932 -70,500 70,432
Facility.
Def-Wide Georgia Fort Gordon Whitelaw Wedge Building 11,340 6,365 17,705
Addition.
Def-Wide Maryland Fort Meade High Performance Computing 29,640 -29,640 0
Capacity, Inc 1.
Def-Wide Utah Camp Williams IC CNCI Data Center 1, Inc 246,401 -123,200 123,201
3.
Def-Wide Maryland Joint Base Andrews Ambulatory Care Center..... 242,900 -121,500 121,400
Def-Wide Texas Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement, Inc 3 136,700 -27,300 109,400
Def-Wide Texas Joint Base San Antonio Ambulatory Care Center, Ph 161,300 -80,700 80,600
3.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Minor Milcon... 6,365 -6,365 0
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Planning and Design........ 52,974 -15,000 37,974
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLVI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS

SEC. 4601. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Program FY 2012 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
Infrastructure security & energy restoration.......... 6,187 -6,187 0
Weapons Activities
Stockpile systems
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 109,518 -2,000 107,518
Campaigns:
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
campaign
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 86,259 5,000 91,259
Readiness Campaign
Tritium readiness................................... 77,491 -7,000 70,491
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant................................. 156,217 -5,000 151,217
Safeguards and security
Defense nuclear security
Construction:
08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los 11,752 -2,000 9,752
Alamos National Laboratory.......................
National security applications.......................... 20,000 10,000 30,000
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and verification R&D
Operations and maintenance............................ 417,598 9,361 426,959
Nonproliferation and international security............. 161,833 -2,000 159,833
GIPP................................... [-2,000]
Fissile materials disposition
Russian surplus materials disposition................. 10,174 -10,174 0
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Savannah River sites:
Nuclear material stabilization and disposition........ 235,000 10,000 245,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Departmental Recommendations

Ten separate legislative proposals on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 were submitted as
executive communications to the President of the Senate by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the
Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the
committee. Information on these executive communications
appears below. All of these executive communications are
available for review at the committee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received in the
Executive communication No. Dated committee on armed
services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC-1039......................... March 25, 2011.... March 30, 2011
EC-1040......................... Undated........... March 30, 2011
EC-1355......................... April 1, 2011..... April 14, 2011
EC-1362......................... April 12, 2011.... May 3, 2011
EC-1363......................... April 12, 2011.... May 3, 2011
EC-1523......................... Undated........... May 10, 2011
EC-1524......................... April 15, 2011.... May 10, 2011
EC-1746......................... May 3, 2011....... May 19, 2011
EC-1747......................... May 6, 2011....... May 19, 2011
EC-2106......................... May 27, 2011...... June 14, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Action

The committee ordered reported, by roll call vote, a
comprehensive original bill and, by voice vote, a series of
original bills for the Department of Defense, military
construction and Department of Energy authorizations.
The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 passed by roll call
vote, 26-0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman,
Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich,
Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Collins,
Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter. Opposed: None.
The 6 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the full
committee markup are as follows:
1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed
session because classified information will be discussed.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 17-9.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, and Graham.
Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, McCain, Brown,
Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Cornyn, and Vitter.
2. MOTION: To place the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
into a probationary status on December 31, 2011 for certain
cost growth and to require termination of the program on
December 31, 2012 should the program cost remain at least 10
percent above the contract's target cost.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 13-13.
In Favor: Senators Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Manchin, McCain,
Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Graham,
and Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Ayotte,
Collins, and Cornyn.
3. MOTION: To require the Secretary of Defense to ensure
that the low-rate initial production contract for lot 5 of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program (aircraft funded in
fiscal year 2011) is: (1) a fixed price contract; and (2) the
contract requires that the contractor absorb 100 percent of
costs above the target cost.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 26-0.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Graham, Cornyn, and
Vitter.
Opposed: None.
4. MOTION: To strike the language in the proposed committee
amendment relating to detainee matters that would permit the
transfer of an unprivileged enemy belligerent for trial by an
alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful
jurisdiction.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 7-19.
In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Sessions, Portman,
Ayotte, Cornyn, and Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, McCain, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Collins, and
Graham.
5. MOTION: To change the language in the proposed committee
amendment relating to detainee matters so that those being held
in military custody must either be a member of, or part of, al-
Qaeda or an affiliated entity or a participant in the course of
planning or carrying out an attack against the United States.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 10-16.
In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Cornyn, and Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, McCain, Collins, and Graham.
6. MOTION: To adopt the proposed committee amendment
relating to detainee matters, as modified and amended.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 25-1.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown,
Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter.
Opposed: Senator Udall.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the
legislation.

Regulatory Impact

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2012.

Changes in Existing Law

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

----------

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN

In a very tough fiscal environment, this markup represents
an effort, albeit one I am not at all satisfied with, to
support our warfighters and the readiness of the United States
military. Unfortunately, we could have and should have done
much more. Against my wishes and votes, the committee chose to
authorize hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary and
unrequested pork-barrel projects and rejected my efforts to
finally put a stop to the out-of-control cost overruns of the
already unaffordable F-35 program. While the bill as a whole
does good for our military, it is hardly a product that we
should boast about. Americans have every right to expect more
of us, commensurate with the sacrifices our troops and their
families make for us every day.
The Defense Authorization bill is an important piece of
legislation that directly supports our troops, their readiness
and training, and military families while our country continues
to be engaged in two wars and supporting a NATO operation in
Libya. Therefore, I voted to move the bill out of committee.
Nevertheless, I will continue my efforts to fight the egregious
and unconscionable waste and misallocation of precious
resources in this bill during debate on the Senate floor and I
reserve the right to oppose passage of the bill by the full
Senate unless it is improved. I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
The President requested $553 billion for the routine
operations of the Department of Defense for 2012. The overall
budget request, including funding for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, was $671 billion. This bill will reduce that
amount byalmost $6.4 billion. But the cut is actually deeper,
and the tangible negative impact on the real priorities of the
Department of Defense is more serious, when we take into account that
over $1 billion was taken from the military's request for their
legitimate and prioritized needs and used for unrequested funding that
was added by this Committee for pork-barrel, special interest spending
that is not wanted by the Pentagon.
The Defense Department has been told by President Obama to
make some very hard decisions to find an additional $400
billion in national security spending cuts by 2023--on top of
the $178 billion in efficiencies and top-line reductions over
the next five years that Secretary Gates has already announced.
As a result, the Department cannot afford to waste a dime on
projects that do not provide increased combat capability or a
substantial increase in efficiency or effectiveness for the
taxpayer and the warfighter. The Armed Services Committee must
play its role by scrutinizing the Defense budget for programs
that are wasteful, out of control, or are not essential to our
core national security needs. But most importantly, this
Committee must ensure we do not add to the problem by
continuing business as usual by adding unneeded, unrequested
spending. This should be our guiding principle for every
decision we make. Sadly, that was not done in this mark up.
For example, this bill authorizes funding for so-called
``innovation'' and ``transition'' programs totaling $250
million for the purpose of continuing earmarks, pure and
simple. The funding mechanism used in this bill has been
designed to skirt the technical definition of an earmark
contained in Senate Rules, but make no mistake these programs
were not requested or desired by the Pentagon. Instead of
funding real military priorities vetted and approved by our
most senior and experienced military leaders, these funds will
be used to fund special interests and pet projects of
individual Members. This is just another glaring example of why
Congress as a whole is held in almost universal disrepute by
the American people.
The House of Representatives tried this same gimmick to get
around the moratorium on earmarks in their chamber by creating
a neat little $1 billion ``Mission Force Enhancement Transfer
Fund'' as their pork basket in the Defense bill. That
transparent charade fooled no one. As the Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste noted, Members of the House readily
seized the opportunity to turn it into a slush fund for their
pork projects back home by ``taking $651.7 million to fund 111
projects: 59 of the add-ons, or 53 percent appear to be similar
to projects included as earmarks.'' That may not be what was
intended, but clearly that is what happened.
This bill uses a similar ruse--putting hundreds of millions
of dollars into what amounts to slush funds of undesignated
spending to be steered by powerful Members to their pet
projects and special interests as a means to backdoor earmarks.
To avoid this predictable result, I offered a series of
amendments to strike all unrequested funding increases that
ignored and contradicted the President's budget request. I
regret I was not more successful.
To highlight an example of how this works, $10 million was
added for the ``Metals Affordability Initiative,'' something
used to push Member-generated unrequested funding on the Air
Force for the benefit of major defense contractors. Developing
new, technologically superior and less-costly specialty metals
for the aircraft industry is a valid joint interest of the
Pentagon and the defense industry. But if this program produced
great results as claimed, why wouldn't the Air Force fund it
themselves, not depend on Congress to earmark the money? Rather
than allowing economic forces to incentivize the Air Force and
the defense industry to invest where mutual returns are high,
this program is a self-licking ice cream cone. The Air Force
does not ask for the money because it has higher priorities.
Defense contractors use lobbyists to get Congress to fund the
program, and the money the Congress supplies cuts the costs of
research and development for defense contractors so they can
benefit from government-sponsored research and pay for more
lobbyists.
This program, like many other examples of waste in the
Pentagon budget, would not exist if it hadn't been pushed by
Congress and funded by earmarks when the Air Force has higher
priorities. In this case, the earmarks total $70 million since
1999--not a small taxpayer investment. Two years ago, eight
Senators requested $7 million each for this program as an
acknowledged earmark. In negotiations with the House, that
number grew to $10 million of unrequested funding and was
authorized by Congress. Last year, 10 Senators requested $10
million each for the initiative as an earmark. Although we
claimed to have eliminated earmarks in our Authorization bill
last year, $8 million was provided by our pork-loving
colleagues in the Defense appropriations bill.
According to watchdog groups, over $1.1 million has been
spent on lobbying for the initiative since 2003. Last year,
over $200,000 was spent on lobbyists for an $8 million return
to the defense industry through government-sponsored research.
The report you are now reading says that the Committee
``strongly urg[es] the Air Force to institutionalize this
program with adequate resources in future years.'' The
straight-talk translation of that Washington babble is the
Committee is trying to force the Air Force to burrow this
program into their core budget so Congress doesn't have to
earmark it. I disassociate myself from that request. This is a
low priority program for the Air Force and I do not support
telling a military service they should request funding for
programs they do not deem a high military priority.
I was able to convince the Committee to delete one item of
unrequested spending of interest to Americans who are trying
hard just to pay ``the bills that count.'' I was able to
challenge and remove $6 million from the Chairman's draft bill
that was proposed for a military utility assessment of a
telescope searching for--if you can believe it--
extraterrestrial life.
Unfortunately, I was not as successful in ending hundreds
of millions of dollars of other wasteful, misallocated
spending. For example, this bill will provide an extra $322
million for tank upgrades that the Army no longer needs or
wants--unrequested funding which every senior Army leader
coming before our committee has rejected. And, that $322
million for 2012 is just a downpayment. To keep the tank plant
in Lima, Ohio, running until 2017 when the Army wants to start
the next round of tank upgrades will cost about $500 million a
year. That's four years after 2012 at about $500 million a year
in a continuing waste of Army resources. The Army knows that
starting the plant up again in 2017 will cost money, too, but
the most efficient solution is to stop production in 2012 when
the Army's current requirements have been fully met. But that's
not the decision of this Committee. I will continue my efforts
on the Senate floor to strip this unnecessary funding from the
Defense Bill.
I am also strongly opposed to the cuts taken from accounts
required to support the warfighter that were used to fund these
outrageous earmarks and unneeded, unrequested spending.
Secretary Gates has sounded the alarm against excessive
reductions in defense spending that cut into the muscle of our
military capabilities. I could not agree with him more. I am
acutely aware that ``budgetary cowardice,'' as Secretary
Gatesrecently described general across-the-board reductions, is the
path to a hollow force.
In rejecting Secretary Gates' advice, this committee cannot
possibly foresee the full repercussions of the cuts to the
military services' and Defense-wide Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) accounts that the Committee took to fund its billion-
dollar-plus shift of scarce resources to programs not requested
by the Pentagon. But, we do know these accounts were
extraordinarily stressed by the series of continuing
resolutions for the first six months of Fiscal Year 2011 when
crucial depot maintenance was deferred, contracts were delayed
or cancelled, and civilian employees were told to expect a
furlough. After Congress finally ended its dereliction of
constitutional duty and provided full-year funding for the
Defense Department in March--six months into the fiscal year--
these same O&M accounts were further stretched by our
operations in Libya. Those costs are being borne within
existing funding for FY11 and are now projected to reach $1.1
billion by September 30, 2011. If the Department can find
savings within the O&M accounts in Fiscal Year 2012 by finding
efficiencies and reforming practices, then by all means we
should encourage them to do it. But, we should give our
military leadership the flexibility to fund the higher
priorities of their selection that directly support the
warfighter and also fund those items that were deferred during
FY11 as a result of these unbudgeted and unexpected events.
This bill contains over $406 million that was added
specifically by my amendments to address this purpose, taking
that money from the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
program being developed with NATO allies that Defense and Army
leaders have repeatedly testified is at high technical risk of
failure and which will never be operationally fielded by the
United States.
The bill makes some minor progress in controlling the
Defense Department's spiraling health care costs, but as with
other challenges we faced in this bill, we could have and
should have done more. Fulfilling the Department's request to
link TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for working-age retirees to
the index of National Health Expenditures per capita would have
been the right thing to do. Instead, this bill limits future
increases to the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for military
retired pay, which for several years in this economic
environment has been static. Doing so ignores the fiscal
reality that when national health care costs increase, so do
health care costs for the Department of Defense. As Secretary
Gates has repeatedly testified, health care costs are ``eating
the Department alive.'' According to the Congressional Budget
Office, medical care could consume more than 16 per cent of the
Defense Department's top-line by the year 2028.
TRICARE fees haven't changed since they were established in
1995. At that time, according to Defense Department estimates,
working-age retirees paid about 27 percent of their total
health care costs when using civilian care. In response to
questions from the Committee during the markup of this bill,
the Department confirmed thatin fiscal year 2011, out-of-pocket
expenses for working-age retirees who are enrolled in TRICARE
Prime and therefore pay a $460 per year fee for family
coverage, would represent less than 9 percent of the total cost
of the family's health care costs.
Military retirees and their families deserve the best
possible medical care in return for a career of military
service to their nation, and nothing less, and that is what
TRICARE must provide. But we cannot ignore the fact that health
care costs will undermine the combat capability and training
and readiness of our military in the future if we don't control
the cost growth now. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
notes that it plans to review options for phasing in future
enrollment fee adjustments as early as fiscal year 2014. As a
result, I plan to address TRICARE Prime enrollment fees when
the bill is debated on the Senate floor. We must find an
equitable way to both sustain the health care benefit for our
military retirees and ensure that future health care costs do
not undermine the needs of our troops on active duty and their
families in the future.
Finally, this committee has the solemn responsibility to
our country to exercise aggressive oversight to eliminate
weapons programs that are over cost, behind schedule, or are
not providing improvements in combat power and capabilities.
Last month, we heard from Defense and industry witnesses
concerning the problem-plagued F-35 program and the potential
for further cost overruns and production delays. If we fail to
act now, continuing cost overruns on the F-35 of the kind we
have experienced over the last 10 years will siphon off
precious resources and put at risk every other major Defense
procurement program. We simply can't stand by and let that
happen. I offered an amendment that would have sent this
message loudly and clearly.
Under my amendment, the entire F-35 program would go on
probation if on December 31, 2011, the actual cost of building
these jets under the fixed-price contract for the fourth lot of
aircraft exceeded the negotiated target cost by 10 percent. If,
a year from that date, the actual cost remained at least 10
percent above the contract's target cost, my amendment would
have effectively required that the program start winding up.
Probation would only have been triggered if there was a cost
overrun of several hundred million dollars at a point on
December 31, 2011 when only 30 percent of the work on the
contract is expected to be completed. And I might add that,
under this contract, even when the actual cost is 10 percent
over the target cost, the prime contractor is still allowed a
tidy profit that most Americans would be more than happy to
have on an investment. So, to avoid termination of the program,
all the contractor would have to do is absorb more of the cost
overruns and accept less of a profit. That did not seem
unreasonable.
It seems to me that if costs were several hundred million
dollars or more over the target price with 30 percent of the
work done on a fixed-price contract, we would have a good idea
where the F-35 program was headed. My amendment would have sent
an unmistakable signal to the Pentagon and the prime contractor
that we will not continue down the road of cost overruns and
schedule delays on the F-35 simply because other alternatives
were hard to come by. While the 13-13 vote on my amendment
allowed the Chairman to block its adoption, I will renew my
efforts to keep focus on constraining the costs of the F-35
both in terms of buying the aircraft and their sustainment
costs, which are currently estimated to be a jaw-dropping $1
trillion over the F-35's lifecycle. As badly as new-generation
aircraft may be needed by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine
Corps, the F-35 cannot be allowed to drain resources from all
the other procurement needs we face for the next 25 years.
As an alternative to my amendment on the F-35, the bill
requires that the contract for the fifth lot of aircraft be
executed under a fixed price and requires the contractor to
bear the responsibility for any cost overrun, with a carve-out
for certain constructive changes required by the government.
Unfortunately, I have no sense at all that leadership at the
Department of Defense would have accepted any proposal by the
prime contractor that the program use this type of contract
toproduce F-35 aircraft--particularly after Secretary Gates added $7.4
billion and 33 months to finish developing them.
Even after Secretary Gates' efforts to restructure the
program twice over the last year and a half, the General
Accountability Office (GAO) found that the F-35 program still
has considerable ``concurrency risk,'' that is, the risk of
major, costly discoveries late in production arising from the
overlap between development and production. I am concerned that
the absence of a contract structure that would let the
Department and the prime contractor work together to reduce
that risk efficiently--which is the result imposed by the F-35
provision adopted in the bill--could result in the contractor
simply insisting on a much higher fixed price, or require that
a ``risk premium'' be baked into the fee structure of the next
lot's contract. By rejecting my amendment, I believe we lost an
opportunity to tell the Pentagon and the prime contractor that
increased cost on the F-35 cannot and will not be tolerated. My
amendment sent that message strongly, simply, and powerfully.
Its rejection is an opportunity lost when the future of the
program hangs in the balance.
This Nation is at a critical juncture of decisions
concerning our conduct of three wars, our record deficit
spending, and the dynamic state of world affairs. We cannot
continue business as usual, and yet in too many cases that is
exactly what this bill does. Our citizens need decisive action
to make hard decisions and the will to carry them out. This
bill fails to provide that leadership and continues to put off
the hard calls and fiscal discipline that our country so
desperately needs. I cannot, as it is currently drafted, give
it my full support, but I will continue my efforts to improve
the bill as it moves through the process of consideration by
the Senate and conference negotiations with the House.

John McCain.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHAMBLISS

While I cosponsored the underlying Levin, McCain, and
Graham Amendment relating to detainee matters, I remain
concerned about several provisions concerning the detention and
transfer of terrorist detainees. Many of these concerns would
have been alleviated by amendments that I and other members
offered during mark-up, some of which were considered outside
the Committee's jurisdiction. I also note that there appears to
be some confusion about the role and capabilities of the High-
Value Detainee Interrogation Group established last year as a
result of the President's Executive Order 13491. I believe all
of these issues must be resolved before the Senate takes final
action on this bill.

Saxby Chambliss.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE

Strategic Airlift Aircraft Force Structure
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) proposed fiscal year 2012 budget
requests that the currently-mandated 316 airlift aircraft fleet
inventory minimum be repealed. As recently as June 16, 2011, in
a letter to Chairman Levin, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, Plans, and Requirements, Lieutenant General Herbert
Carlisle states, ``after extensive study, the Air Force remains
convinced that our nation's strategic airlift requirement will
be met with 299 C-5s and C-17s.''
I applaud the Air Force's attempt to right-size the
nation's strategic airlift force structure while ensuring the
U.S. military can continue to meet the strategic airlift
requirement. After extensive study as recent as 2010, the USAF
has identified a peak of demand for airlift capacity at 32.7
Million Ton Miles per Day (MTM/D). According to the Mobility
Capabilities and Requirements Study-2016, this peak demand of
32.7 MTM/D can be met by 223 C-17s, 52 C-5Ms and 24 C-5As;
totaling 299 strategic airlift aircraft. The programmed fleet
of 222 C-17s and 79 C-5s provides a capacity of 33.31 MTM/D,
which exceeds peak demand.
By allowing the Air Force to reduce the fleet to 299
aircraft, according to the Air Force, the U.S. Government would
avoid paying more than $1.23 billion in unprogrammed
expenditures including maintenance costs and flying hours
through fiscal year 2016 and costly investments in avionics
upgrades and maintenance for aircraft slated for retirement. In
this time of fiscal crisis when we must reduce federal
spending, the Department of Defense (DoD) should not be
required to spend millions of dollars maintaining aircraft that
DoD does not need.
Some have expressed concern about the impact on C-5s. It is
important to note that if allowed to reduce the fleet, DoDwould
retire early-model C-5s (e.g., Alpha Model) and that not all C-5s would
be retired. Late-model C-5s will continue to be an important part of
the fleet for decades to come, as well as the associated C-5
maintenance and supply chain.
This fleet reduction would allow the Air Force to reinvest
approximately $1.14 billion into C-17 program development,
including operation and maintenance, personnel, and increased
flying hours for three C-17 Air Reserve Component unit
conversions. This fleet reduction would save millions of
dollars and ensure that the U.S. continues to have a robust
national strategic airlift readiness posture.
I am disappointed that the committee chose not to include
the Air Force's legislative proposal in the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2012 to lower the floor for large cargo
aircraft. I will continue to work to repeal this statutory
burden on our military.

Detainee Compromise

I applaud the committee for its effort to develop common
sense detainee policies. As reported by the committee, I
believe the compromise detainee language contains several
positive elements. Some examples include:
--Acknowledgement of the authority to detain
unprivileged enemy belligerents pursuant to the
authorization of the use of force,
----the requirements for certifications relating to
transfer of detainees, the prohibition on the use of
funds for facilities in the U.S. for detainees,
--the annual detention review,
--the procedures for status determination of
unprivileged enemy belligerents, and
--the clarification of right to plead guilty in trial
of capital offense by military commission.
I believe these positive aspects of the compromise were
strengthened by the adoption of two of my amendments. The first
amendment related to the prohibition on the use of funds to
construct or modify facilities in the U.S. to house detainees
transferred from Guantanamo. According to the original
language, this prohibition would have only lasted for fiscal
year 2012, but my amendment made this prohibition permanent. I
think the American people have been very clear that they do not
want terrorists detained in the United States--not just next
fiscal year but for years to come. My second amendment adopted
by the committee required military custody not just for attacks
or attempted attacks against the United States, but also
against our coalition partners. This amendment was necessary in
order to send a clear message of unity to our coalition
partners and enemies alike.
Despite these positive components of the compromise
amendment, as well as the two changes that were adopted, three
significant problems remain. The first problem is that the
compromise language allows unprivileged enemy belligerents to
be transferred for trial by an alternative court--including an
Article III civilian court. We are at war with violent
extremists, including al Qaeda and associated forces, who have
killed thousands of Americans and who continue their efforts to
murder the innocent. Military tribunals are the appropriate
venue for bringing justice to terrorists. These tribunals
shield American communities from the security concerns that
would accompany a civilian trial in the United States, and
military tribunals are better equipped to protect the
classified information that often arises in a terrorist trial.
A second significant problem in the compromise relates to
who is required to be held in military custody. The current
language says a ``member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
affiliated entity and a participant in the course of planning
or carrying out and an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.'' The incorporation of
``and'' instead of ``or'' would result in a significant
population of terrorists not being required to be held in
military custody. Under the current language, members of al
Qaeda who are not currently planning or engaging in an attack
would not be required to be held in military custody. For
example, spiritual advisors, financial facilitators, body
guards, and couriers not currently planning an attack would not
be required to be held in military custody.
The third problem with the compromise language relates to
the recidivism waiver. I do not believe the waiver authority
should include the ability to send Guantanamo detainees to
countries that have released terrorists who have returned to
the fight. As Secretary Gates and Under Secretary Vickers have
testified, 25% of those released have returned to the fight or
are suspected of returning to the fight. I do not believe we
should be sending terrorist detainees to countries that have
proven themselves unable to prevent recidivism.
Said al Shihri and Abdul Zakir are former Guantanamo
detainees who have been released. One is a leader in al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula, the other a leader in the Taliban in
Afghanistan. If these former Guantanamo detainees or others who
could be released via the recidivism waiver kill Americans, it
would be very difficult to justify to families of the deceased
why we chose to transfer a terrorist to a country with a known
recidivism problem. I do not believe the national security
waiver should allow transfers to countries with a track record
of releasing terrorists who return to the fight.
I look forward to addressing these shortcomings in the
detainee compromise on the floor of the Senate. I also look
forward to addressing our nation's interrogation policies to
ensure our intelligence community--consistent with our values
and all applicable law--has the necessary tools to keep us
safe.

Kelly Ayotte.